Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by C. A. Russell (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 30 January 2024 (→‎Redirects for discussion/deletion and User:Hey man im josh: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Mass reinstatement of made up/incorrect information on French election articles

    I indefed AlbusWulfricDumbledore for Disruptive Editing based on the rough consensus here. I am more than willing to unblock iff they agree to back up their edits with sources. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    As some of you may have seen, there has been a bit of a social media storm about my removals of unsourced, inconsistent and made-up information from French election articles. A few had to be protected as a result of disruption after the initial storm on Twitter. Unfortunately today there has been a mass reinstatement of this stuff by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk · contribs)

    A few highlights from these reverts:

    • In this one they reinstate an infobox which has different figures to the results table, a results table which is completely different to the source used (the party names are different, the seat figures are different and there are no vote figures in the source), and one with a parliamentary diagram with a different number of seats to the results table. They also removed the addition of a full set of vote figures (including invalid votes and registered voters) from a reliable source.
    • In this one unsourced vote figures are re-added to the article which appear to be back-calculated from the number of seats (and so are just made up). The parliamentary diagram reinstated to the article does not match the seat totals in the results table (although it has the same total, if you click through to the image page, the number of seats for parties are different to those in the table).
    • Here and here they blindly reinstate a results table and infobox data with figures that do not match the figures in the prose (and in the first case, claim they are reverting vandalism).
    • This revert reinstated a results table that is different to the source and in which the vote percentages are clearly back-calculated from the (unsourced) seat totals, and in turn, the vote figures have been back-calculated from the rounded percentages.
    • This one restores an unreferenced version, removes the addition of invalid votes and registered voters, reinstates seat figures which are different to the sources used in the referenced version, and removes various fixes such as category sorting. This one is the same.

    I asked the editor in question stop with the reverts shortly after they started this series of edits, and then to undo their edits, but while they have undone a couple of their errors on the 1893 article, they now seem to have got bored and moved onto other things, leaving it in a state where the infobox is inconsistent with the results table, and (more importantly) the results don't match the source. They seem to be expecting me to gain consensus for the corrections to each individual article, which is impractical given the scale of the problem here.

    Some more eyes on this article series, which was an absolute mess and has been plagued by misinformation on both en.wiki and fr.wiki (where some of the stuff is being copied from), would be helpful. Number 57 22:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied on my talk page with more details - arbitrary stripping of tens of articles to suit own style preferences. Another point - unsourced content repeatedly removed en masse without any discussion, request for sources, or tags. Was in engagement with user via my talk page, so interesting that it was raised as an incident. Article series really needs oversight for the heavy handed approach taken across several pages. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a style preference issue. In nearly all of these of these cases, the problem is that the information does not match the source, is patently made up or is internally inconsistent, and in several cases you removed references that had been added to articles to verify the information. The fact that you are fully aware that you have reinserted such nonsense into numerous articles and removed references and don't seem to care is not good. Number 57 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stated numerous times I'm supportive of introducing sources as opposed to your undiscussed stripping of numerous pages across this site, to the scale of your disruption is such that there are instances as you have described mistakenly, but you are now mischaracterising the issue and your mission to mould every page to suit your style, and removing reams of information, as you realize there is zero consensus. More input is desperately needed due to your actions in many article series. I have engaged with you in good faith repeatedly so bizarre you're taking it like this, when you know your edits are not universally accepted here. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted sources (and more detailed results) being added to at least nine articles in the course of your spree of blind reverts (such as here). And you clearly have not engaged in good faith given your first set of edit summaries were "rv vandalism"[1][2][3] Number 57 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again you deflect from the main issue : yourself and mass stripping of articles by yourself to suit your tastes and levelling articles of information with zero /consensus, and harassing other users trying to add sources. The sheer scale of this did result in references accidentally being removed as I said. The deflection of this is causing these replies to circle back. Much more oversight is needed over for your heavy handedness across many article series. You are well aware your actions have no consensus among editors. I have replied every time and attempted correct your deflections AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AlbusWulfricDumbledore the onus is on you to introduce the sources supporting the results. Having a stripped back article with correct information is preferable to having one that perpetuates errors. ITBF (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take that point, though the scale of this is huge by @Number 57 with no consensus, tags or even attempts to discuss on talk pages. The main issue behind this is the users mass moulding of pages to suit his taste, which can be seen in replies to other users and the differences in revision. All this with zero consensus. Will try to engage in sourcing soon too if possible in the instance the user has highlighted. Oversight is desperately needed to his arbitrary changes as too many people have picked up on, yet others are tarred as socks or vandals by the user. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are discussions on many of the talk pages in that series, starting with Talk:1791 French legislative election, Talk:1792 French National Convention election. Number 57 01:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and zero where you have an established consensus. Personal conviction is not consensus btw, your multiple arbitrary stripping of pages needs way more oversight. You refuse to engage simply reverting other user edits and resort to name calling people like socks. Although you are trying to deflect with isolated references, Im fully convinced you realize your actions have no consensus. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... I don't see how doing verification work, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, requires consensus regardless of whether the pages are related, and it ending up with stripping the pages of unverified/unverifiable content. However, it might be courteous to have more descriptive edit summaries (rather than just "Format") or a link in the edit summaries to point to an explanation on a talk page for centralised discussion to occur, given that the work were done for a series of related pages.
    On edit warring, the 1898 French legislative election article is the lightning conductor being the subject of two viral pieces of social media content, a Tweet and a YouTube video. I don't see N57 edit warring there; other editors were reverting to have his revision in to a point that it became a disruptive pattern. – robertsky (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I also suggest that, now it is either contentious or potentially disruptive to introduce changes to these articles, if the numbers you produce, after verifying against the sources, are different and/or displayed differently, discuss first on the talk page(s) per WP:BRD (noting that the ship has largely sailed passed Bold and Revert parts of the cycle). – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my edit summary wasn't great, but I never expected removing misinformation would be so controversial. And we are talking about 50 articles here – individual talk page discussions aren't practical (or are just ignored – I put a detailed explanation of the reason for removing the results table at Talk:1791 French legislative election and it didn't help). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at sources for the 1988 elections, I left a talk page message there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oversight? — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The balance of evidence here suggests that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has not demonstrated due diligence in reverting. "Number57 was making too many edits" is not an adequate defense for their edits unless they can demonstrate that Number57's edits were equally or more reckless or edit warring, which is not self-evident. signed, Rosguill talk 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They have edit warred, reverting other users changes multiple times, instead calling them socks or blind - a cursory glance at edit summaries shows this. The user has wilfully invited and engaged in edit warring, as well as reckless, arbitrary stripping of multiple articles relating to French legislative elections. Did not say the number of edits was too high at any point but rather the amount of info removed without discussion, tags or warning. Has chosen to force through these very drastic strippings, shared with many other users AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You've asserted that there's been edit warring by Number57, but on the pages linked in this discussion thus far I'm not really seeing it. The only exception is 1893 French legislative election, where it's pretty clear that the other editors participating were canvassed from Twitter judging by the accounts' editing histories (and where the edit war appears to have been ultimately resolved by another editor of the page backing Number57's perspective). Number57's edits by and large appear to be a valid application of building consensus through editing; do you have any diffs that provide evidence to the contrary? signed, Rosguill talk 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a behavioral issue, or is it a content dispute? The talk pages on for the articles Number 57 has linked to don't have any discussion on them. If there is a need for a third opinion to resolve disagreements between two editors (Number 57 and AlbusWulfricDumbledore), consider posting to WP:3O. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Content was the reason for my reinstatements, the huge amount of content removed with zero discussion, which many users have taken issue with. Both in terms of wholescale removal (with no tags/discussion etc) and his infobox personal preferences. Not just in this article series but many others. Was discussing this with him on my talk page, when the user decided to bizarrely post this as a behavioural issue (have tried to correct references which he is trying to deflect with) (Considered his removals to be wilfully reckless at first glance at the very start). We both agree that more oversight is needed - in my opinion, to bring in much needed reviewing of his changes, which the user is aware there is no consensus on AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would class it as a behavioural issue on the basis that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has reinserted information they know to be incorrect (as well as removing sources from numerous articles). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but just looking at the first link that Number57 provides shows that AlbusWulfricDumbledore is inserting information that is (a) clearly wrong, because the totals don't add up correctly (2,220,181 + 126,231 = 1,975,144?), and (b) doesn't match the source (look at the number of seats). This is clearly disruptive and AWD needs to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are issues with totals which I'm trying to fix/some which other have already, but the issue behind my edits were to revert at first I saw to be reckless (at the very start), wholescale stripping of articles of information with zero discussion/tags (or even notice on many pages). Many others have brought this up on other pages too (in addition to his crusade to force through infobox format changes on many pages). Have stopped similar edits since he brought this up on my talk page, as I would prefer that like he has mentioned, more eyes on this article series and for WP:3O or something similar AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although Black Kite's clearly correct in what he says, I want to add that the fact that Number 57 is right doesn't excuse edit-warring, and being a sysop doesn't excuse edit-warring. Being right doesn't bypass the need to build consensus for large-scale changes, and being a sysop doesn't bypass consensus either. What's needed here is a consensus in a central place where people interested in France gather, and I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm all for discussion, and there have been productive ones on a few talk pages. The issue is, how exactly does one go about gaining consensus for removing misinformation from dozens of pages (we are talking around 50 here) and reinstating the sourced figures? Listing them on a page-by-page basis with the proposed change?
      • My concern is also now that any discussion is at risk of being derailed by drive-by comments, given the traffic driven to these articles by the social media stuff and the fact that some editors (such as the one being reported here) simply don't care about veracity. There was a section on the 1898 talk page in which a few drive-by editors simply proposed reverting the edits despite it being pretty clear to everyone else engaging in the proper discussion that the previous info was wrong... Also, in the meantime, we have several dozen articles that are clearly wrong – is this a tolerable situation? Obviously I am biased, but I would want to see the correct versions (even if they are deemed "stripped out") restored while there was a discussion. It's worth noting that the edits to sort these out were made between February and May last year, and have only just been reverted. Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does one go about gaining consensus to change dozens of pages? Exactly as I said: through consensus in some central place that lots of people see. I suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Some people prefer RfC, or village pump. I certainly agree that we need to get this stuff right, and I think we should come to understand where these errors come from as well. But when you're proposing large-scale, sweeping changes to longstanding articles, best not to edit war.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It just seems like a potentially time-intensive and potentially frustrating process to go through to do what should be a basic thing – correct the articles; I'm not sure a coherent discussion about differing edits on a set of over 50 articles is even possible – and I suspect it would just turn into a complete mess. The real issue here is that a load of knee jerk/blind reverts have come about as a result of a social media storm, and what happens if the process is affected by more drive-by comments? We end up being left with a load of clearly inaccurate information in articles. TBH it's a bit disappointing how relaxed editors seem to be about patently false information being added into articles; I would have thought the most urgent thing would be to remove it and then discuss what to do... As for how this came about, a lot of the issues seem to stem from a series of IP edits around 2016; for example on the 1877 article, the 2015 version matches the source; after the IP edits they don't. Number 57 12:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Consensus isn't necessarilyy convenient or easy, but it's a core pillar for Wikipedia's process. A discussion might pose that there's been disagreements on sources and what sources say for [the affected election pages] and ask what source is best to cite. That would at least centralize discussion around using particular sources.
            The desire for accurate information is not a bad one, but Wikipedia is about more than sheer accuracy. I think the essay WP:NORUSH is instructive in this case; while we shouldn't be complacent, we can still recognize that in the long run, building consensus is healthy for the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a further update on this, AWD is now adding sources to some of the results tables. The issue is that the sources they are adding do not support the numbers. For example, here they add a source to a results table that states that Clicy Club won 105 seats, Marisards 44 and Thermidorians 28. However, the source linked states is that Reactionaries won 182 seats, Republicans won 34 and candidates with "unclear opinions" won 44. This is one of the articles that I listed in the bullet points above where the information in the reinserted table did not match the prose (which does match the source). Here they add a source stating it "seems" to be where the numbers are from, but which appears to be inaccessible (I have tried opening it on a couple of devices and the data never loads). Number 57 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, was trying to help with the cases you highlighted, would be helped to be tagged so I can respond to your queries, the second source you mention is accessible via the Web Archive which is why I linked it to there with the archive date. Added the first source as it seems to be helpful as its one of the few that give numbers - but the table needs to be updated
      (PS - this whole process is one I was expecting editors to engage in vs stripping/levelling articles without consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit you are adding sources to articles that don't support the information in question? Number 57 13:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You found one example and are hanging onto it for dear life, ignoring the multiple other sources I've added. These discussions belong on talk pages, you recognize and can see sources can be found - so undiscussed mass deletions are not helpful or encouraged by almost anyone. These issues should be discussed via the normal channels rather than via an "incident" AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have flagged your one example too, as needing citations, as the numbers in the source aren't too clear either - but again, use the talk pages AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far you have added sources to five articles. In three of them [4][5][6] the source doesn't load so can't be verified; in one of them[7] you added a source that gives different figures to the ones you are citing; in this one the revised figures you are adding leave the results table not adding up correctly. Number 57 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The archived links are attached which you can access - I am sure we can work together to find sources and flag uncited content, instead of wholescale deletions as you have continuously engaged in. Your two examples point back the one isolated example you’re clinging to (which I have flagged). The other figures correspond to citations in body of text - which you can access/find the books I have used - have included quotes where possible to help you. But again - use the talk pages! (Instead of deleting stuff en masse without tagging/consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the point on both these issues: The web archive links work, but the section of the archived page that has the data does not load (so the data is inaccessible). In the 1815 article, you have a results table with a total of 629 seats, but seat figures of 500, 80 and 30-40, which add up to 610–620, not 629. Number 57 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does for me, the flash section does not work, but it still provides seat counts. Am just going with the sources directly for the second part, the 500 is approximate which I will address. Why is it so hard to bring this up in the 1815 talk page? I'm confused. I'll welcome the challenge of sourcing this together with you AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are over 50 articles which you have blindly rolled back corrections to; having to have a talk page discussion on each one is a massive time sink after having already spent weeks checking sources and researching to try and correct the articles. For example, here you have just found a source to support the figures in the table. If you had bothered to read the edit summary of my edit to the article, you would have seen that the problem is that there are multiple sources with different seat figures, and 400 is not the most common of these.
    What needs to happen is for you to undo the mess you have caused by self-reverting, and then go through the articles you have concerns about a lack of data in, rather than leaving 50+ articles in the state they are now. Number 57 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the whole point in hand = the solution is not nuclear, even as an admin to blindly eliminate every piece of info and infobox you personally don't like/need sources for - not how this site works. You should always aim to tag/find sources and invite discussion before deleting. You have blindly stripped numerous sites in your crusade, without inviting any engagement of any sort, your edit on that page case in point. You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping - this is widely accepted. Not going to waste time with circular arguments here, I'll see you on talk pages, where this can be worked out. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite literally spent weeks researching and looking for sources when trying to clean up these articles. The problem for many of the earlier ones is that sources are highly inconsistent and there is no rationale for picking one over another. The source provided on the 1791 talk page states clearly that any attempting to assign seat totals to parties or groupings for that election is nonsensical. Even the article itself says this, but now stupidly contradicts itself by doing so because you have added an unsourced results table (with made up vote figures) back in. Number 57 14:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlbusWulfricDumbledore: With these pages' content contended, now is not the time to be persisting in editing them. I encourage you to slow down, let go of trying to make the pages be a certain way on a certain time table, and refrain from personalizing language like saying that user Number 57 is acting blindly or is on a crusade (certainly when you say that without providing diffs or evidence). That kind of personalizing language gets into the territory of uncivil aspersions, which 1) don't help; and 2) make this matter rise to being a behavioral incident.
    Yes, this is something that apparently needs to be worked out on talk pages—crucially, before edits are made to the main space articles, including by yourself, AlbusWulfricDumbledore. There are options for this: start a thread on WikiProject France, or ask for a WP:3O, or use the Village Pump, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, tried to help address the specific points he highlighted, but will refrain from this series particularly until something is worked out. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But must add other users edits were reverted by the user without engagement - resulting in numerous sites being stripped, though will lay off this - as I am not the only one highlighting the issues brought about by this admin as advised AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the justification for reverting to a version that everyone agrees has incorrect and/or unsourced information? Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Because the articles were levelled completely of a lot of info, including the user’s formatting choices, without any real attempt to find sources, invite others to do so, to invite discussion or consensus, but as advised will not be adding to the situation, as I am not the only user highlighting these issues.AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. While results tables and infobox details were removed from a few articles (where I was unable to find sources (or consistent sources) after doing research and consulting with other editors), in other cases you reverted changes to the results tables/infoboxes that brought them in line with sources, and in others you removed additional details or referencing that had been added. The issue is that you blindly reverted the changes across the entire election series rather than doing any diligence on what you were doing. Number 57 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An indefinite block of AlbusWulfricDumbledore would be appropriate since the user continues to knowingly introduce false and misleading content rapidly, including claims that do not match the given sources. There is no onus on any individual to replace false information with correct and referenced information when they come across it. On the other hand, there is an onus for information in an article to be verifiable. No information is better than misinformation.
    When a person has the capacity to provide accurate summaries of these elections (which may not take the form of statistical tables if this would be anachronistic or misleading), they can see the full article history to see if it contains any useful sources, information or starting points. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree, and it is clear from a number of the comments above that the editor does not understand the concept of WP:V or indeed reliable sourcing. So AlbusWulfricDumbledore, if you make a single further edit that introduces unsourced or incorrect data into mainspace, I will block you. You need to work on any articles you wish to improve in a sandbox or similar, and ensure that the information is correct, before publishing those edits. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the meantime, can their mass reinsertion of incorrect information be rolled back and this process started from the position of correct information (even if it is more basic)? Number 57 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you can do that; I would not know which ones are correct and which ones are wrong without a lot of effort, and you appear to be clear on this; I am sure that an admin would not consider removing false information edit-warring in this case - I certainly wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, especially considering AWD's apparent insistence that "removal of content" is somehow worse than repeatedly introducing incorrect content. This smacks of the old inclusionist/deletionist nonsense we've moved away from. AWD appears to feel You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping overrides the fact that they're adding false information to the article, simply for the sake of... adding information. N57 has been providing good sourcing, and removing content that was poorly/incorrectly sourced, not just blindly stripping content as accused by AWD. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-adding verifiably incorrect information and calling it's removal vandalism shows very poor judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's... really not good. SWinxy (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Competence in the English language.

    Effects of pornography on young people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The Other Karma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Back in November last year, I attempted to discuss issues concerning extensive editing to the article Effects of pornography on young people with user:The Other Karma, the contributor responsible. There were several problems apparent, but perhaps the most serious one was that material was being added which was only marginally comprehensible, or worse. During the initial discussion, [8] another contributor, User:tgeorgescu also raised concerns about the wording, while also noting issues with sourcing, questioning whether the edits were properly supported by the sources cited. Having seen he Other Karma using the phrase I'll purpose less misunderstandable claim at a later time in response to these concerns, I then offered the opinion that The Other Karma lacked the necessary skills in the English language to be able to usefully edit the article, and that it was unrealistic to expect other contributors to have to go through the sort of convoluted dialog we were faced with on the talk page when trying to discuss problems. Given that this seemed to be getting nowhere, I decided to leave the matter for others to deal with, since I was in no mood to engage in endless rounds of miscommunication.

    As should be readily apparent from the article talk page, the issues with he Other Karma's poor grasp of English have continued, and meanwhile, further edits have led to the article including such gems as Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century..., while attempts to discuss whether the material included is appropriate (e.g. a huge section on 'History of the public debate in Austria'), and whether it has been properly sourced and/or translated have again become bogged down through inadequate communication. Despite these concerns and similar being raised by multiple contributors (myself, User:tgeorgescu, User:Arjayay, User:Mathglot), The Other Karma chose today to nominate the article for Good Article status. [9] As should be obvious to anyone reading Wikipedia:Good article criteria, this proposal would appear to be doomed from the start. If The Other Karma has read the criteria concerned, they surely haven't understood them.

    I see no obvious reason to doubt The Other Karma's sincerity, but in my opinion some form of action needs to be taken. The article subject matter is of some significance, and readers deserve better than they are currently being presented with. At minimum, they should expect comprehensibility, and that is not going to be achieved while any attempt to discuss problems with the contributor concerned prove futile, and the questionably-sourced word salad continues to pile up. Likewise, other contributors deserve better than they are being faced with: my latest attempts to explain the issues with both sourcing and language after seeing the GAR nomination led to the following response: Please explain your claims in discussions: Foster constructive and effective dialogue by elucidating your perspectives in a comprehensible way during discussions, and provide examples how something can be improved. If that isn't output from ChatGPT, or from some form of translation software of questionable merit, it is surely satire. And whatever it is, it isn't remotely an appropriate response when having one's language skills questioned. Given recent concerns being raised on this noticeboard concerning civility, I held back on making the response there that initially seemed most apt, and instead started this thread here. I'm not quite sure how the community can best deal with this problem, in that editing restrictions and/or topic bans might well merely move the problem elsewhere on the English language Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that it might be best to politely suggest that The Other Karma restrict their future contributions to a version of Wikipedia in their native language, and that if The Other Karma declines to do so (or at least, if they continue with the same behaviour here) we should consider an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds. Sincerity is not enough. Communication is required - both with other contributors, and one-directionally, with our readers, who should not be confronted with baffling phraseology concerning fornicating erotica and similar oddities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support the Grump: WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm not opposed to either editor. Just saying that since I'm not a native speaker, I'm not in the best position to judge the quality of their English. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Too soon for indef, but I agree with Andy's comment that the "article needs to be edited by someone with greater competence in the English language", and something needs to be done, perhaps a voluntary restriction to editing only Talk pages (no mainspace, or GAR/FAR). I agree that TOK's English is pretty shaky, but I am able to follow what TOK is saying in discussion at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people, where they are arguing their point, but when they translate from Austrian legal wording (legal text in any language can be abstruse, and German is no exception), it's basically incomprehensible. Since this is what they are intent on adding to the article, that cannot stand. As far as whether admin action is required, we might be close to that, but I want to hear from TOK first.
    The Other Karma, do you understand that people here are discussing whether to WP:BLOCK you from editing? I think you could contribute to English Wikipedia in some ways, but a certain level of self-awareness about your English is required in order to continue. I think you could definitely contribute at article Talk pages by adding your thoughts there in your own words, but perhaps your English is not sufficient for adding text directly to articles involving translation about specialized German topics using arcane language in the original German such as Austrian legalese. Poor grammar and poor word choice is okay on a Talk page, as long as your basic meaning is clear; but it's less okay in an article. There is something called an WP:Edit request, which is a semi-formal way of asking other editors to make a change for you to an article that you cannot or should not make yourself; how would you feel about limiting yourself to using only the talk pages, where you could discuss as much as you like (within reason), and when it got to the point of updating the article, instead of doing it yourself you would issue an edit request and let someone else do it? Would that be acceptable to you?
    I just want to state my bias: as someone who (attempts to) speak foreign languages, it's not an easy thing, and I greatly respect anyone who does or tries to, and so I tend to give maximum latitude to those writing in English as a second language. As far as writing at Wikipedia, there is a minimum bar of comprehensibility, and it's not the same threshold for a Talk page and an article. If TOK agrees to limit themself to talk page contributions, then I think that could work, and if it doesn't, we can take it up again. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is important to me that I take the time necessary for my colleagues at Wikipedia to respond to the criticism in a solution-oriented manner. However, since a lot has happened on the article and discussion page, and since I can't do everything at once, I may not be able to respond to the issues raised here until tomorrow or the day after, maybe even later.
    I apologize for the inconvenience. The Other Karma (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that address the problem? Do you intend to continue editing the article, given the concerns raised over your competence in written English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the above dismissive non-response, I would like to make it entirely clear that should this thread be archived without further input from The Other Karma, and should The Other Karma continue to edit articles in the problematic manner discussed above, I shall raise the matter here again, with the further proposal that The Other Karma be blocked from article-space editing entirely, until such time as we receive a response which actually addresses the issues discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will answer you, we have enough time on Wikipedia.
    I have asked at VPT, if it is possible that the Lowercase sigmabot III, doesn't archive a section.
    You and Mathglot have mentioned a lot, but I need time to look at everything and find solutions that involve not having these problems again. Due to the length of your and Mathglot's critique, I will probably need until the weekend to address all aspects.
    You have to keep in mind that I'm tired after work and don't have much energy for Wikipedia. I'm i have also other more important things i have to take care of. I don't plan to edit the article namespace of the article until I have answered here. The Other Karma (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Other Karma, just so you know, ANI is a rather fast-moving board (this discussion is getting ever nearer the top, and is already #11 of 31 threads) and while RL and taking the time needed for a response are certainly legit, Andy was referring to the fact that by the time you are ready, you may not find this thread here anymore. We may already be at the point where moving this to your Talk page would be wise, where you could take all the time you need, however with the understanding that should there not be an amicable solution, you'd probably find yourself the subject of an additional discussion here, something which it would be better to avoid, if at all possible. A voluntary solution agreeable to all would be the best result, if that is achievable.
    If you do make it back here in time, here is the proposal I'd like to hear your thoughts about: I propose that you avoid editing mainspace directly, and post the edits you want to make to an article to its Talk page instead, asking for feedback. If other editors say your content looks good, or if they are willing to fix up the wording until it is acceptable, then you can post it in the article; otherwise not. Would you be willing to accept this as a voluntary restriction? With experience over time, it may become clear that your proposed wording for articles on legal topics or marine naval warfare are unacceptable, but your wording for articles on seaside resort towns and Thai cuisine are just fine, and the restriction can be removed by consensus for the latter, meaning you can edit them directly again. Do you understand this proposal, and do you accept? Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll respond you tomorrow, i have today, no time left, but I'm nearly done with the response. And on Friday i'll respond Andy. The Other Karma (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot In my opinion, this is overkill, as most of the text in the article is based on English-language sources, which are correctly formulated. I can send you a review of the demographics and predictors part, where I can also show that everything is adequately substantiated. (In comparison to the previous text, my problems are peanuts, I can send you a review, i have to note the that the problems would have stayed for many more years without me.)
    I have also looked again at the legal part where there were problems, most of the text from the source are not complex legal texts, so there should only be 6 cases where I have not translated optimally (and not a massive occurrence at every claim). Including the word “fornicating”, where I especially tried with best practices to translate it correctly e.g. using dictionaries (in German it means "Unzucht/Unzüchtig", meaning offensive sexual behavior), [1 [2 I even often linked the word to show the correct meaning. (It seems here to be more the fault of the available resources (dictionaries) than me). (I am aware that the dictionaries suggest sex offence as a translation, but I probably came to the conclusion while translating that it means Sexualdelikt (sexual crime)).
    I would therefore suggest that in future I no longer translate a complex legal text into English without checking with others, which I was planning to do anyway after the criticism. Translating a complex legal text into English is not something I usually do, this was an exception, and I'm not planing to do translate complex legal text in the near future. Is this a solution for you?
    Regarding the 6 non-optimal translations, I can offer you that we talk about it in a Discord meeting, such a meeting is in my experience the most efficient and fastest solution method, with the least effort. I can also prove you my English language skills and prove to you that I can use both languages (English and German) without any translator. But you don't have to help me if you don't want to! Otherwise, I would look for someone else willing, but that will take longer (months to years). And they probably wouldn't be the descriptions you would like best. The Other Karma (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all: this is the Administrator's board noticeboard for discussing user behavior, not the board for discussing how to improve translations or how to improve any content in an article, so I'm not going to respond to your comments about how to translate this or that word or expression; if you wish to expound on that, you can continue that discussion at the article or at your talk page.
    Unfortunately, your last comment hasn't helped your case, because it underlines your *lack of self-awareness* of the level of your ability in English and in translation, which became evident to me especially at this discussion (and other discussions on that page), and which is more serious imho than the actual weak English command itself because you are unable to see where your weakness lies. Much worse even than that, is that when this is pointed out to you by native speakers, you argue with them, compounding the appearance of lack of self-awareness, and without that awareness you are severely handicapped in your writing as you are unable to tell when your output is good enough, and when you need assistance because it is incomprehensible, and I think you won't disagree that we can't have gobbledygook in our articles at English Wikipedia.
    While I am always happy to help ESL speakers and to fix up their minor errors without comment, I am not going to get drawn into a tarpit with you arguing here about what is or is not correct in English or why, and I urge others to resist the temptation as well. That is not the point of this board, and that is why I decline to respond to your specific comments above about translation. If you want to help your case here, please stop discussing individual words or translations, and focus on the fact that you are at risk of possible sanctions and either address that, or perhaps in your case not saying anything might be a better strategy, as this discussion may very well just blow over without action—the likeliest course at this point imho, if you don't hurt your own case further. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can offer you that we talk about it in a Discord meeting
    No, that's not going to happen. For transparency reasons, discussions need to take place here on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, you're confusing me, I showed you my self-awareness about not being able to properly translate legal text, exactly here?:
    I'm, sorry i didn't want to enrage you!

    I would therefore suggest that in future I no longer translate a complex legal text into English without checking with others, which I was planning to do anyway after the criticism.

    The text implicitly says exactly what is important to you? That I'm totally aware that I can't translate legal texts well enough, that I don't want to make more work for others, as well that I'm teribbly sorry that this happened, and that I'm not interested in such problems happening again. And as a solution, I would never again translate such texts in enWp without an external check. The Other Karma (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century" is not legal text. It is however nonsensical. It should never have been placed in article space. It wasn't written by anyone fluent in English. And frankly, I doubt that it is a product of human translation at all. The Other Karma, have you been using machine translation (a) in article space, and/or (b) on talk pages? And if so, what have you been using it for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (uninvolved non-admin)@The Other Karma: I am sympathetic to ANI vs real life, but I think you fail to understand that you could be blocked here and Mathglot is offering you an alternative. I actually think the cited text is readable, and I have definitely seen worse, but what it is not is standard English. So my friendly advice is to quit arguing with native English speakers about whether they can read your English output, accept that at best the results you are getting from whatever you are using are jarringly quaint, and work out something along the lines of what Mathglot proposes. Ideally you would team up with someone who translates from German to English. That isn't me in this case, as my German is disused and limited, and I have no interest in the topic, but odds are better than 50/50 that you could find such a person at de.wiki. I strongly suggest that you let Mathglot help you. Elinruby (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your friendly advice! But now I'm confused even more. .-.
    Isnt that what i have been doing is this discussion from the beginning on?
    I can also explain my underlying thoughts if this is needed, if it is, tell me. The Other Karma (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    until now it sounded like you were trying to explain why there wasn't an issue and the English was fine. If you now accept that it isn't, the question is how to deal with it. AfC already has a lot on their plate. You could make edit requests on a talk page maybe? @Mathglot: may have a better idea. Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial block.. I have some sympathy for The Other Karma's lack of Wikipedia time, but the fact remains that their evasiveness has eaten up a lot of the time and patience of constructive editors even just in this ANI thread. The last straw for me is that they now, after undertaking to reply to Andy "on Friday" (=today), have replied, sort of, but still have not engaged with any of Andy's or Mathglot's suggestions (e.g. that they be blocked from article space, and/or that they edit the Wikipedia in their native language instead, and other helpful ideas) or questions. Instead they insist that they have already acknowledged that they're not good at translating legal texts — which is only a miniscule part of the problem — so what else do we want? This is a waste of Wikipedia's prime resource, which is the time and patience of skilled editors. I have partial-blocked The Other Karma indefinitely from article space. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    @Bishonen I think you might have put the wrong settings on that block? You seem to have blocked account creation from their IP address instead of partially blocking from article space? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. I have made quite a few page-blocks without running into problems, but never a namespace block before. Trying again... OK, it looks like it worked the second time. Thank you very much, IP. Bishonen | tålk 22:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    The Other Karma is now demanding that content they added to the article not be removed

    The following was just posted at TalkEffects of pornography on young people, in response to a suggestion that some of the content be culled: "I would like to note that deleting the content would upset me, as it would be disrespectful of my effort. (see my user page)". [10] The relevant comment on their user page is presumably from a list of "Don'ts""Deleting my additions, from reliable sources: Avoid removing my contributions from articles, which are based on reliable sources." At this point, given what amounts to a refusal to work within normal Wikipedia practice (where getting ones contributions deleted is a common occurrence, to be expected in any collaborative environment) I'd have to suggest that regardless of whether this is a consequence of poor language skills or an unwillingness to accept standard Wikipedia practice (I'd go with both), we are well into WP:CIR and/or WP:NOTHERE territory here, and that it would be better for the English-language Wikipedia if The Other Karma was blocked from the project entirely. We are clearly dealing with someone who, intentionally or otherwise, is becoming a humongous time-sink, and who appears to be incapable of taking in the advice offered by multiple contributors as to how best to participate here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really have to destroy the rest of my weekend that I wanted to enjoy in peace!? Is it so hard to AGF? According to the rules, should the article title be are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Which is not Effects of pornography on young people.
    Here's the (unfinished) evidence:
    The current title, Effects of pornography on young people is in English academic literature only used 61 times and in other languages like German, never. In the sources the article uses, this name is also never used. The term “young people” is usually not used in reliable sources about the topic, the term “adolescent(s)” is usually used.
    According to the naming conventions, I therefore propose a name:
    Adolescents and pornography
    This term and variations is used by literature the article uses at least twice, and its 478 times used in English academic literature and 17 times in German. This term is also in line with the topics that exist in reliable literature, while the title Effects of pornography on young people only refers to one aspect.
    The evidence shows that it is totally explicable that the article name will be changed, and that therefore my text can stay.

    With the sentance "I would like to note that deleting the content would upset me, as it would be disrespectful of my effort. (see my user page)", my goal with this sentence was to create a comfortable editing environment for Mathglot so that he can pay attention to what is important to me. I put the information on my user page for a reason, my goal is to create a friendly and respectful editing environment so that Wikipedia can move forward. Duh Why do you deliberately want to upset me?

    And now please leave me alone, I don't want to experience the stress of an ANI anymore! The Other Karma (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that is safe to say that the above complete and utter failure to address the point I was making about The Other Karma's apparent refusal to accept the norms of a collaborative editing project can only be seen as further evidence to support my proposal for a project-wide block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? Do I have to beg and worship you like an inferior being so that you finally leave me alone? Is that what you want?
    Im just trying to be nice and helpful and productive, as i have so far always tried!!! Could now please stop, insulting me? The Other Karma (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the same... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Other Karma is now at the Teahouse asking for help snd complaining. Doug Weller talk 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the Heldesk, not Teahouse. Doug Weller talk 21:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) The Other Karma, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and nobody owns any article. If you feel differently (which is a valid feeling) then I would suggest that Wikipedia is not for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting a bit out of hand. May I suggest that further substantive comment be taken up (if necessary) either at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people, or at TOK's UTP? Unless someone is pushing for a full indef, but I don't see that happening until we see how TOK does under the current restriction, and that will take some time to assess. While there are valid views and criticisms being expressed here, at this point TOK has just received a partial block, not something anyone wants to experience, and needs some breathing space. We can and should give him some time to process (grieve?) this, and hopefully bounce back and become a productive editor. That's one of the goals of a partial, right? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked indefinitely. The Other Karma, I'm very sorry for your frustration, which is plain to see in your posts in this subsection, but I'm afraid what you say here serves to show that Andy is right about your refusal/inability to work within normal Wikipedia practice. As I have already said, the time and patience of skilled editors is Wikipedia's prime resource, and we shouldn't keep squandering it in this way. You have been blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 22:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    RudolfoMD

    RudolfoMD blocked as NOTHERE by Doug Weller. Bishonen | tålk 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

    RudolfoMD is a relatively inexperienced user (<1000 edits since their first here in April 2023) who appears to be on something of a crusade. Since an early trip to ANI in August last, he has complained at BLPN that we reflect the consensus view of the Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([11]), tried to delete {{User rouge admin}}, accused Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of deceptive editing, and me of copyright violation, vandalism introducing deliberate factual errors and personal attacks, but, rather more to the point, changed "Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results" to "These studies often report remissions", based on a source that says "No randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. (emphasis added) ([12]), which appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV on an article subject to intermittent astroturfing for decades.

    Taken as a piece with edits like "Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2 was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days"], and his failure to understand what deleted contributions are, rather silly revert warring over fixing an unsigned comment, plus possible stalking of another user to other articles ([13]), I wonder if this user might be better keeping away from fringe theories, at least, until they have more experience editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • support a final warning but I was close to blocking last night when I closed that ridiculous MfD. Pro-fringe time sink and IMNSHO, not new either.
    Star Mississippi 17:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Lemabeta

    I think this needs to be evaluated by the community. Editor, with 298 edits working in ECP area, removing content and posting personal attacks on other editors claiming they are "inciting hatred".[16] + see edit summaries in diffs below

    • [17],[18] removing sourced content with PA in edit summary.
    • [19], content was restored and removed again with PA in edit summary.
    • [20] more removing sourced content
    • Warned on talk page about personal attacks, responded by repeating them. User talk:Lemabeta#January 2024
    • Three editors (including myself) have objected to this editors changes, the EW could be ignored, but the personal attacks claiming editors are "inciting hatred" cannot be allowed.
    • See other warnings at User talk:Lemabeta.

     // Timothy :: talk  22:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,
    After a quick look through their contributions, I definitely think that they do have a tendency towards personal attacks. I think that the user should be careful in their edit summaries especially, and think about if their conduct could be construed as a PA. I would like to see their response here as well. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geardona It wasn't a personal attack. The page mentioned that Georgians view Adjarians(sub-ethnic group of Georgians) as a second class turkicized citizens, which isn't true even if some author wrote it. Is it not inciting hatred? It was my Adjarian friend who told me he viewed it as an insult to their ethnographic group by the editors who included it. Therefore i deleted it. Writing that they are viewed as a second class turkicized citizens isn't a personal attack on the whole ethnographic group but me saying it's inciting hatred between us is? Lemabeta (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time. Geardona (talk to me?) 13:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geardona So why am i getting scolded meanwhile the offensive text that incites hatred between Georgians that Adjarians are second class turkicized citizens is still up? It's not a personal insult nor did i have any desire to insult anyone. But i don't see any respect in that text towards the Adjarians themselves. Should i go in the streets and ask Adjarians what they think about this text? And if they feel like they are treated any different than other Georgians? Even if the text is cited, that doesn't change the fact that it contains hateful content. and it has no place in the front of the page. Lemabeta (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, hate has no place on wikipedia, but it should be removed with a edit summary like " removed POV". I am not saying don't remove it, just moderate, like EI C says. Don't sink to their level. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geardona Can you delete it? On the Adjarians page, it says it.. I don't have patience to put up with the 3 guys that are one by one changing it back, so they can accuse me of edit war and many stuff. Thank you Lemabeta (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content dispute, take it to the talk page. Don't ask others to edit for you, that can still constitute edit warring. Get consensus on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: tbaned in plain text, really (diff)? But, yeah, likely to end that way if Lemabeta doesn't moderate their language and avoid edit warring. El_C 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This kids edit warring over at Ilia Topuria now, despite the conversation in the talk page not being closed. I get he's proud of being Caucasian, but his edits likely violate MOS:ETHNICITY/WP:NATIONALITY. Nswix (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nswix Calling me a kid is a personal insult, therefore a personal attack. Which violates the guidelines of Wikipedia. Lemabeta (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, to be called a kid! A shop assistant called me "young man" recently and I was cock-a-hoop for weeks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikidrifterr ECP gaming

    Wikidrifterr blocked as NOTHERE by Doug Weller. Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

    A quick look at the contributions of Wikidrifterr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows that after a string of ~150 grammar edits in the span of two hours (which caught my eye), they reached their 500th edit and immediately edited the ECP-protected page K. Annamalai. This is clear WP:PGAMEing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @AirshipJungleman29 I wanted to edit the page and improve it, true. Since I felt that page needed major improvement.
    I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time now.
    But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct.
    if you think I am at wrong I will revert those changes and not further edit the page in concern.
    Sincerly trying to learn here and improve Wikipedia, which was also my motive to edit the page in concern Wikidrifterr (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct. Um, not really. Some were unneeded: [21], [22], [23], [24] etc. Some were just plain wrong: [25], [26], [27], etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits do seem very rushed. This one added "and killed" as "context" (edit summary) to a sentence which already mentioned that there was killing. Some engvar and per/cent among them too. CMD (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of your "grammar" edits were improvements, but not all of them were. I just reverted half a dozen of them that were wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    K. Annamalai has been frequently hijacked over the past year; see the page history and Talk:K. Annamalai#Page protection. Curbon7 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That possibly explains why the information about legislative elections was removed in the "Added college and current work details" edit. CMD (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does. Right at the start of the series of edits is this, which created a redlink to the salted K Annamalai. CMD (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article has a tortured history, best (and most recently) covered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First thing first would be Wikidrifterr responding to the conflict of interest disclosure I posted on their talk page (link). I also left them an introductory alert to contentious topics (WP:ARBIND). El_C 06:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I;'ve removed ECP, obvious gaming and their statement above seems to admit that. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would personally support indef blocking on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR grounds. A few days ago they baselessly accused me of vandalism in an edit summary [28], and refused to retract this allegation. They have been repeatedly warned about copyright, which has seemingly not been heeded. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that "gaming ecp" has been included in the block log. This is helpful. It would be useful to be able to reliably select all users where gaming ECP was one of the reasons for the block without having to deal with lots of variations of the terminology. Standard-ish descriptions (like the standard "checkuserblock-account" log entry) would be even better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ethnic slur at ITN

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

    Ouro has used what appears to be an ethnic slur against Russians at ITN: Casual mention of NK support for russkee criminal acts in the Ukraine (diff). I confronted them about it, saying that the ethnic slur was inappropriate and should be struck (diff), to which they responded simply I acknowledge Your opposition to my honest and open usage of this term (diff). Considering the doubling-down I consider this beyond my capalities to solve, so I believe that it should at least be brought to the attention of administrators. WP:CIVIL is a pillar and I'm pretty sure editors aren't allowed to use ethnic slurs, regardless of our takes on the Russo-Ukrainian War. JM (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Post to a user last May about an ITN issue [29] "Hello, Knight! Didn't mean to bite, but I just ... get negatively emotional when it comes to that country beginning with r, You know... Will compose myself in the future. Cheers! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Same ITN post ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1156145521] "*Close just close just close and stop listening to those people. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Although I think Russia is a threat to the West, it does look as though this editor can't edit Russian or Ukraine-Russia related articles without pushing their pov. And ever since their first post in Nov 2009 all their edits are marked minor. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asked them to stop marking edits minor, gave them a General sanctions notice for the topic area of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the CT alert for the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the notifications. As for the marking of my edits as minor, I will refrain from doing that. Promise to read into WP:MINOR. As for any other topics that might be mentioned, rest assured I will not make any edits to topics surrounding the Ukraine, because I know that I have a particular point of view. You need not worry about that. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had heard the word used in movies but never looked it up. I just did. Dictionaries seem to agree on "disparaging" and "offensive". If this were about any other country/ethnicity, the response would be an immediate indef. So, I hope we can at least get an acknowledgement of the problem and assurance to stop. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acknowledgement of the situation. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Notice the use of the word "situation" instead of "problem", and no assurance to stop. JM (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You've already stated your concerns. Let the community vet the situation; otherwise, it will appear that you are overeager to get Ouro punished. By the way, the Wiktionary link you provided in the OP doesn't actually say that the term in question is a slur; it states that the term is "usually derogatory;" I consider that to be a substantial difference in nuance (and yes, our article does describe the phrase as an ethnic slur, but you didn't argue based on our article). It is best for all editors, including Ouro, to refrain from using that term; it would also be best if you, JM2023, would refrain in the future from making strong claims without proper support. (One could also question whether this incident really belongs in the category of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; hopefully you won't make a habit of running to ANI every time you disapprove of something.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      1) The link actually does say it's an ethnic slur: (usually derogatory, colloquial, ethnic slur), so your concerns about "strong claims without proper support" and "substantial difference in nuance" are moot;
      2) My account is about a year old and I've brought something to ANI only once before, four months ago, when I was specifically told to do so, and which resulted in an (unlogged) warning against the person I made the case against and an apology made to me (see here), so I don't have a "habit of running to ANI every time [I] disapprove of something";
      3) Someone just brought an IP to ANI in a similar case last week and it resulted in a month-long block of that IP (see here), which is what motivated me to go here when I saw someone double-down on an apparent ethnic slur after being called out on it. JM (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As the person who brought up the previous IP, I can agree that this one should also be blocked, ethnic slurs shouldn't be considered acceptable. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also agree they should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Language is confusing. Isn't it the Russian word for Russian i.e. русский? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Polish word for themselves is "polak". Go to downtown New Britain, say that, and see how many people jump you. I don't get it either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Slurs depend entirely on context. Use by the in-group is fine, as it's usually either self-identifying or an attempt to "reclaim" the term. Use by out-groups is pretty strongly rejected as reinforcing the insulting use of the term. At the very least, it's impossible to tell if an outsider is simply unaware of the insulting use of the term, or is relying on "I didn't know" as a get out of jail free card. Either way, best to avoid it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And how about those times I'm now remembering where I said it as a single word greeting to new neighbors I was seeing for the first time while out walking the dog and thought might be Russian (and were). Do I need to move? Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, if you haven't been beaten and thrown into a ditch yet, you're probably okay. They may just have put you in the former category. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Or the later, I mean even if someone used a slur, most people are just going to minimise future contact etc. Some might be used enough to it they're probably going to forget it happened, so depending on how long it's been there might still be no point bringing it up.

    Getting back to the original post I think an important point here is we're not simply referring to a case where an editor used the term to refer to someone with no reason to think anything was meant by it. It's possible that this editor thought "I want to refer to criminals but I'm going to use the most neutral term I can for them". But let's be realistic, there's a very good chance this isn't what happened and they chose the term precisely because they intended it as a slur.

    I'd also note that there's no indication from the editor's responses above that they were not aware it was a slur, I mean even their assurances not to repeat it are decidedly lackluster.

    Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Relating to my other post below, my impression is Russki, while generally seen as a slur has far-less use and recognition as such that say a word like Jap or Paki. So I suspect people offended by being referred to as such are far more likely to just think maybe they just didn't know. For that reason I'd probably often not necessary to do anything about it later.

    Jap and Paki however are well recognised as slurs nowadays, so very people who actually use them especially Jap when used in the US and Paki when used in the UK, are not going to know. So if someone did use such terms without realising, it's probably well worth considering whether as uncomfortable as it may be, it's worth bringing it up and apologising next time you see these people.

    I'd note that especially with things the way they are now, it's probably quite risky to make assumptions anyway. If you refer to Ukrainian even a Russian speaking one as a Russki, you might very well find you cause great offense but for different reasons. I'm reminded of the joke about someone in the UK calling someone who looks British Asian a Paki and the person who's from modern India not Pakistan responding something like, "I'm not a Paki I'm from India, I hate Pakis!"

    Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also emphasise it's important not to get distracted by the origins of a word. This can sometimes be the cause of a word being a slur, but the way the word has been used historically is often far more important as to whether it might be a slur. And yes, a term which is perfectly fine in one language may be a problem when translated or transliterated to another. And even within the same language, it can depend on region etc.

    Jew is a term that can be used even by outgroups without being seen as a slur, but can also be a slur or pejoratively depending on how it's used etc. Edit: Jew (word) goes into this a bit as well as the history of the word which makes it clear it was not originally intended to be offensive but given a long history of anti-semitism has also long been used in offensive ways. Paki (slur) might be short for Pakistan or Pakistani but because of the way it has been used, it's well accepted as a slur. Shortened forms of accepted edit: words are often used as slurs e.g. Jap is another one. I suspect, but have never looked for evidence, that is in part because slogans etc work better when shorter, e.g. Japs out or Pakis go home. Flow may be another factor, and I wonder if this is partly why Ruskee is a slur.

    The n word, negro and black all ultimately come from the terms referring to the colour black. But the first one is well recognised as one of the worst slurs to the extent many people just do like I do and use the euphemism even when simply talking it, when used by outgroups. And even when used by ingroups is generally spelt and pronounced different. The second one is often consider at best antiquated in much of the English speaking world. The last one can still be acceptable when used by outgroups depending on context and group, although as mentioned by our article, some groups historically found it more offensive than negro.

    Gay has a complicated history, you still get the odd person insisting it should only have the original "happy" like meaning. But while it has been used as a slur or pejoratively at various times and there is a a more recent rise of it's use in a new pejorative manner (I think this trend might be dying down a bit, but I suspect it's something many people who played games with online chats are familiar with), it's often still acceptable even by outgroups depending as always on how it's used.

    Queer meanwhile is sometimes considered a reclaimed slur and does have a fairly long history of being used as a slur. It's use especially but outgroups is often still controversial. However while it has been used as a slur for a long time, the perception of it being clearly a slur is as I understand it, more recent and indeed it was used by ingroups non pejoratively before it became to be seen as a clear slur let alone reclaimed Queer#Early 20th-century queer identity.

    I think there are very few people who would say 'I'm fine with gay because it it's fine to be called "happy" but I don't like queer because I don't like being called "strange"'. That's nothing to do with the reason why the terms are seen as they are now.

    Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Edited at where marked 04:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I apologise to anyone who dislikes seeing any of the terms I used spelt out like that, but I felt in the interest of clarity it was my best choice. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have three problems with the way you spelled the first three words of paragraph three, but they're all minor capitalization, hyphenation and frankness concerns. On the whole, good explanation! I'll note that the R-word (in question here) is quite prevalent in American media, especially from the "Cold War era", and a lot of that shit still gets played in Canada (at least). You hear people use the P-word often enough, but not the mainstream media. I'm pretty sure the J-word has fallen out of fashion everywhere since Japan (and all its J-Stuff) became cool in the capitalist sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.P.S. Yankee is a particular interesting one since in contemporary usage to refer to specific people it can often be a slur or at least pejorative. But precisely which specific subset it's used against varies depending on who's using it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case it seems reasonably clear from the responses elsewhere and in this thread that Ruskee was specifically used as a pejorative slur, "honestly and openly". CMD (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, and based on that, I'd say a NOTHERE block is appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, so did I. Learned something today. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like this discussion has totally died down. I'm not trying to act like an admin or be punitive or anything, but here's a summary: there's three people explicitly supporting a block, and four others explicitly finding the behaviour problematic, without including me in either. The rest never expressed an opinion on Ouro's use of the slur. And in all this there's been no apology or retraction of the slur, or even an acknowledgement that it shouldn't be used. What happens next, if anything? JM (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thing is, admins are still volunteers, so none of them is required to do something just because it may need doing. I imagine it does not need explaining just why admins may not be acting here? And, I wouldn't go so far as to say admins didn't do anything. One of them posted notice on Ouro's talk page about Russo-Ukraine CTOP. I think that means that if they repeat the same behaviour, you could report them to WP:AE, which is generally less forgiving.
      Once upon a time, you were supposed to think it was just not actionable and forget about it, if no admin did anything before the report got archived. But Wikipedia has changed a bit since. So, you can probably afford to make a post to AN asking that an admin review the discussion. Of course, it depends how much you care. And it would make more sense to request review/closure at AN if you actually proposed something here formally and turned it into a !vote. Personally, I would let this be. They didn't acknowledge it but we can assume the message has been received. You can always start a new report if they do it one more time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What happens next is that it doesn't happen again, and if it does, then it'll be brought back here and then perhaps some sanction will be needed to prevent further disruption. But if nobody does anything and it doesn't happen again then this thread will have served its purpose, without the need for apologies, retractions, or sanctions. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scorpoin125 - account with less than 10 edits closing AfD

    User:Scorpoin125 appears to be an account with less than 10 edits and which was apparently started today - there is some confusion about this because there are messages on the talkpage which go back many years. Anyway, they are clearly not in a position to close AfD discussions on a day-old account.JMWt (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    anyone can close afd. Instead of worrying about who closing worry about if they closed against consensus. --Scorpoin125 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you possibly even know what those terms mean on a day-old account? JMWt (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but if you know how to close AfDs, that implies you've previously edited using a different account. That requires disclosure of the previous account(s) on your user page. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those older comments were because the user started the talkpage by cloning Talk:data. I nuked them. As others observe, this is certainly not a new editor. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuserblocked as an LTA (see AGreene1117, MagicSoiuret etc.). If you see any more of these pop up, just block them with talk page and email disabled.-- Ponyobons mots 18:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) JMWt (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ponyo: He's back as Scoripon126 with basically the exact same name reverting my reply for some reason while also closing a just-relisted AfD using another user's signature as a disguise [30] JM (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting tactic I haven't seen before, gives the impression for anyone casually glancing at his page that he's not brand new. Not to dwell on it for WP:BEANS reasons, but I wonder if it might be a good idea to set an Edit Filter to monitor for something like that. It should be possible, and I can't think of any good reason a new editor would need to subst anything into their userspace. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're here again as User:FlightMasterr and RE, who To BeFree and I've blocked but a few others floating. If someone has time to come play whack a sock and fix the AfDs, it would be very much appreciated. @Ponyo if you happen to be around for some CU pixie dust, that would also be appreciated. Star Mississippi 18:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Kaaren Ragland

    Kaaren Ragland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Basically a user with the same name as the page is constantly edit warring and using IP addresses to continue the disruption. I have tried to make them quit disrupting, but they seem to continue, and they have been warned about legal threats about reporting me to my residence state’s department and still refers to me as an "unidentified person". She is basically getting upset over me cleaning up her own article and she is continuing to make unsourced statements, which is NOT permitted in the BLP policy. She also is accusing me of defaming her (which isn’t the only reason why I came here, only to report), and ruining her "own" biography. On the most recent comment on her talk page, I tried to explain to her that she cannot be doing all this, but she continues to get away with it. Otherwise, I want a comment on this, or something else. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They were also warned about WP:COI. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this edit summary constitute a legal threat? There have been multiple attempts to edit , libel and defame me by unidentified parties which has been brought to the attention of the legal department of Wikipedia accordingly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean that one, but this edit summary does an example of threat towards me and also another user[31] TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She was actually accusing me of defaming her, which is not true, but she could be likely to threaten suing me to my state residence's department, as stated above in my reasoning. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (not an admin) Diffs would be helpful so that people don't need to go searching, but from your description, it seems to be at least WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:WAR, and WP:NOTHERE. JM (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here Special:MobileDiff/1199064790, Special:MobileDiff/1198122958, Special:MobileDiff/1198090998 (using an IP address in this one), Special:MobileDiff/1198061885,
    Special:MobileDiff/1198035129 TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In these edits, she was adding unreferenced/poorly sourced content that was removed. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for the really obvious legal threats, and I'd also suggest an unblock might involve identity verification through OTRS; it wouldn't be the first time someone impersonated an article subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. And having gone and read the edit summaries, I can confirm the accuracy of the policies I referenced above. Additionally, it's also a failure to WP:AGF on her part. Multiple possible legal threats - depends on whether she means to pursue action though internal Wikipedia mechanisms or through external legal mechanisms. If it's the latter, it's a legal threats in violation of WP:NLT. She also apparently wants Wikipedia to give her the real-life identities of the users editing her article, which probably violates something. Just as an example of one of her edit summaries [32], she says I have given you the best information the actual Ct docs., not hearsay dubious articles. Also my first hand information. Obviously she would be using a primary source with the court documents, but also note that unreferenced "first hand information" from the article's subject (who hasn't even proven that identity as far as I know) is obviously not compliant with WP:BLP. Finally, calling an editor This bizarre entity is a violation of WP:NPA. Multiple standalone reasons for an indef. JM (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She also had done the same to Marybrewster (talk · contribs), and 2600:1009:A021:CC1B:A130:CBA5:AC4A:6446 (talk · contribs) who were adding information. Thanks. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She was also already blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and upon the block expiring immediately returned to disruptive editing. So there's another reason for an indef even without the legal theats. Just saying this because even if she somehow successfully appeals the WP:NLT block, she should still be blocked for all the other reasons I listed. JM (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I reported it to WP:RFPP/I TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I laid that out on her talkpage. Anyone looking there should be able to see the legal threats were just the most egregious of several major issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    correct, because the page has 83 views for people to see that. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Block evasion seems likely with B2TheShack. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blade of the Northern Lights: she's back as an IP claiming she's a different person, claiming I have a personal issue with her (I have no idea who she is or what the Supremes even are), demanding I unblock her Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9F0:8370:1082:AD22:F848:99FD JM (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be WP:MEAT since they are claiming to be someone else with the same COI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the close similarities in the writing style and hyping-up I doubt it's a different person, but the user is assuming bad faith and block evading regardless. JM (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) I've now noticed they both use the unique phrase "full stop" at the ends of some sentences. I have very little doubt that this person is this Kaaren woman evading a block. JM (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Full stop" is hardly a unique phrase, it's what the non-North American portion of the English-speaking world calls the punctuation mark North America calls a period. Stating "full stop" at the end of a sentence is equivalent to saying "period". (No opinion on whether it's WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK, haven't actually looked into things that deeply) AddWittyNameHere 13:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably shouldn't have said "unique" considering it means "one and only"; I should have said "uncommon". Regardless, I don't think I've ever seen what are ostensibly two editors write so similarly to the point that both use the phrase "full stop" (or "period") within a few hours of each other, especially when by my experience it's an uncommon phrase on Wikipedia talk pages, so I think it was significant enough to have been brought up; it was the most illustrative example of the identical writing. (Also, I believe "full stop" is also sometimes used here in Canada.) It doesn't matter now, the evasive IPs have been blocked and have not returned. JM (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Activist editing by NoonIcarus

    In a previous ANI report it was detailed (perhaps too detailed) that NoonIcarus was engaged in activist editing in support of the Venezuelan opposition and attempted to make things personal by deleting an article I created. If you would like to jump into their editing history in that report, it provides a thorough background on their civil POV pushing behavior. This disruptive behavior has, unfortunately, continued. As a disclosure, I have said before that it takes two to be involved in edit warring and I have acknowledged my previous misbehavior in disputes with this user, but please allow me to provide information on how NoonIcarus continues to be disruptive.

    NoonIcarus persists with making things personal by WikiHounding my contributions, removing[33][34][35] or driveby tagging[36][37] (a user has also raised concerns about NoonIcarus' tagging)(Edit:--WMrapids (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)) information minutes after it is placed. It was this revert here that was the last straw regarding the continuous hounding; NoonIcarus removed the information (minutes after it was placed) based on previous discussions they had with Storm598, a blocked sockpuppet user who provided inappropriate references (such as opinion articles). This is similar behavior to NoonIcarus' "stable version" argument where NoonIcarus inappropriately enforced a "stable version" by reverting any new content that they didn't deem "stable". In the past, NoonIcarus has justified WkikiHounding behavior by saying that an article is on their watchlist, but when such behavior happens constantly for every edit (especially within minutes) and even devolves into defining a shakedown, it becomes plainly disruptive and makes editing feel hopeless.[reply]

    In addition, NoonIcarus does not seem to have learned from their previous sanction regarding block deletions on the United States involvement in regime change article, blanking material and moving the goalposts once more by demanding opinions from users on the inclusion of Venezuela in the article (this same issue has been going on for over 4 years) after other users adequately laid out the scope of the article on the talk page.

    A previous WP:0RR sanction and the most recent ANI report has done nothing to remedy NoonIcarus' behavior, so something else has to be done. As I have said before, Venezuelan articles already have limited participation, and it sure doesn't help when you have a user like NoonIcarus hounding, removing and stonewalling the work of other contributors.--WMrapids (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you link to a diff/section of the details of NoonIcarus's WP:0RR sanction please? When was this placed, by whom, and has it ever been violated? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem Linguae: You can see this in a previous ANI where the closer says about restrictions placed on NoonIcarus:

    essentially, this custom restriction limits [NoonIcarus] to 0RR when they have been reverted, absent consensus, and 1RR otherwise.

    This restriction was placed by User:El C in January 2020 for a period of one year. As for if the restrictions were violated, I have not gone back that far as interactions with the user only began within the last year. WMrapids (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Edit--WMrapids (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem Linguae: I was careful not to violate the restrictions, asking El C whenever in doubt (1, 2, 3), and later I started being less active in that second half of the year. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: After reviewing the closing comment from January 2020, I noticed that User:El C notes:

    this note by Jamez42 was probably the wrong call. I'm not sure I would call it canvassing outright, but it certainly skits its boundaries.

    Well, it seems that NoonIcarus did not learn from this warning either and has continued their apparent borderline canvassing by listing POV tags they placed on WikiProject Venezuela's talk page. Most of these tags were placed by NoonIcarus shortly after edits I performed.[38][39][40][41] This not only shows possible attempts at canvassing (NoonIcarus could have always listed POV tags in a sandbox or user page so they "can remember") but also that NoonIcarus is attempting to maintain a particular POV.--WMrapids (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I'll try to come back later with more time, but SandyGeorgia, who I linked in the last report and was also accused of COI and hounding, offers a good overview: I interpret your posts here as an attempt to intimidate me with "ownership" (with no valid diffs yet), and where you are intimating COI, as you are doing with NoonIcarus with "advocacy", based on your apparent misunderstanding of WP:COI. (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics).

    WMrapids wishes to include a section about Venezuela at the United States involvement in regime change article, but another editor challenged this two months ago ([42]), ReyHahn. Last week they started a discussion about scope, asking about threshold and definitions but never about Venezuela, and yet another editor, BobFromBrockley, said that the section should not be included until the discussion is sorted out ([43]). WMrapids clearly doesn't have consensus for the inclusion and omitting this information is deceptive.

    I should also warn about not throwing stones, since just this week I also warned the user against blanking ([44]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NoonIcarus, I will respectively only reply to you once in order to avoid bludgeoning and another wall of text.
    • I shared concerns with both you and SandyGeorgia about your editing. Other than being frank, it was in no means an act of intimidation as we needed to clear the air at the time following months of disputed edits.
    • "another editor challenged this two months ago" Yes. The editor used the same argument ("explain how verbal support is regime change") that you have also been trying to make since 2019 ("neither of them go into depths about any actions (which and how), only intent"). Clarifying this concern about "verbal support" occurred in this discussion where it was determined that reliable sources saying that the US was involved in soft power or hard power tactics to enact regime change was sufficient for inclusion. This is why I placed the information back and later cited the snowball clause since I genuinely believed the dispute was over. You, ReyHahn and Bobfrombrockley were the few who opposed the inclusion of Venezuela and the consensus of the scope for inclusion (such opposition has been persistent since 2019) while 6–8 other users support the inclusion criteria that would allow the placement of the Venezuela section. So accusing me of being "deceptive" is casting aspersions and is more evidence that you are taking this personally.
    • If we want to talk about omitting information, why did you not provide my rationale on why this information was removed (undue and possible conflict of interest) and instead provided your diff accusing me of blanking? Also, why did you omit that a separate user supported my rationale for removing such information?[45][46]
    It's clear that you have taken your interactions with me as being personal, which is evidenced by you nominating an article I created for deletion without any rationale, WikiHounding my contributions, placing questionable tags on my edits and now calling me "deceptive". Honestly, you simply stopping this behavior would be enough for me, but given your pattern of ignoring warnings, we are beyond that. WMrapids (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't explain why you haven't had issues using the same sources in the past (1, 2), other instances of blanking in the article (3) and that the discussions that you refer to actually recommended trimming and not expansion (see this response here). That being said:

    Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids

    I was really hoping that less interaction with WMrapids would mean less conflict, but it clearly hasn't been the case, so I will be detailing their own disruptive behavior while I have the chance.
    There's hardly been any pushing, at least not from my part. While they started editing in 2014 and originally focused mostly in Peruvian topics, last year WMrapids quickly shifted to edit about Venezuelan ones after a move discussion that I started was closed with an outcome they opposed. The move was closed (24 May 2023), and in two hours they start two move requests on articles I have been involved with with the same rationale (1 and 2). I cite an essay I have contributed to in said discussions, and then they proceed to label its listed sources as biased.
    "This opposition deputy led an auto theft gang", "this journalist served as a foreign agent", "this political party is a terrorist organization", "these protesters usually strip naked to ask for attention"... with such controversial edits it shouldn't be a surprise that the changes are contested, and cleanup tags have been the only way to prevent edit wars. Case in point, WMrapids violated the 3RR a few days ago at the Guarimba article (4 5 6 7), until I warned them about it. These issues have been broughts up at ANI and the NPOV noticeboard, but remained unanswered: ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking), WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda, WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition and WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba. If I challenge the edits, then it seems that it is "POV-pushing", but if I don't and raise the objection with a tag, then it is "driveby tagging". Either way, any criticism apparently is disruptive editing and the only satisfactory response is not to interfere at all. In other words, the message seems to be: "Do not disagree with me".
    This pointy and contrarian attitude has been ongoing for eight months now, as I will point out later, and it is unbearable. While in the previous thread the editor vaguely accused me of driving away editors, I have pointed out to editors saying that they have unwatched articles because of WMrapids' editing (8), becoming so stressful that it even gives head and stomach aches (9) (and I can say that it has been definitely been very stressful for me too). The bludgeoning against editors that have disagreed with them is common (10 11 12 13 14 15), and being the only editor that hasn't abandoned editing because of this is only natural that this ANI is filed against me.
    There are many issues at hand, but I will focus to detail two LTA patterns: filibustering and hounding. During this time, WMrapids has had the habit to bring back or relitigate settled or old article discussions, coincidentally also nearly all of those where I have participated and some with similar positions to those of editor ZiaLater (talk · contribs · logs). Interaction between both users shows a clear overlap in topics about Peru, Venezuela, and Grand Rapids, Michigan (bear these articles in mind when I detail better the hounding examples below). While sockpuppetering by itself is not forbidden, using multiple accounts to game the consensus certainly is. While it has been too long to demonstrate a connection with a checkuser, a duck test should certainly give a clue:
    Regardless of the original user, those are not the only examples:
    Other filibustering exampes
    WMrapids has also accusing me of hounding in articles where I have already edited, that are on my watchlist, and sometimes even created, failing to see that this says more about them than it does about me. SandyGeorgia also sums it up very good ("#Followup: intimidation, COI, and BLP concerns"): You claim hounding above, based on me editing articles after you that I've edited for almost two decades, and in one case, you even claimed that based on an article I created. And yet, you fail to mention the times you have clearly hounded my edits, and gone right after me to articles I have always edited and you have never edited. Examples include the following (please note how all of these cases happen after 24 May 2023, when the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article move discussion was closed):
    WP:HOUNDING examples
    If I'm allowed to quote SandyGeorgia one last time, because she has put all this dispute more eloquently than I can:

    I want to make sure it is very clear that if these behaviors continue, you should and can expect a very long list of similar incriminating diffs to show shortly at ANI. By "these behaviors" I mean, BLP breaches, continued harassment, continued misrepresentation of diffs, continued hounding of me to articles I edit, and continued persecution of NoonIcarus along with your busted AGF-ometer which leads to the aforementioned onslaught of aspersions that made me unwatch a page you followed me to. I don't mind cleaning up your POV edits, as that's part of the process, and it's clear you don't yet recognize how deep your POV and your failure to consult best sources are. Please make no mistake that my politeness or patience with you do not mean I am willing to let these serious behaviors go on indefinitely. Yes, a fresh start would be good and I am willing to continue being patient, but my patience is not unlimited. (9 November 2023)
    — User:SandyGeorgia

    I'm truly sorry for the long text, but it was necessary to condense the disruptive behavior. If there's any troublesome behavior that has not changed, it is clearly WMrapids', and at this point probably only administrative intervention will solve this. At the very least, an admonishment should be considered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither editor is doing themselves any favours with wall of text presentations of content disputes.
    BUT: I am also concerned about Noonicarus' edits on Venezuelan and Latin American articles. In particular Noonicarus is terrible at identifying/evaluating sources, and engages in tag-bombing as a first resort. In a recent edit they removed or tagged text cited to peer-reviewed scholarly articles 1, largely because they did not like the information that was sourced to them. Upon doing this they stated: Last but not least, as with other disputed edits, the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected. If we take this at face value, this is a bizarre statement for en experienced editor.
    Similarly, when I suggested that claims from a report commissioned by the OAS, an organisation which has a political position and a recent history of making false statements on politics, should only be included if attributed, their response was: Please see the comments above about addressing the substance instead of the character. In other words, are there facts stated that should be questioned? Why? ... You might also want to take a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
    Noonicarus is a productive editor but their commitment to ensuring their political point of view predominates in Venezuela articles risks them entering an ANI death spiral. What is to be done?
    Boynamedsue(talk) 20:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again

    I haven't edited in this topic area. My involvement was that I began mediating a dispute at DRN over La Salida, a Venezuelan opposition organization, on 18 December 2023. As User:WMrapids noted above, User:Ultranuevo filed a recent previous WP:ANI report here on 5 January. WMrapids then provided a wall of text and proposed a WP:TBAN against User:NoonIcarus with respect to all political articles for at least one year. I failed the DRN because it was pending in another forum. The previous WP:ANI was then archived without action.

    But here were are again. I think that some sanction is needed, or we will continue hearing these conduct disputes between these editors every few weeks. Has anyone reviewed their edits carefully to verify which of them is enough at fault to warrant a topic-ban? Or do we topic-ban them both from articles on Venezuela? Or do we conclude that these are two editors who do not like each other and impose a two-way interaction ban on them? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Interaction ban

    I propose a six-month two-way interaction ban between User:WMrapids and User:NoonIcarus, with only the usual exceptions.

    The discussion is over behaviour not content, and my use of the first person above already makes the fact we have had past contact clear. Since you mention it, you took this to RSN, then when you didn't like the answer you were given you chose to ignore it. Again this shows your problematic behaviour with regards to Venezuelan politics. I don't think this is deliberate, but unfortunately your strong pro-opposition beliefs are pushing you into WP:COMPETENCE territory here if you can't even accept mild suggestions like "attribute this" or accept scholarly articles are valid when you don't like what they say. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Boynamedsue - I see that User:NoonIcarus went to RSN on 22 January and posted an RFC, but the RFC will run until 21 February, and has received very little feedback so far. Is your issue that NoonIcarus asked for comments and then went ahead as if the comments that haven't come in yet agreed with them? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I'm not entirely au fait with the rules of RfC's. I was reading the RSN post as a general request for others input rather than a vote intended to validate their viewpoint. As I read it there is consensus on the talkpage for text they want with attribution, but they seem intent on dragging on discussion on in two forums and making personal attacks as they do it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should provide diffs if you accuse me of personal attacks, Boynamedsue. I posted an RFC based on this constested edit that I made: [56]. I have not reinstated said content afterwards, and I'm not opposed to it being attributed. -- NoonIcarus (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already provided a diff of the personal attack, and that edit is absolutely not the subject of the RfC as there is no link or reference to it on the RfC. An RfC for that edit would be well beyond the scope of RSN. The recent edits on the talkpage only discuss whether the claim that Gaurimba is a pejorative term can be sourced, not the particulars of the above edit which would involve questions of detail, levels of attribution and relevance per WP:DUE.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: Is it possible as an involved user in the dispute to support this? While I feel that reviewing the edits is really important, I think this measure would definitely help with the situation (and is a measure that I would voluntarily agree to). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP from France

    This IP keeps coming back. While most of their edits seem to be genuine some of their edits involves adding false cast members such as retired actress Babita [57]. Here they add three actors that definitely are not in the film: [58].

    This weird behavior first started at Gulabi (1995 film). Upon watching the film, all of the cast members in the film are already in the actor but the IP goes on to add [59] more actors. See Talk:Gulabi (1995 film), where User:Archer1234 has been reverting unsourced edits. It is unclear what their motive is as they are making Wikipedia both reliable and unreliable at the same time.

    A problematic edit is shown here where they add Bengali actor Tarun Kumar Chaterjee to a film he was definitely not in [60].

    The IP should either respond to talk page requests (Archer1234 tried at Gulabi talk page) or stop making false edits. Basically when two people have the same name, IMDb links the popular one even if they didn't appear in the film. I think the IP is sourcing their edits from a database because it is highly unlikely that they have access to every low-key Telugu film.

    Here [61] the IP adds a film more than ten years before the actor debuted. There is no way to verify this since the film is not online. The IP has been using different IP addresses but most of them are similar [62]. DareshMohan (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the lack of communication, the IP does not appear to source any of their edits. And they often (always?) forget to italicize film titles.
    These are the IPv6 ranges from which I have seen them operate actively:
    Plus this IP4 range:
    They are very prolific, so it will take a lot of effort to scrutinize their edits to separate the wheat from the chaff. It appears that a block on their ranges would have little to no collateral damage.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some edits cross into Bangladeshi cinema and bring to mind sock Symon Sadik.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another 19 edits today at 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B. None are explained. Some are correcting errors (good), but many are introducing new claims with no sourcing. Here's one of the unsourced ones adding a film to an actor's filmography: [63] (note, as usual, they do not italicize the film name). Still no communication. Can we get a block with the purpose of encouraging them to discuss our concerns with their edits?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now they have also jumped over to 81.65.93.69. Same MO: unsourced additions to filmographies and film cast lists. All of the IPs used (IPv6 and IPv4) center around the same metropolitan area.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Archer1234: I don't think they understand the fact that 2 people can have the same name and 1 of them isn't on Wikipedia. Here they added three films to someone who wasn't in the industry till 2006 and here they added a 1990 film to a man who debuted in 2008. DareshMohan (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange editing from Uskudar University

    Both Asmahadad23 and Lenah_aldalati claim to be editing on behalf of Uskudar University [64] [65]. Both have been adding walls of text that appear to only have a single source at the end, and often that source has no bearing on the subject.

    Asmahadad23, on Diagnosis of autism, added a whole paragraph about misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with percentages and reasons and it was referenced by an article about misdiagnosis of hernias in children.[66] Nothing at all to do with ASD. Another paragraph on the same subject was referenced to a paper on "Misdiagnosis and mistreatment of uterine myxoid leiomyosarcoma" which, again, has no bearing on ASD.

    Lenah aldalati, on Nervous system disease, removed sourced material and replaced it with four paragraphs that had a single reference at the end to an article entitled "Wound infections: an overview" that has nothing to do with nervous system diseases.[67]

    I don't know if this is an actual school project or how many editors may be involved but the edits aren't actually helping the articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is already being discussed at WP:Education noticeboard#Student assignment at Uskudar University editing medical articles. That may be sufficient management for now. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose content disputes are handled on article talk page, unless it’s suspected that the students are acting in bad faith? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's less about the students being in bad faith, and more that they may be told to edit Wikipedia with no guidance, and their grade depends on it, so adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities. The entire education program can wind up here on ANI when it becomes clear there's no real mentorship going on, and whatever program it is needs reined in.
    Otherwise, normal content disputes should be handled on the article talk, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “So adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities” I can’t agree with this assumption. If they don’t adhere to the rules, their edits will get reverted and they may even be blocked, how can they get good grades? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In no way is it Wikipedia's responsibility to determine what grades the students get. And we cannot let our content suffer out of concern for that. It's the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the students understand what the rules here are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the sentence you wrote, but would like to modify it. If we're talking about responsibility,
    It's the ___'s responsibility to make sure that the old Wikipedia users understand what the rules (WP:CIVIL, WikiBullying, etc.) here are.
    It's ___'s (and old users) responsibility to make sure that the new Wikipedia users understand what the rules here are. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly dislike the sentences you wrote, not because I disagree with the need for mutual responsibility and respect, but because you seem to be naive about how these things really play out here. But how about we say that it's your responsibility to clean up after the student edits here? I suspect that once you go through that, you'll change your tune. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentences I wrote were based on the sentence you wrote ... I don’t know whether I should (strongly) like or dislike your description of me as “seem to be naive”. Perhaps I’d better view it as a compliment? After all it’s really not easy to stay naive after one has seen or got involved in all those not-so-pleasant discussions and users’ interactions here at Wikipedia (e.g., [68] [69]). I don’t think it’s anyone’s “responsibilities” to do any clean up (and whether “clean up” is needed can also be very subjective, and sometimes it’s actually content disputes between editors who disagree). I’m not sure if I should change *my tune* ([70]). IMO the discussions have gone somewhat too long and scattered, and are difficult to follow. Maybe it’s time for me to move on.. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC); 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don’t think I see any student violating the rules *deliberately*. All I see is, *no one* bothers to tell them the rules.
    They might have completed the “ Wikipedia training modules”, I don’t know much and can’t comment on that. Anyway, I believe medical editors can do a better job to guide our new comers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC); 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the big problems with student editing in general. They're often given requirements by the instructor that do not match those of Wikipedia. (In this case the instructor has apparently told them that anything and everything they find on PubMed is usable, which is clearly wrong). When they get told otherwise they stick with the person who is grading them. And no one should blame them personally for this - they are being put into an impossible situation, where their grade depends not only on their own work and their instructor's beliefs, but on the actions of third parties (that is, every other Wikipedia editor). MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah... I don’t think the instructor is suggesting that *everything* in Pubmed is usable. If the instructor really *do* think so, I think it’s time for us to review our wording in WP:MEDRS to see why it gives users such an impression. Again, all these don’t belong to ANI IMO. I don’t see there are any conflicts between getting good grades and making great contributions to Wikipedia.
    Agreed that no one should be blamed personally. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, I believe our usual practices to safeguard the accuracy of our content are still essential. There are absolutely times that reverts are needed. Just that I think students shouldn’t be labelled as more problematic than other new users. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a side-effect of having seen this happen repeatedly with poorly run education projects (aka the "Ah, shit, here we go again" phenomenon). It happens often enough that people immediately bristle when a cluster of students start editing against policy, because they know it's going to be a mess to fix & the educator likely won't have their backs.
    It's well and good to not WP:BITE the newbies. It's incredibly frustrating when this keeps happening because of a project that has no controls & no recourse for correcting the inherent problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily “poorly run education projects”, it’s probably about “how good Wikipedia is run” (by us?).
    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's definitely poorly run education projects. If they were well run, it would nip a lot of this in the bud before it became a problem, or at least the educators would be the ones cleaning up the messes. Instead, it's left to us. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see much evidence in the problem or “messes” you mentioned. Perhaps you mean these problems of Wikipedia? E.g.,
    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking a bit, it looks like Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts is a pretty good help sheet (notably discussing WP:MEDRS) that could deserve to be linked somewhere. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructor is Flower of truth. I will also notify her, on her talk page, of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThaddeusSholto, if you're talking about the second source cited in that diff, which talks about "functional neurological disorders" instead of saying "autism", then you might be interested in PMID 35511383, "Clinical overlap between functional neurological disorders and autism spectrum disorders: a preliminary study".
    I agree that some of these are not relevant sources, but we also know that anyone can accidentally paste the wrong thing in the wrong place. I hope that someone added the {{failed verification}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: The second source in that diff is "Misdiagnosis of scrotal and retroperitoneal lymphangioma in children" and I don't see where it mentions "functional neurological disorders" anywhere in the text.
    If you mean the first source added, "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", that reference is about misdiagnosing autoimmune encephalitis not misdiagnosing ASD as the text Asmahadad23 added would lead one to believe. The only mention of "functional neurological disorders" in that source lists it as a correct diagnosis instead of the incorrect diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis, so again it is not about "The misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in neurodevelopmentally typical children" as Asmahadad23 claimed in their edit. They are using references that don't say what they claim they say. That isn't a mere failed verification it is borderline vandalism. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", which says that AEM in adults is sometimes diagnosed when FND (which can include autism) should have been.
    Wikipedia:Vandalism is intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. Trying to make things better but screwing up completely is not vandalism, and neither is pasting the wrong source into the wrong place.
    Misdiagnosis is a significant problem in ASD, and while these sources don't verify the statements made, the fix that's needed is primarily pasting the right sources in, rather than removing the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FND isn't autism, it's medically unexplained neurological symptoms. Secretlondon (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper I linked suggests that the division may not be quite as clean as that, and the context in which the FND paper was cited was about misdiagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shutting it down?

    As others have observed, this keeps happening. Is there a way the English Wikipedia could suspend support for these student assignments (at least in the medical area), as they seem to be a net negative for the Project as currently set up? Bon courage (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The English Wikipedia doesn't "support" these student assignments, so we can stop what we're already not doing.
    We could incentivize students to hide the fact that they're engaged in classroom-based assignments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s a “net negative” to the project. We are talking about around 27 postgraduates here. I didn’t review their edits one by one. I see none of the more positive contributions are being mentioned in all 3 discussions.
    People tend to focus on problems. Further, whether an edit is a “positive contribution” can be quite subjective, for example formatting or prose problems maybe viewed by some as very negative, while others may think they’re just minor issues that can be fixed.
    As for “this keeps happening”, as I’ve said in the other discussion, I believe Wikipedia has its responsibilities as well. Very often users are not well-informed, but they are *supposed* to know what they are *not* told. And it seems to me that many of us are accustomed to using warnings (and reverts) as the very first and only means to “communicate” with our new users.
    IMO if new users are more well-informed at the very beginning, much less problems and cleanup will be needed. (E.g. if someone never knows a rule but we keep saying that she/he is violating the rule, of course there will be much conflicts). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also:
    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dustfreeworld, I have worked in the administrative part of the education sector for much of my life. To me, this seems as though it would fall under the same general guidelines as any class excursion - the instructor must understand the rules and regulations of the place they're going, and must inform the students before arrival. For example, say the class had gone to sit in a courtroom for a day - the instructor would have told them what they should and should not wear, how to behave, what they were allowed to bring and what was prohibited, and so on. If members of the class kept misbehaving, the whole class may well be removed from the courtroom.
    It's true that Wikipedia has many rules and restrictions, but the students should at least be prepared with information about reliable sources, how to cite sources, and how to manage disagreement (even if that was 'simply step back from the discussion') if they were instructed to edit articles. Links to the Teahouse and relevant project pages would, in my opinion, also be vital tools. I note that Flower of truth got a welcome template about a year ago, and that they have been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years with what seems like enjoyment and competence, so the students have an instructor who appears to know what they're doing - this might sound like an obvious thing but you would be amazed at how many instructors tell students to go do something they've never done and just thought was a brilliant idea one day.
    Our ability to reach out and support instructors is limited given that often we only discover students are working on assignments once disruption begins, and by that time editors who are having to do extra work are already getting a bit annoyed. They are not seeing students who have multiple assignments and classes, students who are not *volunteering* to edit Wikipedia like everyone else. They are seeing new editors who can and should take the time to learn about the Wiki before making their first edits.
    I wonder whether it would be feasible to add a line to welcome templates that basically said 'are you a student or teacher? click here for resources' - or set up a different welcome template entirely to be given to apparent students/instructors. If that seems helpful, I'd definitely be very much interested in being part of the discussion around what should be there!
    And a final thought - it seems that some instructors/classes return more than once. Perhaps a less disruptive assignment option that might still cover what the instructors are looking for would be 'pick a Wiki article(s?) and write a paper demonstrating how you would improve them, including citing sources'. That is what the students are doing, in any case, and if they are not actually making the edits there would be no disruption. That would hopefully decrease the anxiety some students feel when their work is reverted - how can they show they've completed the assignment when what they did was taken away again?! Anxious people can become irrational when confronted with a fear - I'm one of them, but at least I can walk away from Wikipedia without worrying about my grades! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @StartGrammarTime, I agree with you that classes need more support. As to welcome templates, yes we have many of them here and some are custom made. Ah ... your suggestion on how to manage disagreement (“simply step back from the discussion”) can sometimes be seen as “not engaging” (see below) ... I think your suggestions on how to improve course support are in line with my comments at the other two discussions, which I’ve highlighted above. You may want to continue the discussion there. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the only way to literally shut it down would be through some sort of ban (either of individual class projects, or of all of them). But the reality is that class projects are sometimes strong positives, so I don't think that we should do anything like that. Instead, the real problem is when, in a subset of class projects, we get instructors who do not engage responsibly with how to run a class on Wikipedia. For classes within the geographic remit of Wiki-Ed, the Wiki-Ed staff do an excellent (and underappreciated) job of making things work well. Here, however, the class is from Turkey, where WikiEd has no "jurisdiction". Perhaps WMF should change that. But as I've said at the Ed Noticeboard, our first step should be to try to get the instructor of this class to work with us. If that effort is rebuffed, then that will actually become an ANI issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish, agree with you that class projects are sometimes strong positives. As noted by StartGrammarTime above, instructor of this class knows what they're doing, and IMO they’ve been working with us (for years I would say). You may want to join the other two discussions I’ve highlighted above to discuss further on how to aid our newcomers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep replying to me like I'm someone who doesn't get it, and should take more of an interest in these things from the perspective of helping student editors. I'm the primary author of WP:ASSIGN, and have been working on these issues at Wikipedia for well over a decade. I'm also a retired university professor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your long-term contribution to Wikipedia. I’m just replying to those who replied to me ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t like (non-voluntary) student editing either, I think it’s a crapshoot at best. Maybe we need to keep track of how many Wiki-Ed assignments actually result in appropriate encyclopedic content and how many result in uncited, amateurish student essays being dumped on Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST? If it’s even a plurality of the latter category we need to do something to dissuade inexperienced educators from inadvertently disrupting Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the Wiki Education Foundation only supports classes in the US and Canada (e.g., not Turkey). Also, being supported by an organization is not required. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes not only teenagers and retirees; it also includes students and teachers.
    I think the proper comparison is against other newbies. Would you rather have an edit by a student with a textbook in hand and a teacher standing over his shoulder, or by a random kid? We see far less vandalism and self-promotion from class assignments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Banner keeps harassing me

    It started somewhere in 2023. I don't know why, but The Banner keeps harassing me. He accuses me of breaking the rules. He keeps undoing my edits. Sometimes even without giving any reasons whatsoever. And now he threatens me with losing editing privileges. I don't know if he even is admin or not. He knows I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia so he just bullies me and do whatever he wants, without giving any explanation. In July [[74]], he again accused me of bad behaviour, but when I confronted him with the truth, he just stopped replying on my talk page. And now, he keeps accusing me of pushing point of view. But the reality is, HE is doing this, not me. Let me explain: There is a legal dispute between football clubs FCSB and CSA Steaua Bucuresti. It spans many years, court-cases and even articles on Wikipedia. As a side note, FCSB used to be named "Football Club Steaua Bucuresti", but lost this name in favour of CSA Steaua. FCSB was stripped of the "Steaua" brand and deemed to never had the rights to legally use the "Steaua" name. It's a fact acknowledged by Wikipedia for years. So obviously, I tried to redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&redirect=no from FCSB to FC Steaua București records dispute as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&action=history. He doesn't approve. How I am pushing for CSA Steaua point of view (like he accuses me), when my edit is focused on the neutral article regarding the "Steaua vs FCSB" dispute? He wants it to redirect towards FCSB, which is clearly intellectual property theft. I also tried to redirect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:UEFA_Champions_League_winners&action=history. Again, it's the wrong name and the record is disputed. It's a well known fact. I only tried to redirect it to the article regarding the dispute. He is accusing me [[75]] of pushing Steaua's point of view (and VANDALISM?!) while, in fact, he pushes FCSB's point of view and encourage intellectual property infringement on Wikipedia. Why, I don't know. I always tried to respect the rules, to give sources and to explain my edits. But I don't have the time or the energy to keep arguing with him or be subjugated under abuse. Please do something about this. Dante4786 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I get you think you're right. But you don't get to accuse another editor of intellectual property theft because they dispute the change you want to make. It's not property infringement for us to use that redirect to the club. The rest of this is primarily a content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about him disputing the change I want to make. It's about intellectual property theft because FCSB can't use or be associated in any way with the "Steaua" name. It's like stating on Wikipedia x is innocent when he is fact convicted in real life. It doesn't reflect reality and it encourages (not is, per se) intellectual property infringement. Also, it just isn't a neutral aproach to push the FCSB-POV. CSA Steaua literally fought in court for FCSB to be stripped down of that name. Shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge the outcome? Why push forward an edit that is confusing and that violates the rights of CSA Steaua? One team has the right to use the name, the other doesn't. At least redirect the page to the article about the dispute. Also, AFC Steaua (Asociatia Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti) is arguably a different team, that also used the ,,Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti" name between 1998-2003. Dante4786 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is harassing anybody here it is you, User:Dante4786, accusing those who disagree with you of intellectual property theft in what appears to be attempt to dictate content. These sorts of accusations have a distinct chilling effect and verge on legal threats.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am only stating what the Romanian law is stating. https://www-economica-net.translate.goog/clubul-patronat-de-gigi-becali-nu-mai-are-voie-sa-foloseasca-numele-steaua_130606.html?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp. I am not accussing, I am explaining why this sort of edit can't stay as it is. I am explaining my reasoning. And third parties are also obliged to comply with court decisions. I am also asking you, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Dante4786 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:No legal threats is a good page if you want to have a read. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but there is no need. I don't work for either entities, I couldn't sue even if wanted to :) I'm just explaining my reasoning about a LEGAL debate. Dante4786 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, sorry for the confusion! It's always better to make it clear as it could've been misinterpreted that way ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a long discussion about to clean up the confusion around Steaua București, resulting in FC Steaua București records dispute as a compromise. Dante4786 did not take part in that discussion. After a break, he immediately starting objecting against the consensus. To the point he started changing a template to his own wishes without any prior discussion (here and later again (again reverted but not by me). Dante demands that I explain why I revert his unexplained changes. I see no need for that with unexplained edits. In my humble opinion, the edit in the template is vandalism, or at least POV-pushing. The second edit on the template (that I did not see earlier), came with a curious legalese summary: Wrong name for FCSB. And the record is disputed. Wikipedia doesn't encourage intellectual property infringement. The same demand for explanation came for this unexplained edit. Maybe I am too harsh, but breaking open the long discussion to reach consensus in tough to witness.
    @Scolaire:
    The Banner talk 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I am in favor of there being an article about FC Steaua București records dispute. From my understanding, somebody proposed for the page to be merged with FCSB and I wrote on the talk page that I disagree. Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate. How is this any fair? @Scolaire: challenged my position in a fair manner and I responded with PLENTY of sources. I replied with 3 pretty big paragraphs, arguing against all his point, not letting anything behind. You, on the other hand, started acussing me directly from the get-go and undid my edits even AFTER I gave my reasoning. Like I said, I was triyng to edit something that was a clearly known fact. You undid my edit, I edit it back, gave my reasoning and YOU UNDID IT AGAIN. So it doesn't matter to you if my edit was explained or not. You decided from the start that I was wrong and nothing that I can say could change your mind. And when I reported the unfair treatment on my talk page and your talk page, you ignored me. Only after I said I will report you, you gave a pseudo-explanation. Dante4786 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had never seen your threat of bringing me to AN/I until I got the notice of it. The Banner talk 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit, I had overlook that threat. And I even overlook your comment You are pushing point of view and you encourage intellectual property infringement. on my talk page. A second time that I see that legalese argument. The Banner talk 22:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again! The process is usually "bold edit → revert → discuss". If someone reverts your edit, instead of editing it back with your reasoning, the best course of action is to write your reasoning on the talk page, and then wait for other editors to give their opinion (otherwise there's a risk for it to end in edit warring). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaotic Enby: Ok, thank you for the suggestion, but the problem is, he already ignored my reasoning, when I tried to edit the second time. And it isn't the first time he read my position on the subject and replied with false accusation, only to stop all together when I challenged him with valid counterarguments https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dante4786&oldid=1167705437 As you can clearly see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute&oldid=1199302981, I am willing to discuss with other editors. But if he ignores me and nobody else replies, should his incorrect edit stay for ever? This is why I reported it here, for a 3rd party to see. I don't want to argue with anybody, I tried to ignore and forget (since July), but what's the point when he does the same thing again? It's tiresome to have a dialogue with somebody who doesn't really want to listen. And I do like Wikipedia, that's why it bothers me when he insists with something which is misleading. Dante4786 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a new one, I've never seen anybody interpret a disagreement over a redirect on Wikipedia as theft. I've left the OP a warning for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said on my talk page, I'm only defending myself. I reported an abuse. And please explain how can I present my point of view regarding a LEGAL dispute (Steaua vs FCSB), without using LEGAL reasons??? The SUBJECT involved is ABOUT intellectual property. One party stole (the name) from the other party. It was never my threat, it was never A threat. Like I said before, I don't work for the entities involved, I CAN'T sue even if I wanted to. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never threated with legal actions. I only explained how articles on Wikipedia shouldn't break the legal rights of other entities. Again, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Please explain how any of this is an attack. I literally commented on the content, on the use of "FC Steaua Bucuresti" regarding a team who is forbidden by the law to be associated with that name. It's literally a fact, it isn't my opinion, it isn't an attack on any editor. I gave sources (and until now, no one challenged them), I explained my position with plenty of details, what more can I do? I am blamed of pushing a POV by somebody who actually is at fault of this. Dante4786 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't a court where such things are adjudicated. I think some muddled language concerning the naming dispute may be an issue here, but ANI is not where this can be resolved. Take it up on the relevant talkpage, and be extremely careful to frame any argument around sources, not what you perceive other editors to be doing. Your comments up until now give the impression that you are blaming other Wikipedia editors, or are accusing them of harassment for disagreeing or not understanding what you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Acroterion: No, Wikipedia isn't a judge. But Wikipedia does try to reflect reality and current affairs. Am I wrong? Yes, English is not my native language, sorry about that. But please, answer me this. If x person is convicted in real life, can an article on Wikipedia state the contrary, that he is innocent? That is the equivalent of what I am trying to express. The current redirect doesn't reflect the present and, besides this, is also confusing and misleading. Because the subject is complex, I tried to make a redirect towards the article which is focused on the dispute between A and B. I didn't try to push for either A or B. But I am accused of being unfair. And when the false accusations persist, when my edits are undone without justification, even after I explained myself, when my questions are ignored and I receive only threats of being banned and so forth, am I not even slightly entitled to feel harassed? I literally gave sources and nobody challenged them. Should I just wait and let the article spread misinformation? I apologise if this wasn't the correct place to report the abuse. Like I said, I do try to respect the rules but I don't know the the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Dante4786 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia isn't an offense, but accusing people of not following a farfetched, tortured interpretation of a lawsuit that we're not a party to, in a court that has no jurisdiction here, in order to to further a result not in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, certainly is.
    Playing fake internet lawyer is not an exception to WP:AGF and you're skirting on the very edge of WP:NLT. Just because *you* don't have the ability to personally engage in a lawsuit doesn't allow you to use legalese as a threat to attempt to shut down another editor's ability to post or skirt Wikipedia's consensus-making apparatus.
    Your best bet would be to apologize, agree to drop the subject, and withdraw the complaint. I would guess that it's your best chance to avoid sanctions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but what farfetched and tortured interpretation of a lawsuit are you talking about? I literally gave sources. Many sources. For you and others to read them. Here, on my talk page and on other talk pages. What more can I do? Nobody is challenging the content of what I am disputing. The redirect points are misleading and I was unfairly treated. And how can I give my reasoning on a LEGAL debate, without using LEGAL reasons? It's not a threat. Again, the whole subject is about intellectual property. A legal dispute between two entities. I don't think the redirect points present the LEGAL dispute in a fair and neutral manner. How can I explain this without providing LEGAL reasons? If the subject is about intellectual property, of course we are going to have to talk about intellectual property infringement. It shouldn't be taboo, it's a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. I don't know how else I can put this. And no, I won't apologize for reporting harassment, which in good faith, I tried to ignore for months. But I do apologize for reporting it, in the wrong place, if that's the case. Dante4786 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't provided *any* valid legal reasons. The court literally ruled that a specific defendant couldn't use plaintiff's intellectual property when connected with their business. That's all. It has nothing to do with anything on Wikipedia.
    What we call entities is determined by consensus from reliable sources and our policies, not an extremely tenuous interpretation of a court case that, even if accurate (which I highly doubt), would have zero effect on us as there's no jurisdiction here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide valid legal reasons. And here's another one: Full Faith and Credit Clause. And in European countries, principles of legal enforceability and judicial authority underpin the obligation for third parties to respect court decisions. I gave sources and I explained my reasoning. I can't contradict you when you don't give counterarguments. You just state "no, you didn't". I also explained from a non-legal point of view, explaining how the current redirect points spread misinformation and more confusion and contradicts other articles on Wikipedia. And to reiterate, both in EU and in USA (and in pretty much every civilized country), 3rd parties are obliged to respect the decision of the court and the intellectual property and rights of other entities. To explain this with a more recent case (it's not the same thing, but maybe this makes it easier to undertand): some gave developer released a new videogame. Everybody describes it in an informal context as "Pokemon with guns", but it's not a Pokemon game. The game developer doesn't use these words and neither do Steam, Sony, Microsoft and so forth. They, as a 3rd party, have to respect the rights of the real owner. And even YouTubers hesitate to show a patch for the game (a patch that install pokemons), because it violates the rights of the real owner of the brand. Unfortunately, you already stated that you doubt what I'm saying, without further elaborating. You don't assume good faith. And Wikipedia redirect points doesn't reflect the current reality. Another example would be this: On Amber Heard articles, to state that she and her ex-husband DID NOT accused each other of domestic abuse. Or worse, to state that she was NOT found guilty of defaimation. It's not about opinions, it's not a personal interpretation. It's about FACTS. To acknowledge or not the current state of a present legal debate. A debate where there already is a final decision regarding the name. Dante4786 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably consult with an actual lawyer. That's not actually what full faith and credit entails. A CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A trademark prevents others from using a mark in the course of *business*. It does not prevent third parties from referring to a company in a certain way, discussing a company in a certain way, or titling an encyclopedia entry.
    And from your Amber Heard mention, it appear you're also confusing defamation with trademarks, which suggests to me that any more discussion to try to dissuade you from a path in conflict with Wikipedia's ideals is an unproductive use of time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to echo CoffeeCrumbs regarding people playing fake Internet lawyer. The Full Faith and Credit clause impinges on how states in the United States interact with one another. Neither European soccer clubs, nor Wikipedia, nor you have anything to do with it. If this absurdity is indicative of your arguments with The Banner, then we're well into WP:BOOMERANG territory, and your best bet is to quit while you're behind. Ravenswing 01:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no. You misunderstood why I mentioned The Full Faith and Credit. The point was to show how 3rd parties are still obliged to respect court documents, even though they weren't actually involved in the case. And to further elaborate my arguments, I brought up how things are done in European countries (since it's a subject which I am more familiar to and is actualy related to the case we are discussing). Please ping me, @CoffeeCrumbs: and @Ravenswing: so I won't miss your response. And no, I wasn't trying to compare defamation with trademarks. Come on guys, actually read what I'm writing. I was giving a hypothetical example, to show how Wikipedia would look if it didn't reflect the verdict of that case. As in "x is stated to be right on Wikipedia, when in reality x was demosntrated to be wrong in court". That sort of thing. Everybody says I shouldn't give legal arguments in a legal dispute but I when I try to give an analogy, it's somehow also a bad thing. Dante4786 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument is nonsense. It is illegal to write about the "Tank man" of Tiananmen Square in China. You'll note that we still have an article about it. We do not give preference to laws or 'court documents' from other jurisdictions. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't even give preference over consensus to laws or 'court documents' from our own jurisdiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects point to whichever target the reader that types that title is more likely to be looking for. You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for. If legal issues arise from what Wikipedia editors do using their best judgement, legal department of the WMF will handle it. That's where the legal arguments should be directed. Where exactly is the problem with your approach? It is here: Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? We can't worry about that stuff with every edit. There are established matters where we take legality into account, copyright violations for example. At other times, we do what's right, irrespective of whether or not it's legal in a certain jurisdiction. It only matters whether it is legal in the US most of the time. I am sure there are many state parties that would consider some of Wikipedia's coverage of religion, sexuality, national policies and international disputes as illegal. But they can't touch Wikipedia because it is under US jurisdiction. So, they block Wikipedia in their countries. They may prosecute editors in their own country if they identify them. That is why editors are advised to take such personal risks into account when contributing. It's bad enough without having people come into discussions talking legalese. We as a community have decided that we won't have it. Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments or don't edit here and persue legal dispute with the WMF.
    You are making legal threats. Admins are being nice to you by trying to explain instead of blocking you. Either drop that stuff, or go to WMF legal with your concerns. We will consider taking legality into consideration if and when WMF legal advises that we do so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for." Exactly! Thank you! That's what I was trying to explain, until people got focused on the intellectual property infringement part. Like I said, the subject is clearly very complex and confusing, especially for foreign readers. I believe this discussion here proves my point even further. That's why I'm asking for the redirect points to be towards the article focused on the dispute. In this way, the redirect points will be helpful and people will read by themselves and chose which side to believe. Currently, the redirect points encourage FCSB's point of view and are not consistent with the articles on Wikipedia. I'm asking for the redirect to be neutral and not push the POV of either parties, FCSB or Steaua, but towards the article focused on the dispute. "Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments" This is literally not possible. How can somebody explain their reasoning about a LEGAL dispute, without giving LEGAL arguments? And please stop interpreting dialogue as a threat. It was never the case. LEGAL arguments are a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you can't figure out how to do something does not mean it's impossible. Read WP:REDIRECT. Then try to formulate your argument wholly on the basis of its guidance. If you succeed, start a talk page discussion (then, there's WP:RFD). If you find you can't make that case, edit something else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So your suggestion is basically to not explain my reasoning about a legal dispute. You can not formulate your arguments without diving in legal terms. You can't talk about physics without using a specific terminology, you can't talk about biology without using arguments which arise from biology and so forth. You can't answer "how to put out a fire" without actually explaining how to put out a fire. Dante4786 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can describe the dispute in an encyclopedic way with legal terminology, but not use this legal terminology as arguments about what to write about. It's a use-mention distinction, in the same way as you can use biological terms to talk about biology, but not argue that's it's biologically impossible to write the article. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion is that you cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and you were not hired to represent a party in a lawsuit. If you cannot sway consensus for your view, then the thing to do is lose gracefully and walk away. Ravenswing 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "You can describe the dispute" But we weren't talking about "describing". "To describe" and "to give arguments in favor or against" a point of view is not the same thing. What's more, you moved the discussion completely from the content/subject and took it towards the semantics. "cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about" Huh? What exactly are you accusing me here? "Wikipedia is not a courtroom" I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I acknowledged the fact Wikipedia can't solve legal dispute. But that's the thing, IT'S ALREADY SOLVED IN REAL LIFE. My whole point was that the redirect points are misleading, since they do not reflect the current state of affairs regarding a SOLVED legal dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's solved in real life.
    That solution has nothing to do with how we reach consensus. An *American* court has no power to compel speech from us in this context, let alone a Romanian one. Somehow, you have reached this idea that because a Romanian court has recognized that a particular entity possesses the right to use specific trademarks, that it now compels private entities to tailor their speech in a manner consistent with that. It doesn't. If we reached a very odd consensus, we could redirect FC Steaua Bucuresti to the entry for Burger King or Santa Claus or Henry VIII of England.
    If you had attempted to do so, you may have been able to craft a convincing argument that your preferred usage of FC Steaua Bucuresti is superior, swaying enough people into changing consensus. Instead, you're trying to browbeat editors using a court case that has no jurisdiction over any of the issues discussed here while misusing legal terms such as "full faith and credit."
    No admin has yet taken any actions on this issue. This would be the best time for you to apologize, drop the stick, and agree to not cite court cases that have no jurisdiction over our process of reaching consensus as reasons we *must* conform to your wishes. Sanctions are *preventative*, not *punitive* and if you made a good faith effort here to avoid these behaviors in the future, I'd wager basically most admins would consider this manner closed for the time being. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through @Dante4786's history on the subject is quite enlightening and frustrating. Not only have they been accusing @The Banner of vandalism, but they have been doing this for some time, sweeping for every mention of their preferred name for this football team, making changes, and calling each one "undoing vandalism" amounting to dozens and dozens of edits.
    This is clearly a long-term pattern of ignoring WP:AGF rather than a single incident of aggressively accusing another of vandalism. While I feel the filer should still be indefinitely blocked until they agree to drop the faux-legal accusations against people, there's a strong case here for a topic ban on FC Steaua București (the problems seem limited to this topic rather than the wider topic of Romanian football clubs or football clubs generally). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a topic ban from FC Steaua București. Unfortunately the behavior of this editor has muddied the waters to such an extent that even if The Banner has harassed them its not apparent. If either the legal threats or alleged harassment occur on other topics after then we can address it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I can't respond to generalities. I have nothing to hide. In proof of this, I sometimes (like now) involved third parties, just to solve an issue and prevent from being called bias. Like getting a page protection from REAL vandalism. Also, keep in mind, the legal dispute of Steaua vs FCSB has a long history, with many updates along the line. I tried to reflect this in my edits AND GAVE SOURCES whenever I was questioned. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute After the neutral FC Steaua București records dispute page appeared (and somewhat put together in an attentive manner by other editors), I concentraded my redirects towards this page. And again, I do not threaten the editors with legal actions, stop putting words in my mouth, it's not nice. I was demonstrating how some edits on Wikipedia don't reflect real life affairs. Dante4786 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Third parties as in alternate accounts? The Banner talk 15:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again with the harassment. Didn't you report me for this (or was somebody else?) and it turned out I was falsely accused and this is my only account? WHICH IT REALLY IS! But don't let me stop you. Search again, search my IP, search whatever you want, do all the necessary checks, I have nothing to hide, this is my only account. Dante4786 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I ask you a question, and that is straight harassment again?
    And yes, I once filed an SPI against you due to the massive sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on the Steaua-articles. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goalandgoal/Archive. You were cleared, the real sockpuppets were hammered. The other SPI against you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante4786/Archive was not of my hand. The Banner talk 15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not asking, you are subtly accusing. Big difference. And you keep accusing, even AFTER I was verified and cleared of the accusations. But like I said, don't let me stop you, please report me again. I have nothing to hide and you just proved my point. Dante4786 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You tried to prove your point by bullying me over an SPI from 2021. And when I look at this edit, I do not see any AGF or will to compromise or reason. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, that post was a reply to me; I found it reasonable, and I felt it assumed good faith. Not showing an inclination to compromise, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we can't reach a compromise after further discussion. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hours and several posts later, I no longer find Dante reasonable, and it is plain he is not interested in compromise. I agree he should be blocked and/or topic-banned. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a will to compromise? What are you talking about? How can you lie like this? This is me asking for the middle ground. My opinion on the subject (as stated there) is this: ,,It was never valid and it was never about a separation. But I do admit, people did, at some point, think this was the case. So, for the moment, the middle ground would be to write about the separation, but to describe it only as an allegation." If I wasn't willing to compromise, I would have asked for the entire subject to be erased. Dante4786 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I am accused of harassing anyway, per his argument You are not asking, you are subtly accusing, I think that Wikipedia is indeed best served by a topic ban for Dante4786 on Steaua-related articles. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, after falsely reporting me for having multiple accounts (something you have admitted to), you straight up ask for censorship. Well done, mate! You could at least stop with the victim blaming. Let's not forget, you started this by accusing me. How much more do I have to defend myself until you stop with the sockpuppetry accusation? REPEATED and INVALID accusations constitute harassment. You are literally wasting my time. Dante4786 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up. What you do is plain harassing me. The Banner talk 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the direction this thread has taken but I don't blame anyone in specific, not even User:Dante4786 and certainly not User:The Banner. First, we're in the wrong forum. I'm wondering why this conversation isn't taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion, for example. Nobody in this discussion has made that suggestion. Am I incorrect? Next, it appears to me Dante4786 is having significant difficulty being understood correctly in English, and they've confessed the language issues have been part of the problem. I'm seeing a bunch of conflation issues which might be approached with different wording satisfactory to all. Because Dante4786 is the OP and because they raised behavioral issues, we're here now so we should try to solve this. ANI is a bad venue in which to give behavioral assessments unless a contributor is willing to bring diffs and Dante4786 doesn't have that experience. IMHO, this thread has amplified the problem instead of solving it (because we're not dealing with diffs or sources, this all comes across as personal disagreement, and not a redirect for discussion). I'm inclined to suggest to Dante4786 that they take an apologetic tone here, and then start a RfD. Several editors here are capable of helping Dante4786. I'm of the opinion that if The Banner (or another editor) were to assist Dante4786 neutrally in creating that appropriate discussion, this thread would be unnecessary. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you are incorrect. The problem is not the redirect, the problem is Steaua București and the mess around ownership of the club, a split, renaming, reforming of the split off and countless court cases. The fact that even the court cases are not consistent, makes it even more difficult. In the past numerous a whole bunch of sockpuppets and aggressive IPs were disrupting discussions. The Banner talk 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do think the entire Steaua București subject matter must be frustrating to edit, for all the reasons described. And Dante4786 certainly is responsible for their own edits, whatever they may be. Their unfortunate habit of personalizing discussion does not play especially well at ANI. I don't think they mean other editors ill, or even intend to personalize. When Dante4786 says "intellectual property infringement", I believe they are speaking of the limitation already imposed on FCSB (the result of such changes via court judgement), and not an accusation of any wikipedian. Without speaking ill, there's a lot of unnecessary heat involved with this discussion and most of it comes from the OP, despite their good-faith intention. That's my reading. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree in part that mentorship ought to be part of a solution that preserves the filer as a contributor, but I do really think that a topic ban is a minimum; this is a very specific topic that's a long-term issue for this editor, with a massive chunk of their preferred name changes, going back years now, labeled as vandalism by them. The best place to demonstrate they understand that verifiability and consensus are key issues, I feel, would be in a topic in which they don't appear to be so invested. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, you are incorrect[FBDB]. I suggested that they try to formulate an argument for their position adhering to WP:REDIRECT and not invoking irl legality, and if they succeed, put forth that argument first on the talk page, and failing that at RFD. They replied that it was "literally impossible" for them to make that case without making legal arguments. Now, as long as they stick with their positions that (a) it's impossible to have a Wikipedia discussion without bringing in Law and (b) The Banner has been harrassing them, we are at an impasse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When the article's subject matter is legal dispute (as is the case here), Dante4786 reasonably asserts it's impossible to discuss without using "legal" vocabulary. It's hard to disagree that Dante4786 appears disruptive, but I don't believe that's their intention. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not tell them they couldn't use legal vocabulary or allude to the legal dispute. I specifically highlighted one aspect of their argument, that Wikipedia was violating legal rights of an entity by having a redirect point to a certain target, and told them that was a no-go. They've been completely unable to grasp the distinction between discussing the legal dispute academically and arguing an irl "Club [X] v Wikipedia" case that they've conjured up.
      I can envision a proper RFD on the dispute on the basis of correct name vs common name, or "information you're looking for" vs "information that best serves you" or their argument above about WP:NPOV. But I think you're failing to appreciate that there is absolutely no way to have a productive discussion, while they are not getting it. I could start a procedural RFD with weakass arguments that I don't really care for but then they are likely to swoop in and flood it with their arguments involving irl legality and we'd have the same mess over there. It's them that cares about the redirect's target. The only viable solution is for them to somehow begin to grasp why they need to and how they can adhere to WP:REDIRECT and skirt WP:NLT. I have not seen any post from them that gives me the confidence that they have come to understand that. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article in question temporarily goldlocked by The Wordsmith. Ravenswing 01:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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



    This is nominally a dispute over flag icons and MOS:NONSOVEREIGN but involves a highly contentious topic under sanctions and is right on the threshold of editwarring.

    • [76] flag icon removed 20 Jan
    • [77] reinserted 23 Jan
    • [78] removed 25 Jan
    • [79] reinserted 25 Jan
    • [80] removed 26 Jan
    • [81] reinserted 26 Jan
    • [82] removed 26 Jan (mine)

    The concern is that only two editors are using the discussion on the article's talkpage, which was begun in good faith on 26 Jan by one of the editors in the diffs above, to try to resolve this peacefully. Disclosure: one of the diffs is mine, made before I realized how significant this situation has become. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've full-protected the article for a few days to give a chance for discussion to take place. If edit warring resumes, please file a request at WP:AE. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2603:8000:9F0:8370::0/64 is evading a block of Kaaren Ragland and is continuing with similar legal threats. The account also admits to COI and block evasion. The edit summaries include additional legal threats. If you look at the edits, it's clearly a WP:DUCK. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another IP from there, probably the same person again, still badgering about Kaaren: Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9F0:8370:C407:21B3:A48:B8E9 JM (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers: I saw you blocked one of the addresses, but they already moved to a different address on the same /64 and have been using other addresses on the same range. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel Quinlan, I did indeed block one of the addresses this morning, but then blocked the /64 a minute or so later (I'd somehow failed to check the 'block the /64 instead' box the first time). What other addresses are you seeing, and where? (asking because I'm not immediately seeing any further activity since the block). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed the subsequent range block (my eyes were deceived by the block strikethrough gadget, which doesn't show range blocks and I very well know that, but maybe I need some caffeine). Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ChatGPT AfD participation

    CU blocked by Blablubbs Star Mississippi 02:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    KarKuZoNga has been making obvious AI-generated comments on AfDs: [83], [84]. When challenged about it, they lie: [85]. Here's an example of their genuine writing, if there was any doubt: [86]. -- asilvering (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If true, why is it an issue? Is there something they are meant to do that they haven't done, like make a note about the AI they used? Obviously it's not easy to verify that anyone's statements accurately reflect their true beliefs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s an issue because their comments are effectively pointless. They seem to just be feeding the discussion to an ai, and saying “generate another comment in the discussion”. The AI just agrees with other users, and badly summarises what other people have said. It doesn’t make a contribution that’s actually based on guidelines for retention of articles, it doesn’t actually go and check sources to see if they’re WP:SIGCOV.
    In several comments, their comments state that several sources are significant coverage, are secondary etc, but the AI is just summarising what other people have stated- Karkuzonga hasn’t actually gone and checked whether they are or not, so the contribution is misleading and unhelpful for the discussion. GraziePrego (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is the problem - like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Cobb Baseball which is effectively just copying another editor's comment with slightly different wording. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wilson (producer), "their" comments even repeats comments made by a SPA editor who clearly has a COI. In the end, since none of these comments contain anything that has originated from KarKuZoNga themselves but effectively plagiarize previous content, none of them add any value to the debates whatsoever. IMO, they should all be struck and the editor cautioned to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what the others have said, and could add other reasons for why AI-generated comments are unacceptable, but I think the most relevant point is that using AI and lying about it is not acting in good faith. We could have a conversation about the use of AI here, but I don't think we need to, since what we already have is an editor who is deliberately trying to mislead other editors at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What if the writing style of the AI matched the writing style of the user? What then? What would be the basis for striking the statements given that things like pointlessness, agreeing with other users or restating their argument in a different way, not adding any value, deliberately trying to mislead/manipulate other editors to get a preferred outcome and not ensuring consistency with policies and guidelines are not unusual? I'm not disagreeing with any proposed courses of action, and I think provably dishonest editors should just be blocked, it's just that this is obviously a can of worms and is likely to become quite common (and undetectable). And it's not great that we will be being better at identifying cases like this involving people whose native language is not English than native speakers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the biggest issue is that you are purporting to release your contribution under CC-BY-SA, implying you own the copyright and can choose to do that. In the US, where WMF is based and where the majority of the wikipedia servers are, that's an open question on several levels, from whether AI output is eligible for copyright at all to whether it constitutes copyright infringement of the data used for training. It's really something we want to avoid being on the forefront of and wait for law to be settled. There's more of the thinking behind that available at the essay Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean.hoyland, this specific argument continues to confound me—just because behavior isn't always identifiable doesn't mean it's acceptable or a fait accompli. It seems totally unacceptable to put forward the impression that I'm talking to a person expressing their actual opinions regarding operation of the site—at least in large part—when I'm not. I don't find simple machine translation or other aids for ESL editors to be comparable to this qualitatively. Are we just meant to discard the pretense that we might expect to be talking to other human beings online? — Remsense诉 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Remsense: I find the whole issue confounding. To clarify, I'm not saying that deception is okay. It's not okay. Editors who use deception shouldn't be here. Whether it's about misuse of LLM output or pretending to be a legitimate editor rather than a banned editor for example, seems immaterial. As for LLM misuse specifically, my point was really that it is going to be become very difficult to know whereabouts on the axis from real-Wikipedian to deliberately-deceptive-Wikipedian-operated-LLM-avatar to AI-agent someone/something is located just by looking at the statements. And there is obviously a lot of legitimate use middle ground on that axis, especially for non-native speakers. I wasn't suggesting we throw our hands up and accept it as a fait accompli. More that responses to these situations should maybe be mindful of our detection limitations and bias, inability to reliably decide whether something is a legitimate use case or not (due to incomplete information) and that we should be even handed - AI-generated/assisted AfD comments that appear low value are not worse than human generated AfD comments that appear low value. How about some counterfactuals. What if Karkuzonga's denial was not something they expected anyone to take seriously? What if they had said "Yes, I used an LLM to clean up my language and the output accurately reflects my view, more or less"? What then? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a totally different situation, and I'm not sure why you've been trying to argue a hypothetical here. This isn't a Village Pump discussion about AI in general. This is an ANI thread about a particular contributor who was obviously acting in bad faith. If they were acting in good faith, GraziePrego would have had a chance at a useful conversation with the user, which could have had any number of different results. They were not, so we're here instead, and the user has been indeffed by CU. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find myself agreeing with Sean.hoyland: there is nothing, really, in Wikipedia policy or guideline forbidding this, and I quite agree that we don't just automatically strike low-value comments at AfD (or anywhere else) solely on the basis that they're low-value. I would expect a closing nom to take as little notice of AI-generated blather at AfD as with human being-generated blather. Obviously there ought to be a broader conversation about AI usage on Wikipedia, and guidelines to go along with it. ANI's not the venue for that discussion. Ravenswing 16:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks, at a glance, like they have a very poor grasp of English. Normally this would raise WP:COMPETENCE issues... but based on their edit history, the editor is aware of this and has confined themselves to stylistic edits and finding sources, all of which (aside from their recent AFD comments) seems appropriate at a glance. I think perhaps someone should just explain to them that it's fine to write "keep / delete per X, Y, and Z" to support another user's comment without having to write much more - it seems like that's the actual intent of what they're doing here, they've just chosen the worst possible way to do it. (Though the denial that they're using AI when they clearly are is concerning.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If @KarKuZoNga does not immediately start making their own useful contributions to AfD instead of just summarising what others have said so quickly that it looks like they used AI, they should be topic banned from AfD. These non-contributions to the discussion are worse than nothing. The likely use of AI isn't even the main point here. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeffed, as a CU action. They've posted a fully-formed promotional article about a basketball player turned entrepreneur in between those small, innocuous edits; the English there is substantially better than in their self-written comment, all of which would seem quite consistent with posting other people's promotional text on their behalf. Bulk, basically content-free AfD participation and huge numbers of tiny edits to build edit counts are also consistent with COI sockfarms. Finally, they're blatantly spoofing all sorts of things in an obvious attempt to evade CU. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Byte-ul

    I made a contribution to Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties on 7th Jan 2024. Four days later this was reverted by the new user Byte-ul.

    Byte-ul claimed my contribution was vandalism and malicious, despite it being on topic and referenced. They reverted a fourth time from their IP address rather than signed in (they claim by mistake - User_talk:Byte-ul).

    I opened a new topic on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, asking them to explain their reverts. That unfortunately went nowhere, and my DRN and 3O requests were both closed due to there being issues of user conduct as well.

    Byte-ul has engaged in disingenuous reverts and making blatantly false and hypocritical accusations that I made edits to settle personal disputes and harassment.

    I request that my contribution be restored, with the two edits suggested by me on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, as the article is now extended-protected.

    Ilike2burnthing (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned: User talk:Byte-ul#Warning. El_C 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Please don't doxx another editor's off-wiki account again, including if you are continuing here an argument from that site (which isn't advised to do in general). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaotic Enby see my response to User_talk:Ilike2burnthing#c-A_smart_kitten-20240127175800-A_smart_kitten-20240127175300. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who, if anyone, is right here, because much of the discussion appears to be WP:OR based on interpretations of primary source documents. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how, as it is just 'person X asked FOO, entity Y replied BAR', all being referenced.
    If the objection is to the phrasing, "[...] citing reports from Germany, France, and Belgium which found no evidence of this," then I suppose this could be changed to just directly quoting from the first reference, "[...] Germany, France and Belgium do not perceive any problems with cooperation with the firm concerned[.]" Ilike2burnthing (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that is a lot of text to go through in that link. Is this matter still outstanding? Is assistance from an administrator still needed? El_C 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See from 'Suggested resolution' onwards in Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties, as it's the only part I regard as unresolved. Thanks. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gustovonin's legal threat against Wikipidea and the administrators involved with the page Ram Mandir

    I was scrolling through the talk page of Ram Mandir and saw the user Gustovonin , claiming that Wikipidea and many admins were Hinduphobicand that he will file a legal complaint against Wikipidea in courts of India (see this) , this clearly violates WP:SUE, so action must be taken against him. Harvici (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent IP-hopping disruption

    IP range blocked for 2 weeks by El_C. Ravenswing 01:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    36.235.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    This IP range has been active for months. IPs change within this range regularly, and always after a warning is given. I gave a final warning two weeks ago for this hoaxing (adding a nonexistent vehicle to the list). Whoever is behind this IP has never provided a source for their changes nor used an edit summary to explain them. Lists of an automaker's vehicles are a favorite target but it is rarely clear what they're trying to accomplish with their edits. Sometimes unexplained blanking, sometimes unsourced tampering with dates and list order.

    On other articles, it's sometimes clear misinformation vandalism ([87], [88]), sometimes unexplained removal of content ([89], [90]).

    Some of this user's edits appear that they may be productive, but some are clearly disruptive and the user refuses to explain themselves or otherwise communicate, so a rangeblock seems to be the only way to stop the disruption and get the user's attention. --Sable232 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chris Troutman - Portal Fernandez Concha

    @Chris troutman

    I feel the editor has been unhelpful and hasnt properly analysed the facts. The discussion is stalemated and not progressing. Chris started to treat me in away that I felt was offensive.

    Chris said "That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability." Which I feel to be offensive and unsuitable for collaborative working.

    User talk:Chris troutman#Portal Fernandez Concha TraceySear840 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Troutman's comment that you're letting ChatGPT reply for you, which is a really good way to undermine your own case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional context:
    Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mackensen @Jéské Couriano - The comments I made are valid and collegiate. The response from Chris is not collaborative and offensive. WP:PA WP:AVOIDYOU & importantly Wikipedia:Civility + Wikipedia:Civility#Assume_good_faith + Wikipedia:Casting aspersions TraceySear840 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you using AI to compose your replies? This is a simple, straightforward question, and it should not require a wall of text to answer it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So Chris wrote (diff):

    • "TraceySear840: These walls of text are unwelcome and unconvincing. I assume you're abusing AI to write what you cannot, yourself, manage. That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability. Don't be surprised if the editing community turns against you in rapid fashion as we'd more likely just block you to silence you. Do not post here ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)"

    Yikes. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TraceySear840, Chris is correct about the walls of text. You don't need several paragraphs to write what you can say in a few sentences. And if you are using ChatGPT or another AI, please stop. Chris troutman, this is way out of line, and I think you know that. A new editor would have risked being indeffed for that comment, and justifiably so. Please, just treat people with basic human decency. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding that it's not the first time Chris has made this kind of out-of-line comments these last few days. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't exaggerate, please. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is saying And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? not a personal attack? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you still doing this? I've noticed that lately it keeps being the same handful of editors who show up every time there's a chance to take down a veteran editor for not being nice enough. You may think that your civility campaign is righteous, but eventually one of two things will happen: either you will get burned out trying to compel everyone to be friends, or the community will run out of patience and force you stop. This is an encyclopedia; if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. I realize this message will likely fall on deaf ears, but at least now you won't be able to say you weren't warned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there are so many people who are rude from time to time that if they all left we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content?? ltbdl (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between basic respect and compelling everyone to be friends. Civility is important for the same reasons one doesn't want to be in a toxic workplace. It's much better for everyone to provide constructive criticism where it's necessary and not insult people's intelligence. I genuinely don't get why this is controversial. I also don't think we should take it as a given that everyone involved in writing an encyclopedia is rude from time to time. I spend a substantial amount of my time in main space and I've never insulted anyone. I honestly don't think I'm somehow special for being able to do that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's comments like this that make me hesitant to edit at all, for the record. This "it keeps being the same handful of editors" can be turned right back around on people who don't think WP:CIVIL should be followed unless it's extremely egregious. I'm well aware my edit history is extremely small, but I've been a user for quite a while and WP:CIVIL issues are a main reason I hardly edit. I see comments quite frequently when this comes up of "well we have no way of knowing how many people we've driven away from incivility." Hi, I'm one of those people who are reticent to edit because of incivility. I stay on the website because I like reading about topics I'm interested in, but this pushback to any modicum of asking for civility and only wanting to act when it gets as far as slurs or super egregious personal attacks is discouraging from trying to even wikignome, at least for me.Greenday61892 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think two things can be true: (1) TraceySear840 needs to communicate better if they're going to participate on the project, and (2) Chris Troutman's comments are out of line. They haven't edited since this discussion started, and I'd like to hear from them. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mackensen: I re-read WP:NPA#WHATIS. What I said does not, in my opinion, violate that policy. New editor and SPA TraceySear840 is pushing a draft which I declined (weak sourcing and no claim to notability). I get walls of desperation-mode chatbot text in return. Why? New editor is probably an undeclared paid editor not from an English-speaking country because regular fans and hobbyists don't respond that way to a declined draft. All TraceySear840's content edits were to a draft, so no need to report to WP:COIN. If this new editor is relying on chatbot because they aren't conversant in English or just cannot be bothered to write a sentence, then I will be unable to reason with them regarding their draft. I was professional in deploring this sad state of affairs. Anyone who thinks my comments are out-of-line hasten the day we're overrun with this sort of problem which I've been tamping down these past ten years. Please hand TraceySear840 their boomerang as I have other things to do. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris troutman this is the definition of a discouraging reply. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Mackensen, but I think we're past the "reply" stage. I looked at the stuff that Tracysear posted on Chris's talk page, and I would find it very, very difficult to keep my cool after trying to read that in good faith--and then the draft's talk page is full of it too. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Defending a pattern of incivility as an admin is not a good look, especially since the ability to keep your cool is basically the main factor that's evaluated at an RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an RfA. Using someone's admin status against them like that is a weak move. Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness? If not, it's time for you to find an article to improve. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark I've seen the "we must tolerate rudeness for the sake of the project" argument trotted out since, oh, 2005 or so. It has not become more convincing in the intervening years. The position you're taking is effectively one of zero accountability. No one has proposed sanctions of any kind, and you're here asking Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness. I was looking for an acknowledgement that he could have handled that situation better. His one post in this discussion was to say, in so many words, I can't be bothered with this nonsense.
    Editors come and go. Editor retention isn't just about hanging on to whomever is already here, it's about adding new people and encouraging them to stay. If the first encounter a new editor has is a rough one with a senior editor who couldn't be bothered, then we've just lost an editor, right there. Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument isn't with you. It's with the small handful of editors who are bent on a narrow civility-based focus at all times regardless of whether other considerations may also apply. You articulated a reasonable position, which is something that those editors fail to do, but you were arguing against a position that isn't identical to mine. Also, I'm aware that nobody has proposed sanctions yet, but I've seen enough of these threads to know which the wind is blowing. Civility is one of the five pillars, but its most vocal proponents act as though it was the only pillar, and this is what concerns me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're acting like it's not possible to deal with people who you deem as incompetent without biting at them. There is a middle ground that doesn't require you to use someone's experience on the site or lack thereof as an insult--as And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits is doing--to get your point across. Greenday61892 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies I understand yelling at someone in the moment. It's not the moment. It's been an day. They've had an opportunity to reflect and collect themselves. I don't consider a good sign when someone's ready to mount the battlements to defend Wikipedia against the Visigoths. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But, Mackensen, didn't the response we're looking at come after a series of AI-generated messages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC) <diff>[reply]
    Well, what of it? Is the theory that we can be shitty to suspected ChatGPT users? Walk this out for me. I don't see how that's a helpful approach; it just means we start arguing about whether it's a suspected ChatGPT user, and therefore whether it was okay to make insinuations about the user's cognitive ability. Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen, did you miss where I said "series"? A whole slew of those crappy messages, one after the other proving that the editor is not of good faith and is not listening? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies I did not. I said this above: I understand yelling at someone in the moment. It's not the moment. It's been an day. They've had an opportunity to reflect and collect themselves. Again, what's the theory here? I'm inferring that you disapprove of what he said but think it's justified by duress. I don't agree, but it's perhaps beside the point because Troutman thinks what he said was perfectly fine, and that was after having time to think it over. I don't think I'm asking much, here. There's no coercion. No one's being threatened with sanctions, a block, or even being called a bad name. Fiat justitia ruat caelum this isn't. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I tried. Any editor who thinks it's okay to directly question another person's "cognitive ability"—especially because of a hunch they have about the person's intentions—should seriously reconsider their approach before sanctions become necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, ChatGPTZero was 98% certain that the text I fed it was AI generated. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I re-read WP:NPA#WHATIS. What I said does not, in my opinion, violate that policy."
    Then you very much need to re-read that section (and the rest of the policy) again, and much more carefully. Consider for example the following excerpt which caps WHATIS: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis in original). Look, let's make this really, really simple: any time you find yourself speculating negatively about another user's mental capabilities, you are violating WP:NPA, as an absolutely per se matter. It's not even a remotely close call and your asking us to expect to believe a) that you didn't mean this in a disparaging manner, and b) that an editor of your tenure and experience doesn't understand that this behaviour is proscribed by this community, regardless of intent, both strain all credulity beyond belief.
    Likewise, other portions of the policy toss your "I was allowed to do this because they were being oh so very dumb" line of rationalization squarely out on its ear: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user."
    "I was professional in deploring this sad state of affairs."
    No, you absolutely were not. Unless you are literally a trained expert administering a psychometric assessment, you are never being "professional" in any context where you are speculating about someone's supposed cognitive deficits. Least of all when you are opining about another editor you are in a dispute with. And again, I just refuse to accept that you don't know that this is the community's perspective, however much you think context should give you the right.
    "Anyone who thinks my comments are out-of-line hasten the day we're overrun with this sort of problem which I've been tamping down these past ten years."
    That is one of the most absurdly reasoned and self-aggrandizing false choices I have ever seen on this project, including this particular forum with its long history of such efforts to wrap ill-tempered outbursts in the valor of supposedly protecting the project. In no way do we need to choose between calling out TracySear's variety of nonsense and shutting down your inflammatory disregard for the most basic precepts of WP:CIV.
    In fact, behaviour like yours makes it more difficult to stop other varieties of disruption, because it muddies the waters, distracts from the core issues and makes consensus and longterm stability for the project more difficult (among numerous other reasons that are just as obvious). You are not a hero here because you had the brashness to imply another editor was mentally disabled. Give us a break and stop humouring yourself. Or for that matter, believe what you want, but just don't repeat the behaviour. Because I for one will without hesitation !vote for a sanction if it happens again, and I doubt I am the only one, especially in light of your complete WP:IDHT in reaction to concerns here. SnowRise let's rap 07:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments:

    1. One issue was TraceySear840‘s use of AI to communicate. Before the time Chris Troutman rebuked this new editor, had anyone ever told TraceySear840 not to use AI (a.k.a. large language model)? If not, then how are new editors supposed to know this?
    2. For that matter, do we even have a policy or guideline yet against TraceySear840 using AI? The last I knew, we couldn’t agree on one; we just have a non-binding essay, WP:LLM.

    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regardless of Chris Troutman's tone/word choice, there is no reason to permit the spamming of Concha, with nonsense like this 'm reaching out to this knowledgeable community with a fascinating challenge and opportunity: the Portal Fernández Concha article. I have given them a final warning for clear UPE which is the issue beyond ChatBot. Star Mississippi 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Star Mississippi, I don’t think this is paid editing. Why would any building owner pay to include a whole “crime” section in their article? —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like Mackensen, I consider Chris Troutman was extremely uncivil: suggesting a user's literacy and potentially their cognitive abilty are defective and that [the editing community]'d more likely just block you to silence you—that is, suggesting they are not welcome on the project—is disrespectful. Chris Troutman was basically asserting incompetence in the manner we are not supposed to invoke it because civility is a basic policy. It's also not a way of engaging someone that's likely to meet with their understanding. On a basic level, as A. B. points out, the community's rejection of AI-generated prose could have been made much clearer to the editor. (We deprecate it the same way we deprecate machine translation, but other projects vary on the latter and may well vary on the former, and both need to be very clearly explained because it's precisely new editors with weak English skills who will be most tempted to use both.) At the same time, I share Mackensen's view that TraceySear840 has so far done a poor job. The article takes a strangely sociological approach to its topic, a historic building. (Star Mississippi, I second A. B.; whatever the impetus for creating this article and for the balance of content, this is not promotional editing.) It would have been more encyclopedic and demonstrated notability more clearly if the editor had translated es:Portal Fernández Concha (which is a clearer exposition and has some useful archived sources). When the article was draftified, TraceySear840 responded with expostulations about how much work they'd put in—which is not unusual for new editors, and the best response would probably have been a calm and simply written explanation of notability, references, and reliable sources with the basic guide to making a new article stick as the top link. However, as the conversation proceeded in multiple places, TraceySear840 bludgeoned, and they do appear to have decided to use ChatGPT or something similar to generate all those posts. Which boomeranged on them, because not listening to explanations about how the community does things, posting walls of text about one's personal aims, and using LLMs in conversation are also disrespectful. ... So. Unless someone else does first, I'm going to completely rewrite the draft so it is no longer about the decline of the immediate area, raids on prostitutes, and so forth and simply about the history of the building. And then re-mainspace it. I've added the historic image that TraceySear840 uploaded to Commons to the existing Commons category. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @A. B. @Yngvadottir my read is it's UPE in that they're being compensated to get an article in mainspace otherwise they would not care so much about something absolutely random that they're spamming the project with requests for others to collaborate. To me that's promotional even if it's not paid to write promotional glowing text. But we're all vets here and can agree to disagree. Star Mississippi 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Thank you, Yngvadottir, very good summary. I very much agree. And thanks for offering to rewrite the draft. 🌟 Double gold stars. 🌟 El_C 23:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          You're welcome :-) I procrastinated madly from what I should have been doing last night; it's at Portal Fernández Concha and I've made a few links to it. For the avoidance of doubt, we need better coverage of historic buildings (and architects, sculptors, painters ...) from most countries of the world, and I find it perfectly plausible that that's what TraceySear840 set out to help us with. I got it wrong about how it wound up in draft space: they started the article there as a new editor, and what they were responding to was its rejection rather than draftification. I've pinged them on the talk page, but including another ping here because I'm not sure they've seen how the conversation has progressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticerwhonotices on Europa: The Last Battle

    Noticerwhonotices (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has crossed into WP:NONAZIS territory, as they're claiming that Europa: The Last Battle is an actual documentary (it isn't, it's blatant neo-Nazi propaganda). Their prior edits are also a pretty big red flag. Isi96 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Personal attack removed)
    im unbannable
    no point in removing my account when i can make as many accounts as i want Noticerwhonotices (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding that "noticing patterns" has been used as an antisemitic dogwhistle. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by AmandaNP, TPA revoked by Blablubbs. Not closing in case of sockpuppets, given above comment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2a00:23c6:d510:6701:31c7:210:f50:aaf4

    LTA blocked by HJ Mitchell. WaggersTALK 14:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This IP is the car engine LTA. They are back. It seems that they now revert their edits, as they look like joke edits now.

    This user seems to continue vandalizing, despite the warnings I gave to their talk page. Again, the IPs resolve to UK as always. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor constantly adding original research to article after countless warnings

    The user MyrhaanWarrior has been adding original research and removing sourced information to several pages about various historical empires on the Horn of Africa. Most recently they added original research to the page Adal Sultanate. They have received countless warnings on their talk page, and yet still keep up the original research.

    Most of the edits go along the lines of removing the actual, sourced information and adding their OR, such as changing images or countries. interstatefive  00:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is false, I have consistently backed upmy edits with actual sources and not propaganda which they have been using, consisting deleting my backed up edits with even screen shots from books to further prove this.The map I provided is historically accurate as Adal forces were said to have reached as far as the country of Nubia, or the country of the Funj which spanned as far as south eastern Egypt,the clans of Beja also have heritage from the horn to further prove this
    Your map is nonsensical as you claim it was 1540, when Danakil, Bale, Dewaro and Wej were all captured, to as far as Suakin and the land of the Nubians, the map shows the lands pre conquest MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked User:MyrhaanWarrior from editing Adal Sultanate for 24 hours for continuing to edit war while this discussion was ongoing. They are welcome to edit elsewhere and in this discussion about their behavior. BusterD (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DE by Babyscorpio97

    BLOCKED
    Babyscorpio97 has been indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Babyscorpio97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly made disruptive edits to Georgia related pages, claiming to "protect Georgian history". They systematically delete all mentions of other countries (especially Russia) from Georgian articles (see here); or work to subtly advance mentions of languages, cultures or other such concepts in Georgia (see here). They have been warned multiple times on their talk page; and as a response they have accused these editors of being Russian "bots", or "adding Russian propaganda". They are also very persistent with their edits, re-reverting almost immediately in many cases. I have not seen much use of edit summaries to explain any edits either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uness232 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) <diff>[reply]

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

    Bad faith user.

    User: Hob_Gadling

    He is consistently bad faith; straw manning, condescending, bullying, etc....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_1;

    "If you find a reliable source that agrees with Kennedy's defamation of people who disagree with his crazy anti-science stance ("false claims both Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine"), then you can come back and contest the word "false"."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_2;

    "Are you making WP:LEGAL threats?" -- Be sure to read Lindosland's comment Hob responded to so to see how ridiculous of a response this was.

    "If you do not agree with what the sources say or with the way Wikipedia works, that is your problem."

    "In short, you have two conflicting accounts from two differents sources: the scientific community and Wikipedia on one hand and Kennedy and his antivax troops on the other. And if source A and source B contradict each other, obviously source A must be wrong. Which, in this case, is the scientific community and Wikipedia. Sound logic, as always in this area."

    "We have reliable sources calling him an anti-vaxxer, and we would not be "a credible source of information" if we omitted that information. Your pharma shill gambit fools no one here."

    "The article says he made false claims about Fauci. That is correct, according to reliable sources. What is your problem? You want that fact hidden?"

    "Bullshit. Go to some forum to whine. This is not a forum."

    "This article is based on reliable sources. They say Kennedy's stance on vaccines is wrong. End of story."

    "You have "disproved" nothing. If you can give a good reason why any of the sources used in the article should not be regarded as reliable, bring it. Otherwise, go away."

    "Exactly what it says: Let's see what other users think. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3;

    "Your proposed edit Who are you talking to? The indentation says it is me, but I did not suggest any edits. Neither did M.boli. And the one above that one, which actually does propose an edit, seems to be you yourself."

    "Why? It seems kind of important that if this guy becomes the Democrat candidate, Americans will have to choose between two people who live in parallel fantasy universes. (It's probably a given that the Republican candidate will be no better. Their sane wing has been tiny and weak for several decades now.)" - Hob knows to keep things related to improving the article (archive 2, "This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article.") yet he is taking shots at RFK Jr and Trump here.

    "His "Children's Health Defense" regularly equates mainstream scientists with Nazis." - evidence?

    "Yeah, he also sleeps and eats every day, which is also something far different. So what?"

    "Nobody cares. Discussions are not about the discussers' positions, they are about their reasoning"

    "What happens if these government "experts" are wrong and that's not revealed until a decade from now Come back when that happens. Until then, we will use the knowledge we have now (which is that Kennedy's disinformation is spreading disease and killing children by convincing their parents and the parents of their neighbors not to protect them by vaccination). See WP:CRYSTALBALL" -- I think the use of crystalball here is excellent, but everything Hob said leading up to this is bullying, condescension, and borderline harassment of anyone on the page who disagrees with him.

    "Can we stop this? This is not a forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. Go acquire competence (see WP:CIR), and come back when you know how to use valid reasoning."

    Two examples of straw manning; "I did read OR. I'm not applying my own thoughts -- making a claim. Please re-read my OP." - this quote is of me.

    "'I didn't say' Yes you did."


    "That may be the case in a very few cases, but in general, it is just the Dunning-Kruger effect."

    "Not continuing this losing battle is a great idea, although the reason for it is bad because telling an inexperienced person that they are inexperienced is not an insult."


    That's only Archive 1-3 (of 6) of one Wikipedia article so I could continue, but I hopefully that is sufficient evidence to convince any reader that Hob Gadling is in bad faith. Personally, I'm hoping to see he is no longer in Talk tabs because so many of his discussions are disruptive to the progressive flow of the article. I am also hoping to see his editing privileges get removed. Cmsmith93 (talk)

    To be clear: you're reporting an editor for edits made in June 2023 and all the way back to 2021? Is there any recent behavior that's concerning you? Otherwise this report is stale. You mention that you "could continue" with newer talk pages — I would recommend you do so, and perhaps try again with this report with behavior that is actually actionable (if it exists) rather than scraping an editor's history more than two years back. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've topic banned Cmsmith93 from AP2 for WP:CIR, WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:IDHT. While Hob Gadling's interaction style could use some improvement, Cmsmith93's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, despite ample information being provided, has been a drain on editor time and patience for quite a while now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Cmsmith93 is fortunate to receive such a minor sanction. I would have indefinitely blocked this editor for TLDR axe grinding. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A block which I would have supported. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:General Collective Intelligence

    I'm writing to request assistance with a group of editors who have repeatedly reinserted the same comments "conflict of interests", "reads like an essay", and "duplicates existing content", even though the article that these comments applied to was deleted and completely rewritten. The editors were asked multiple times to justify attaching comments from a deleted article to an entirely new article. But as can be seen from this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:General_Collective_Intelligence , the editors refused to provide any substantive reply. I'm at a loss. I would appreciate any assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CognitiveMMA (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is as clear a case of WP:NOTHERE as I've ever seen. Highlights include self-citation, attempts to create a POV fork on the topic of their COI, and a maneuver where they moved a draft to Draft:Deleted Article and had it deleted there, apparently so the previous AFC decline messages would not appear on the draft. Efforts to explain anything on their user talk are met with hostility. I think it would be best to save everyone's time and show this editor to the door with a WP:BOOMERANG. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at the deleted contributions of Draft:Deleted Article, and I'm seeing some content regarding the Montenegrin Republic of Zeta-Duklja in the deleted contributions. The move referred to by Ollie was to Draft:Deleted Page. Admins can see the version immediately prior to the blank-and-move at this link. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rejected the draft, WP:NOTESSAY being the primary reason. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 04:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was content related to the "Montenegrin Republic of Zeta-Duklja" what? That is simply untrue. The article was about a form of collective intelligence. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft previously at Draft:Deleted Article was not your draft; the one formerly at Draft:Deleted Page was. Ollie appears to have accidentally misattributed the first one to you. The point of my comment was to direct admins/other editors to the correct draft title. I apologize if my comment above was unclear in this regard. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my issue was that their comments referred to the deleted article, but they kept reinserting their comments even though those comments no longer applied. There is no way this can be within Wikipedia's policies for them to do, and to repeat doing many times without providing explanation despite clearly being requested to provide their reasoning. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it Wikipedia policy to allow the same group of editors that I'm raising the issue about to be the ones to carry out further actions regarding this complaint, like rejecting the article? Isn't that a conflict of interest? The editor @MrOllie accused me of violating Wikipedia's WP:NOTHERE policy, saying that this is "as clear a case of WP:NOTHERE" as he has ever seen. Where is the self-citation? Where is the conflict of interest? Don't such persistent and false personal attacks violate to consistently and unjustifiably prevent an article from being published or continually removes content without a valid reason, constitute disruptive editing and a violation of the consensus-building process? Furthermore I deleted the old article and created a completely new one in order to address any issues with the article. How can these same group of editors that have been involved ask that I write a new article and complain when I do so? And furthermore can @Seawolf35 state specifically where the article violates any criteria whatsoever of WP:NOTESSAY? If the article does violate any such criteria I'd like to fix it. But falsely claiming it does and refusing to specify any details is disruptive. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page of the editor @Seawolf35 who rejected the article clearly shows that he was cooperating with the editor @MrOllie that I raised the complaint about. For this reason I'm adding him to the complaint as well. Wikipedia is supposed to be about disseminating knowledge, not a personal club to settle vendettas. I don't mind if they provide legitimate reasons for rejecting the article, but providing clearly false reasons like saying that I've cited my own work, and then refusing to provide any detail to their comments ... there has to be some way to address this. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy puts it better than I could below. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 06:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from making subjective comments, @AndyTheGrump still doesn't specify any criteria of WP:NOTESSAY that the article violates. Wikipedia editors, since often not experts in every field covered on Wikipedia, are expected to evaluate articles based on specific Wikipedia guidelines and standards, rather than their personal understanding or expertise in the topic. The key aspects they focus on include:
    1. Notability: The subject must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is usually demonstrated through coverage in reliable, independent sources.
    2. Verifiability: Information must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Editors check if the references provided are credible and relevant to the topic.
    3. Neutrality: The content should be written from a neutral point of view, without bias or promotion.
    4. Original Research: Wikipedia does not allow original research. All content should be based on published information from reliable sources.
    5. Quality and Clarity: The article should be well-written, understandable, and organized, but a deep understanding of the subject matter is not required for this.
    It's not reasonable for an editor to reject an article solely because they don't understand the specialized content, provided the article meets the above criteria. CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is entirely reasonable for an article to be rejected because it cannot be understood. The burden rests with the contributor(s) responsible, who have to make it understandable. If they can't do that, putting it in an encyclopaedia serves no purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The rejection of the article was clearly legitimate. It is not just an essay, but a poorly-written one at that, give its failure to explain clearly what the hell it is actually about. Repetition of a phrase doesn't do that, and nor do vague unsourced assertions about sociobiology, political science etc using the term. And neither does more unsourced nonsensical waffle suggesting that 'collective IQ' is some sort of actual thing. Wikipedia is under no obligation to publish the essay, and shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Scholar cites 1600 instances of use of the term "collective IQ" in the academic literature. Are we to believe your subjective opinion as an anonymous Wikipedia editor who knows nothing about the topic, or are we to believe credentialed experts who have published articles in peer reviewed academic publications? Regarding vague your comment about "vague unsourced assertions about sociobiology, political science etc." those assertions were reused from the Wikipedia page on collective intelligence to draw a distinction between collective intelligence platforms and general collective intelligence platforms. The content on the collective intelligence page has clearly been published and approved. Saying the article is "poorly-written" is a subjective comment. My request is that any editor who takes the time to comment on this issue please specify the criteria WP:NOTESSAY that the article violates, if any. CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly concur that after reading your draft, I know no more on the topic than I did before. As for expertise, I've been reading poorly-written Wikipedia content for over two decades now, and think I can recognise it when I see it. For example, I'm still trying to figure out what the repeatedly-used word 'platform' is referring to. Clearly not something one stands on, waiting for a train. And I don't think it refers to something a political party comes up with before an election either. 'Platform' could mean all sorts of things, none of which seems obvious from context. As a general rule, whether writing explanatory content, for academia or otherwise, one attempts to write for the benefit of the expected readership, who shouldn't have to read through the whole thing like a detective novel, seeking explanation, only to discover that the explanation is never given. That might possibly have worked for the great Dashiel Hammett, but we don't work that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least that's a specific comment that can be addressed by replacing the term "platform" with "software platform". CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of the Google Scholar results you found were referring to something else - from a quick sample, they appear to be. I sincerely doubt that sociobiologists for example are referring to software. Or to anything else not (according to their theories) transmitted through good old-fashioned biological DNA. And if you are indeed referring to software, everything but the first paragraph of your draft appears to be off-topic. Or perhaps padding, added to make this hypothetical software platform seem more important than it actually is. Perhaps your efforts would be better directed towards realising the hypothetical, rather than towards trying to convince people how good it is going to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope your comments are just for your entertainment and are not part of this administrative process. You can't replace a comprehensive review of the academic literature with your subjective understanding of a few articles you found on the Internet. If your response sounds even remotely reasonable to you I request that you at least use a chatbot like ChatGPT4 to get some more insight. CognitiveMMA (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked CognitiveMMA as not here to build an encyclopedia. This editor's participation here for several years is summarized by this comment: An editor censoring this important information simply to exercise one’s personal bias in the way that has been done, and continuing to censor that information for years, particularly when that information is potentially important to so many people … what good purpose is served by this? Can you think of many things that are more harmful? Literally, this article is just describing the difference between a collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for some centralized entity, and a general collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for all participants, and it’s saying that understanding the distinction is critical because the difference between the societal impacts of the two is potentially great.. I cannot recall any editor who indignantly hollered about censorship actually contributing positively to this encyclopedia. We do not needed tendentious axe-grinding to right great wrongs by editors who think that opposing their self promotion is somehow the most harmful thing on planet Earth. The editor appears unable to collaborate productively with other Wikipedia editors. The waste of time has come to an end, and the blocked editor is free to promulgate their own theories on some other website. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I got to the last comment prior to yours, Cullen328, and was heading to the editor's talk page to block indefinitely also. On that basis, I clearly support the block. Daniel (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that what this is all about? ...a general collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for all participants...? An imaginary BenthamBot which has ...the greatest happiness of the greatest number... built into its algorithmic soul? If so, I'd have to suggest that we don't need such a Bot here, since Cullen has already found the route to maximum happiness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Daniel. As for you, AndyTheGrump, this is not my discovery and has been well known for over 20 years. The route to maximum happiness comes from complying with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and refraining from self-promotional bullshit artistry. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual I slept through all the drama and am waking up to the result. Thank you for the collective input everyone. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why people get into such a fuss over a few mouse clicks, they seem to forget that almost all actions on Wikipedia are easily reversed. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block by User:Cullen328 - I became aware of the first version of this draft article on 14 January 2024, when I closed a case request at DRN because it was about a decline of a draft. The subject editor appears to be a self-promoting author who writes incomprehensibly. If I read this sort of stuff ten years ago, I would conclude either that it was badly translated from the French original, or badly translated from the German original, or written by an author whose native language is English but who writes what appears to be bad translation. If I read this sort of stuff in 2024, I conclude either that it was written by a large language model, or was written by an author who writes as if he is a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:WEBHOST violations

    This morning Lee Vilenski raised the issue of YoloMc8562’s user page with them.[91] In short, the user page appears to be a collection of personal blogs about YoloMc8562’s video game experiences, documenting fictional professional wrestling matches on a wrestling video game, as well as their own commentary and reviews of this fan fiction.

    I concurred with Lee’s comment[92] and also highlighted a particularly problematic statement that was in there. I informed YoloMc8562 that I would remove the material per WP:WEBHOST and advised that they not restore it. Regardless they have done so. There are also clear issues with the size of the page.

    I’m bringing this here as it appears to be a clear violation of WP:WEBHOST, but YoloMc8562 does not seem willing to cooperate. — Czello (music) 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Very clearly has a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and unable/unwilling to read the policy on userpages. Whilst we do allow some content that isn't strictly aligned with Wikipedia's aims in userspace, we don't support a video game blog.
    Their responses when told and the information was removed isn't fantastic. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note they've moved the information to User:YoloMc8562/sandbox, probably to try and mask that it exists. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did it so if it gets removed again I still have somewhere to store the text. YoloMc8562 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do have somewhere to store the text: your own personal computer's hard drive. Wikipedia is not a webhost, no matter where on its servers you seek to stash your personal blog. Such content is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, full stop, and you risk being blocked as WP:NOTHERE if you persist in trying. Ravenswing 10:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth pointing out that YoloMc8562 just re-added the content after the page was speedily deleted, before removing it again – I suspect so that they have it in the edit history and can refer back to it. Not sure if that's still rule-violating, but worth mentioning. — Czello (music) 11:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the sandbox as an obvious WP:U5. What is it with wrestling editors and disruption? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel a good 50% of my time in this corner of Wikipedia is dealing with disruption, unfortunately.
    Are you able to look at the issue above your comment, where they briefly restored the content so it's still in the edit history? — Czello (music) 11:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to just re-delete the page(s). It seems very clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather have a host for a video game record. I'd support a block in this instance, but I'm a bit close to it to handle it myself. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol the stalking is insane YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just save this information on your own computer/cloud rather than using Wikipedia for something it's not designed for? — Czello (music) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Wikipedia has the templates I need (i.e. {{Pro wrestling results table}} and {{Pro wrestling title reign}}) no other website have them so I don't know where else to put it. I'd use a Word document or something but yeah. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can create a personal Miraheze wiki and import the Wikipedia templates there! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait really? What's Miraheze? YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A place to host your own wikis, you can import Wikipedia templates and stuff there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried it and it doesn't have the templates I need, thanks for the help though, I don't know where else to try. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You would have to create such a thing. You don't just have the right to host it here. It's especially onorous as you have well over 500 edits (basically half) on this blog. Messages like "this is cringe" and "the stalking is insane" isn't helpful. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can import them, there is a tool for that. Although this is getting a bit off-topic, and I invite you to ask on Miraheze for help on importing Wikipedia templates there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the help! YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once we establish that someone is WP:HERE, I don't know why we care what sort of nonsense they have on their user page. I have a reference to Katamari Damacy, The Prisoner, chess, other silliness, and some other personal information on my userpage. My user talk page has a section for music recommendations. I got all of these ideas from looking at other people's pages, many of which have much, much more of this sort of content. We were here not long ago with a user whose user and user talk pages are so long and packed with images that they frequently crash people's browsers or fail to load, and for the Nth time there was no action. It's a classic example of a rule we only enforce on new users. How about this: Yolo, (1) it's in the "even pushing it for an experienced user to get away with" territory in terms of size. Keep is shorter. (2) Consider putting it on a subpage. (3) Be really careful not to look like you're here primarily to maintain that page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user you're referencing is notoriously immune to long-term action. Their ability to unduly get away with it shouldn't open the door to others being able to; indeed, this shouldn't be a case of where it's only enforced on new users and should instead be enforced across the board. I don't think it's helpful to give a green light to YoloMc8562 on this when their pages have already been deleted by two different admins. — Czello (music) 13:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Just thought I'd say I only copied and pasted it over to my sandbox (which got deleted as I said) because I was panicking that I was gonna lose it, however I was able to copy and paste it over to a Notepad document. Sorry for forgetting to then remove it from the sandbox before it got deleted, Sorry for my reaction over this, I was just annoyed over what I felt was people not minding their own business, but I can understand why it was deleted. Its just annoying its happened this late because I can't really copy and paste it over to another website except Wikipedia because it uses templates from here. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that comment. I echo Chaotic Enby's comment that Miraheze would suit you better (I think there are other fan wikis that might also be available). Even if importing the table from here is difficult, they're likely to have suitable alternatives that might work. If all else fails, I'd never overlook trusty Microsoft Excel / Google Sheets for being able to build tables quickly and easily. — Czello (music) 13:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, just Miraheze seems very bare bones with seemingly not much on there, I'm not sure on how to transfer it over because I don't have the Wikipedia page with it anymore and I don't have an XML file, and I don't know any other fan wikis :P YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Miraheze has a tool to import a given Wikipedia template and all of the subtemplates it uses at the same time, which I used quite a few times on a wiki I created there. Otherwise, Fandom is another wiki host that is arguably less powerful technically but more intuitive to use and easier to set up. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know but I don't know how to find it lol, Fandom is another site I tried, but once again, the templates being the problem. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The tl;dr is: create a Miraheze wiki → create a page on your new wiki → paste your content on that page → import the templates you need with the import tool → it should work. Feel free to ask Miraheze volunteers if there's any issue you encounter. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already made the page, I just don't know how to find the import tool haha. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yourdomain.miraheze.org/Wiki/Special:Import ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll try that now. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I don't know what is considered a big size on here because I don't really have any scale for it, My thing is just under 400,000 bytes, I'm not sure what "subpage" I could put it on here, I'd be open to do that, but my user page and sandbox have already been swiftly deleted. Also just thought I'd say I'm not new to WIkipedia, as I saw someone state that on one of my pages earlier, I've had this account since October 2021, and I also edit WWE pages as well as pages for my football team I support (Sheffield Wednesday F.C.). Do you know anywhere else I could put the page? YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, that's not our problem to solve. WaggersTALK 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, but he said put it on a subpage, and I don't know what "subpage" on here to put it on. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This really isn't the place to be discussing how to use a different website - it's almost as bad a WP:WEBHOST violation as the original page. With the content now deleted I'm guessing there's no further action to be taken and we can close this thread? WaggersTALK 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean since I'm clearly not gonna be able to put it back on Wikipedia then I guess lol YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By "subpages" people mean you can create additional pages in user space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YoloMc8562 is your user page, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YoloMc8562/subpage where [subpage] can be just about any valid string of text creates a "subpage" in your userspace. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that the content being discussed is not suitable for anywhere in userspace. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As my point earlier, I'm clearly not gonna be able to put this back on here without getting blocked. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean I'm cool to do what @Rhododendrites suggested, which was put it on a subpage, but as stated idk if people would be fine with it. YoloMc8562 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we even sure they are here to build an encyclopedia? All they've done since being asked to remove their webhost is to move it to other pages, such as User:YoloMc8562/WWE 2001- Universe Mode/PPV Table and make null edits on their userpage. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to block indefinitely as a regular admin action, not as a claimed community consensus. This has gone on long enough and YoloMc8562 either isn't listening or can't understand. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    * User:Nissimamon persistently whitewashing his own page, despite several warnings.

    User:Nissimamon has been persistently removing critical content from his own page, as can be seen here: [93], despite having received several warnings on his talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them indefinitely from editing the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this guy maybe just be blocked as WP:NOTHERE? He’s clearly running an WP:SPA for PR purposes only. Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FrankKataklian - WP:NOTHERE

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

    This is the second time this user had edited the Irredentism article to insert non-neutral language reflecting an Armenian POV. I'm not active in this particular topic area but I seem to recall there is a WP:AC/CT arbcom ruling on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

    Also looking at their short contribution history, their very first edit was [94] to add a link to Furry fandom to an article concerning Turkish nationalist group. I'm wondering if a WP:NOTHERE block may be in order. WCMemail 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Troll. Introduced to the door. Courcelles (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy652 - potential self-promotion?

    This didn't need to be reported here. It should have been tagged as WP:U5. I've deleted it. The user has made no other edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, there is a user named @Nancy652 who has a userpage talking about some Indian hospital, complete with a link to that hospital's website. I blanked their page, and gave them a warning. Here's the diff link. - The Master of Hedgehogs (always up for a conversation!) 14:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Harassment.

    Hellotherematessssss (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by DatGuy. DanCherek (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Check User talk:Hellotherematessssss, and I have nothing else to say. Toketaatalk 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't harassment, it's garden-variety incivility from a vandalism-only account. Not worth reporting to ANI, IMO; in the future, simply reporting them to WP:AIV will probably be more efficient. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, I was uncertain which to report to so I picked this one. Toketaatalk 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Behavioral issues at Talk:Horror film

    Hoping someone will be willing to take a look at Horror film and the talk page there, where Andrzejbanas is exhibiting disruptive behavior issues include ownership, sealioning, refusing to accept consensus is against them, and refusing to revert their edits made against that consensus once it was pointed out to them. When an issue is addressed, they move to a new one, creating walls of text that keep accusing other editors of not being willing to continue discussing and explaining.

    Extended content
    It started with this reversion, where they wrote in the edit summary there are certainly horror films set during Christmas, but without some page citation from that book, all the other articles just connect the dots that "here are a list of alternative Christmas films" or "here are some horror films set around Christmas time" without really isolating it as a genre.
    1. Here, after I'd found those page#s, they reverted again, this time saying I'd added the info back without addressing concerns, which wasn't true.
    2. Here argued that none of the sources that none of them describe it as a genre, which wasn't true, and in fact in the content they'd removed included a note I'd added quoting the book source calling it a genre three different times.
    3. Here that the genre wasn't well-defined. I pointed out that it doesn't have to be well-defined in order to exist, and that an entire book of essays about the genre had been published by an established publisher.
    4. Here that they didn't find the book's arguments convincing.
    5. Here argued "seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher." I pointed out that Teen horror doesn't even exist except as a redirect.
    6. Here told me that if I didn't even know what a genre cycle was, I shouldn't be trying to write about film.
    7. Here said calling it a genre was FRINGE.
    8. Here that nothing in the sources provided any value to the reader. I pointed out that my proposed addition told the reader The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre.
    9. Here that they never heard the term in common use.
    10. Here that an entire book of essays about the genre published by an established publisher wasn't sufficient to show the genre existed, saying, I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic.
    11. Here that other than the book, there were only listicles. I pointed out that NPR and Hollywood Reporter both were calling it a genre or subgenre and giving it lengthy treatment.
    12. Here that they'd found errors in books by that publisher and implied NPR and HR were well-disguised listicle content. Which is not true, both describe the genre and its appeal at length. The fact they mention multiple highly-regarded examples does not make those articles listicles.
    13. Here circled back to that there was nothing in the three sources that provided valuable information. Twice.
    14. At this point, two other editors, GoneIn60 and Robert McClenon came in and agreed it was a legitimate genre. To which they responded, I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it. Which seems pretty WP:OWNy -- if they can't write it, it doesn't go in?

    GI60 then proposed entirely new language, which I supported, and Andrjez started the whole rigamarole over with that proposal. GI60 at that point agreed that he and I had done our due diligence and his third opinion provided consensus, and we added the language, and Andrjez reverted again saying there was no consensus. Then he said he hadn't seen the discussion between me and GI60, but still didn't revert himself after being asked multiple times on my talk, his talk, and the article talk. And he's still arguing that neither of us has explained what the issue is and that I'm dodging his questions. The whole thing could be another dozen diffs. Sealioning in particular is hard to prove without multiple. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1. . Basically on trying to pull information from google searches, I had very click-baity aritcles. I grew frustrated trying to pull into a form which I think fits a film genre and went WP:BOLD.
    2. . I shouldn't have done this and should have brought it to discussion.
    3. . I'm very strict with genre. The descriptions within seem broad and not part of any cycle. Kim Newman argues that genre can only exist when films are trying to imitate each other. As I've added to this and various film genre articles, genre is very subjective. For example, on the Thriller film article, most serious journalism agrees that despite the term being in common use, there is no universally agreed upon term to it. This is the same in the current horror article, specifically "Mark Jancovich in an essay declared that "there is no simple 'collective belief' as to what constitutes the horror genre" between both fans and critics of the genre" The same can be applied to the sub-genre, so I warn against such arguments.
    4. . The genre, isn't well defined. Yes there is a book, and in the opening pages of the book the author even states "It's difficult to define [the Christmas horror]". So I'm not sure what the issue is here.
    5. . I didn't find them convincing, because they are very broad. I'll elaborate on that.
    6. . I'll admit to that, as it didn't appear you have read this article before contributing to it. Cycle is mentioned early in the prose.
    7. . That was wrong of me, I was frustrated and apologize. And I believe I did apologize in the topic at hand.
    8. . The genre is fringe. Kim Newman states this enough on his write up on the topic in Nightmare Movies.
    9. . Here's where you are flat out wrong. It would be anachronistic to place a genre like this. Genre's don't emerge, they arrive via imitation and cycles.
    10. . It isn't common use. Kim Newman refers to it Nightmare Movies as a very minor genre.
    11. . One book, by one author. This is hardly the slasher film which has countless essays, articles, and books about it. I can easily provide further research into teen horror which has Scholary journals written about it, but pointing out "i've never heard of it" felt like knee-jerk reactions, especially to someone who only showed that they didn't seem to have read the article when adding their content.
    12. . You were right on the NPR and Hollywood Reporter, and I said you were in the discussion.
    13. . There are errors in the articles, and I've pointed them out. I never suggested the publications were unreliable, but further research (which was requested, then done, then ignored by the requesting parties). For example, information of it being taken suggest there is a connection between the films and early Christmas ghost stories, but the article has no proof out of this. The articles also list Silent Night, Bloody Night as the first, or an early film in the genre, but as the article I shared in Rue Morgue magazine on the topic, the link between Christmas and that film begins and ends with the title.
    14. . I feel that from what I've said above, the articles are not the strongest discussion points on the topic, from writer who clearly have not seen some of these films they are discussing and question, and work on assumed beliefs based on film titles.
    15. . And one of those editors, encouraged me to keep on going despite you only commenting that I'm trying to own the page and not addressing me when I asked you time and time again to comment on my content, not perceived editing patterns or agenda.
    I'm not reverting the edit, because I feel like the user is trying to force me to agree with something, without addressing my requests. They are welcome to revert it on their own, but they have not assumed good faith with any of my edits. Yes I believe I was wrong some of the times and my actions were too bold. But when I've done when they asked (i.e: find more sources, try to re-write it), they've made their decision that I've gone too far.
    I'd like to address this user made the content really frustrating to browse. Two threads were opened and the editor hopped between them back and forth. I missed the consensus (between two editors). In the meantime, I reached out to WP:HORROR and WP:FILM to ask for suggestions on my edits to Horror film, action film, thriller film, and mystery film talk pages, and this debate in question. Please do not assume, I'm trying to own a page when I'm actively reaching out. I appreciate that you also asked for comments as well, but I don't blame anyone for not reading through our bickering. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your entire response is returning to arguing content. This is about behavior. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...? I also apologized? Showcased where I reached out to others for further comments (which seems to be against your accusations of me trying to own an article when I want more voices on it!) and pointed out where I think you are ignoring content for, unknown reasons. Yes, I've brought up the content here, because that what was what the question was. How else should I explain myself? I want to assume good faith, but you give me one sentence summaries. You have edited your own posts as well to make it look like you haven't been antagonizing me. The very fact you address a perceived notion instead of content, and you make antagonizing posts against me in both edit summaries and edited responses: here and here. You have been ignoring WP:FOC, and have made the priority of your arguments on the page about me, when I've frequently asked to please comment on the content, you return it with how i'm trying to own a page. Not sure what else, but I'm finding it very difficult to engage about content with you that you clearly feel strongly about as you never discuss it and avoid anything that suggests I'm actively looking for a grander solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On my own talk page, I've also stated that you have made me feel like reverting my own edit would feel like you are trying to trap me into suggesting consensus with your edit. You did not respond to that. What should be my, or anyone's, take away from that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume you and anyone else should take away that I've given up on trying to keep plugging away when someone is just giving back WP:IDHT and WP:SEALION. Consensus is against you, you've refused to revert yourself, and instead are demanding that I continue a 82Kbyte discussion in which three different editors have told you consensus is against you. Valereee (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to revert it. I've stated you are trying to force me into consensus or do something. If you could simply say "i'm not trying to do that", then I'd feel comfortable. You haven't made me feel safe in doing it. Right after the editor who told me keep going with what i'm doing here. I'm not why you are quoting essays and I don't hear you, because I've done what you've requested. You can say you've addressed me, and you are happy to point out Diffs. I'm trying to address you continuously (again on your own talk page, and in the article). I am hearing you, and have made issues with the content. When you aren't engaging with me when I ask basic questions. I'm not sure what you want me to do other than call you on the same. But as you said, this is about me. I agree with you on some points, and on others, I think you are ignoring valid points on the base assumption that I'm trying to own an article. I've addressed where I think how I'm not doing that. (I.e: engaging with Gonein60, asking for outside discussion from wikiprojects, and continuously asking you to please focus on content, not perceived backlines.) I'm more concerned with you not addressing and trying to get me into reverting an edit based on...I barely know. Accident? This again, feels like I'm getting trapped for the reasons stated above. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what else there is to say, but I think we probably re-open this with focus on the prose and not perceived biases. I feel like that shows that I'm not trying to own an article, i'm trying to find the happy medium. As the current edit, has material which has some content which I've found is wrong. (see comment again on Rue Morgue quote and Kim Newman and Yuletide quotes on it being a hard to define and smaller genre). Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are worried reverting yourself will somehow suggest you're agreeing with consensus, I'm happy to make that reversion. Headed out now, but I'll check back in. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be bold, but yes, I've said that about three times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made that edit. As long as @Andrzejbanas does not revert it to some preferred version of their own, I'm satisfied. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No interest in reverting at the moment, but I've opened up new discussion, as the current edit has focus and sources that disagree with each other. I look forward you to responding. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrzejbanas, so we here at ANI should take this to mean that if I and other editors do not continue to generate tens of thousands of bytes of discussion daily, you are planning to revert again? Valereee (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No? Every time I suggest anything in that talk page, you assume like this. I'm sorry, but you are not assuming good faith at all. If you can't assume good faith, I suggest you take break from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not start out editing in this topic area, but was responding to what I thought might have been a request for a Third Opinion, and offered the opinion that Christmas horror is a distinct subgenre. Whether it is a fringe subgenre is not important. I will agree to the language proposed by User:Valereee or by User:GoneIn60. I thought that User: Andrzejbanas was sealioning, but I didn't feel like writing that up, and hoped that the issue would either be resolved by other editors or go away, or possibly be written up by other editors. I see that it has been written up by User:Valereee. My opinion, which is only worth what you paid me for it, is that Andrzejbanas is still sealioning. I would suggest that this dispute can be resolved in at least one of two ways. Andrzejbanas can recognize that they are in a minority, and allow the other editors to agree on language, or the community can impose a topic-ban from the area of horror films for at least sixty days (during which the other editors can agree on language). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I'm totally aware i'm in the minority, if like, two editors against one is a wide margin. I have to disagree @Robert McClenon that I wanted editors to go away. I've shown that I've reached out to communities and other regular WP:FILM commentators for further opinions (here and here. I was definitely rude early on. I believe I've apologized on it. I feel like since then, if I suggest anything to it, which, the current agreed upon suggestions had content that is flat out false. In fact, when I pointed it out before, Gonein60 agreed and even said just yesterday "It may be too early to call for consensus" here. When I asked Valereee to please focus on the content changes, (per WP:FOC), it led to a write-up that I'm trying to control the article. It would be a real determent to article to include it in it's current "agreed" upon form where I've stated there is flagrant misinterpretation of sources, and as further material has been found, it should require further discussion. I understand they are frustrated with me, but I think it's time to focus on prose and citations instead of presumed beliefs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Andrzejbanas - I didn't think that you wanted other users to go away. I was hoping that maybe the issue would go away because I didn't want to think more about it. No such luck on my part. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh my bad. I misread there. Trust me, my current stance is to have something in the article that state what citations say. From our rough start, which is definitely my wrong doing for a good chunk, it has become difficult to contribute. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andrzejbanas: I think it would be best if you stepped away from the article for a little while. I appreciate your good faith, but you're not gaining consensus for your views, and the sheer volume of your comments on the talk page will discourage other editors from participating. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given this, I can't help but agree that this editor should step away. Given this, it appears unlikely to happen. Valereee (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about yourself? Anytime I try to clear the air, make easy for other editors to read, and refresh what I believe a current issue is. You shut it down. This is against several wiki policies, you aren't assuming WP:GF. I've haven't had this much trouble with anything in any article until this in a very long time. You haven't addressed any issue I've had, I haven't reverted your edit, and still you stress I can't control myself. I'm trying to keep format. but what is up ?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is over 80Kbytes. I have not shut anything down, I've engaged far longer than 99% of people would. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So? I agree it's gone on long, but it's mostly because new content is not being addressed which has been found only yesterday. Per WP:TALK#USE we're supposed to communicate there. While you had made it obtuse by discussing the same topic in two threds WP:MULTI. Yes i've created a new sub-section, because WP:TALKSUBHEADING I'm trying to focus on task. Just saying "we've talked a lot" is not addressing that I've found new content that is being ignored. Now, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." You haven't given me constructive feedback, you've just been saying "this has gone on long enough". If you are done with the topic, that's great. You don't have to contribute. I'm not going to revert your edit, but I've tried to flow the topic to one course which is the current issue. You are welcome to join in, but please have something constructive about the content, not the user. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Robert McClenon's proposal for a 60 day topic ban from horror films and film genres, broadly construed, with a warning to Andrzejbanas that resuming this type of behavior anywhere on Wikipedia may lead to a sitewide block. Be concise. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328:, I respect the edit, but I suggest it be separated from horror films. I'm one of the more active users in WP:HORROR and have actively been trying to keep that community active (see it's talk page, and main page). I don't have an active train of these edits. If you feel I must step away from this topic, but I feel like just editing the christmas horror article and subsection of the Horror film article is enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrzejbanas, I stand by my recommendation. Let's hear from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Just wanted to add that a note dropped at WT:FILM led me to the discussion around the same time as Robert McClenon. Following our third opinions, the discussion seemed to be progressing when Andrzejbanas accepted the reliability of sources in question and suggested a proposal was needed to weigh in on. Once a proposal was given, the immediate response was "I can't really find valid content within the sources mentioned to actually formulate this into something palpable" (diff). Why ask for editors' time commitment in writing a proposal if you were already at the determination nothing could be written? This was a sign of things to come in the debate. Despite the responses and alternate proposals that followed, a new concern or issue is always waiting right around the corner.
      It also appears another editor has now been canvassed directly to participate, but in fairness, this canvassed editor is a veteran editor of the Film project and a discussion notice was dropped earlier at WT:FILM. Not really sure what to make of any of this. I'll leave that up to those who have experience sorting these situations out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not cool, @Andrzejbanas Valereee (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And another canvass Valereee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, if I was going to solicit additional feedback, these would be two of the first editors I'd ask. Their opinions will be unbiased. However, the fact that no one was notified of these pings is concerning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At the time, I couldn't find information, I've said that at the time where I couldn't find information. I did not canvas to get anyone to agree with me or not, we had about three people discussing it. There is nothing wrong with what I did and my requests were strictly for comment, not to swing a position one way or another. Honestly, If they agree with you, I'll be more comfortable with me feeling "it's probably just a me thing." and I'll feel better and move on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Andrzejbanas, they could be the least biased editors on the project. The problem is that by canvassing them, you've tainted their input. Valereee (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there any rule that I can't do that? I've asked them completely neutrally, as I've seen them edit things with little bias in the past and are long time contributors to WP:FILM. I've done this several times, and this is the only time I've heard it being treated like I'm rallying troops or something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For example, I've had it done to me on Talk:Ninja Gaiden (Atari Lynx)#Merge proposal This is really normal behavior. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Me saying I couldn't find anything, is an invitation to say something like "perhaps you could!" I feel like we're really twisting words here to really make me discourage anyone from editing. Since then, I have expanded on it, and both @GoneIn60: and @Valereee: have said it's not close enough to their personal definition. And both decided to progress further. I feel really quite like we're trying to twist every word I have here, to make it look like I've denying everything, while I've previously said that GoneIn60's was "the best writing" i've seen so far. GoneIn60 has also encouraged me to keep going. I feel like i'm being torn both ways here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WesDuDe92811 and Tatthehulk are related by the edit summaries in their contributions. Toketaatalk 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Both blocked per WP:NOTHERE; it hardly seems worth my while to check which is master and which is sock. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Check by account creation date? Toketaatalk 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just checked. Wesdude was made first. Toketaatalk 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen, Wesdude is now saying that their friend (tat) logged on their account and vandalized. The language of before and after the friend supposedly logged on is different. This could be Wikipedia:LITTLEBROTHER but I am not sure. Toketaatalk 18:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then their account was WP:COMPROMISED and needs to remain blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell them to make a new account, link it to the old one via talk page, and after that global lock the old one maybe? Toketaatalk 19:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If that's true, then they lost control of their account and it's compromised, so they don't get to edit. If false, then they lied and are trolling. Either way, the block should stand. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly wondering how they would appeal if they could. Toketaatalk 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either they need to create a new account and make a much more secure password, or just simply quit Wikipedia for a while, wait for a couple of years and then create a new account. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So how would someone reply to them saying that? Toketaatalk 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have actually no idea. Since I'm not an admin with CU rights, I assume that someone like Yamla or NinjaRobotPirate, who both DO have CU rights, can possibly inspect the account (I'm not sure, but probably that's how CU works). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just an inference. Maybe I'm wrong. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then, if they come on a new account and start acting like this again, this definitely will be considered WP:LITTLEBROTHER. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Today, TxBangert removed the redirect at Bradley R. Smith and copied/pasted the contents of the Metapedia article on Smith. (That website is blacklisted but the article can be located via Google.) Metapedia, according to our article on it, is an online wiki-based encyclopedia dedicated to germanophile, fascist, far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, anti-feminist, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, Holocaust-denying and neo-Nazi points of view. The whitewashing of Smith's Holocaust denial is obvious in what TxBangert copied to Wikipedia. I reverted the edit and performed RD1 revision deletion because I found no evidence that it was compatibly licensed, either. I warned TxBangert on their talk page (User talk:TxBangert#January 2024) and then...

    ... I looked at their most recent edits prior to today, which were to Denial (2016 film), a film also about Holocaust denial, where they added a citation to user reviews on IMDb (an unsuitable source) to justify a statement about how unlikeable they think the main character of the film is. The main character is a portrayal of Deborah Lipstadt, who is involved in a lawsuit against a Holocaust denier.

    I have serious concerns about these edits, particularly the ones from today, and suggest that an indefinite block citing Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive would be appropriate. DanCherek (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's two Nazis in two days at ANI, I'm starting to be a little concerned even though they don't look to be the same person. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at their logs/edit history, there's some indication as to who they are. And yes, they appear to be a real nazi. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe due to International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which I imagine causes an annual exodus of bad haircuts leaving their mom's basement. Levivich (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be it, unfortunately... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can view Special:Diff/1200610288 two different ways: it goes against MOS:DOCTOR, and it's an attempt to burnish the credentials of holocaust deniers. The pattern is consistent. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only way I know to contact Wikipedia. I was researching "Steele Dossier" and I think the contents there are Democrat propaganda. I've donated 4 or 5 times and have used Wikipedia as a reliable source, but I now will be very careful and not rely on Wikipedia for the truth. See the article at https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/steele-dossier-fbi-durham-danchenko/index.html

    The CNN article is much more reliable. You should make serious efforts to avoid political operatives tampering with articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C200:22F0:0:0:0:182B (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrelated to ANI, should belong in Talk:Steele dossier if anywhere. That CNN article was already discussed in Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 26. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bears247 community ban proposal

    Bears247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is the third time I've brought this user to ANI (March 2022, April 2022). Since then, they've been indeffed three times (block log) for various disruptive editing. They were blocked twice for persistent additions of unsourced content and a third time for pushing a series of edits without a true consensus despite repeated oppositions from other editors (User talk:Bears247#Final warning). They were most recently unblocked two weeks ago, and since then many of their edits are unsourced (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) and another one of the problematic edits (related to the third indef) was also made ([95]). There are many warnings from me and others on their talk page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and at this point I don't think this user is competent enough to edit Wikipedia given how many chances they've received. I could post yet another warning on their talk page about unsourced edits, but would the 10th+ warning make a difference? I am proposing a community ban here since the first three indefinite blocks were unable to stick. (Before the jokes start, yes I am aware we have extremely similar usernames.) (Reworded for clarity 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An unbearable similarity. I feel bad. I believed in this user. Gave another chance. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, reading comprehension failure, I apologize. El_C 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects for discussion/deletion and User:Hey man im josh

    User:Hey man im josh is obstructing edits to pages related to RFDs. This began with persistent reverts to Category:Redirects to an article without mention. Originally User:Tavix reverted with the terse (and empty/unsound) rationale "not an improvement". When the undone revision was restored, another revert followed:

    Note the absence of any actual rationale or clear objection—the exhortation to follow WP:BRD—an essay (not a Wikipedia policy page or guideline) that prominently describes itself as an optional strategy for seeking consensus—seems rather more invoked here as an attempt to WP:GAME the process.

    In light of reading this fairly straightforward declaration of intent for what it is, as well as the absence of any actual stated objection *as well as* the absence of any attempt by the editor invoking WP:BRD to "discuss", I restored the edit. User:Hey man im josh then took it up. To his credit, this revert, the third of four total, was the first containing any semblance of any actual rationale:

    (NB: emphasis on wikt:semblance. The rationale is flawed; as noted in the edit summary that followed, this is neither a change to a policy page nor is it a even a proposal—it's aligning the content of Category:Redirects to an article without mention with actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines regarding Redirects and the RFD process as it already exists.)

    The fourth revert followed:

    Subsequent to this fourth revert and in light of a total dearth of actual attempts to open and hold a discussion on the part of the editor trying to offload burden onto the opposing party, a warning was placed on User:Hey man im josh's talk page regarding edit warring. That notice was immediately reverted (a revert that occurred in between the original placement of the notice and an attempt to add a heading for the new talk page section as a consequence of incorrect formatting with the se of {{subst:Uw-3rr}}).

    Subsequent to this, User:Hey man im josh reverted for the second time a change to another page, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header:

    Note well the attempt to continue to shroud the acceptability of these reverts under the guise of a call for consensus-building. As a point of fact, there actually is a discussion on the talk page related to this change. See Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Default outcome. Emphasis on related—it's not being discussed as a contentious edit. Notably absent, however, is User:Hey man im josh (as is any objection from anyone else) despite the ostensible interests in discussion.

    I think this is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern.

    (In the interests of disclosure, User:Tavix and User:Hey man im josh have characterized me as initiating personal attacks earlier this week when I described an RFD as appearing to be more about gamifying Wikipedia's RFD process than it is about improving Wikipedia.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NB: I have just received notice that there is a separate report initiated by User:Hey man im josh at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really THAT big a deal to want a discussion to take place before changing long standing text? This feels incredibly premature. I'm still not sure what prompted your aspersions towards me recently (and your unwillingness to withdraw them) or why I'm the specific focus of this discussion (Tavix reverted you as well). I must ask, why are you so unwilling to discuss it on the talk page prior to re-adding the same text for the fourth time? Hey man im josh (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) C. A. Russell, this is a dense and difficult to parse complaint, but the immediately obvious thing is that your edits are contested by two veteran editors (and admins) in good standing. From an WP:ONUS and WP:BRD perspective, you should not be edit warring, but rather, working to facilitate a discussion to resolve this outstanding issue. I, however, am very sympathetic when it comes to the ethos of Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Still, I'm not sure this is it. As for the WP:AN3 report, I'm looking into it, but at the time of my writing this, Hey man im josh has failed to prove you violated WP:3RR. El_C 03:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed the AN3 report as no violation. Keeping the (admin) discussion in one place. El_C 03:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully:
    1. WP:ONUS is not the page you want. This is not about verifiability. This isn't even about article space.
    2. WP:BRD is, as I stated, an essay. Not Wikipedia policy. Not even a guideline. It explicitly describes itself in multiple place as optional. I will state explicitly that I'm opting not to use the WP:BRD strategy here because not only am I not convinced it will be productive, I am convinced that it will be unproductive. Every interaction on this and related issues have been fraught with attempts by the editor in question to change the subject and/or move the goalposts, appeal to non-existent policy, appeal to existing policy (or guidelines) by name but mischaracterize what exactly that policy actually says, and (with the 3RR incident) inaccurately recount the relevant facts. It's a sheer exercise in fatigue. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To address one quasi-reasonable (but not especially pertinent) question: User:Tavix stopped after two reverts and has not (yet?) carried the dispute over to other articles and exhorted me to discuss where, in fact, there *is* a discussion that exists, I have participated, others are participating, and you two are not—despite the stated ostensible interests in discussion. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 04:56, 28 January 2024 – good thing this abomination is a category page and not actual policy; it's now clear why RFD has turned into a gamified mess over the last year or so...
    2. 02:42, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200203580 by Tavix (talk) revert #1
    3. 12:08, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200234996 by Tavix (talk) revert #2 of unexplained revert for page not in alignment wrt actual redirect policy and guidelines
    4. 01:51, 30 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200615340 by Hey man im josh (talk) this page is not a policy page, and this change is not a policy change; this edit is descriptive, and what's described here is already "implemented"—not a proposal or a wouldn't-it-be-nice prescription
    You didn't mention a discussion prior to this ANI, even when myself and Tavix urged you to take it to the talk page. Did you ever consider that it might be a good idea to mention this or ping me to the discussion? That would be one of the ways a discussion such as this is premature. It could have easily been solved with a casual message or ping. Instead you reverted. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confusing the subject. What talk page are you talking about? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No one has really covered themselves with glory here. It's not unreasonable to check the page of a page you're reverting, but there were ways to stop this from boiling over. Anyway, everyone knows where the discussion is and will be participating, yes? Mackensen (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I raised this issue here because of the obstruction aspect. Despite Wikipedia:Assume good faith being a behavior guideline—a great one, even—it doesn't however require us to look the other way i.e. totally ignore instances where actual bad faith is at play.
    The incident in question is over the reverts to both Category:Redirects to an article without mention and the reverts to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. The bad faith exhortations in the edit summaries for the reverts to the latter page (i.e. exhortations that the change should be discussed—where there is a discussion and the editor in question has made no attempts to participate and indeed doesn't even seem to have checked for consensus) are supporting evidence that the exhortations across *both* pages are actually obstructionist in intent rather than about seeking consensus. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe you've assumed good faith based on your comments at RfD where you accused me of gamifying the RfD process. I used a very commonly accepted nomination rationale, which is that the term being redirected was not mentioned at the target. This comes down to WP:V and including some type of context for why the redirect exists. Additionally, I'm struggling to understand why you chose to edit war instead of mentioning this discussion when you were reverted. It's important to communicate on Wikipedia and this would have stopped any type of escalation. Based on your reverts, and the location of the discussion not being instantly obvious, how would I know about this discussion? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to argue for your (or my) position about RFD. This is ANI.

    Based on[...] the location of the discussion not being instantly obvious, how would I know about this discussion?

    This, not unlike the recounting of facts in the ANI/3RR report you opened up, is erroneous and misleading. The location of the discussion is the talk page of the page you reverted. Which you still haven't participated in, even after now having been made aware of it—nor have you backed out your revert exhorting me to "start a talk page discussion". -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1200738353"