• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.^[1]

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]

you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [27] [28] [29] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [30] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of Bo'ame, which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022.[31] In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: The article Bo'ame had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting.[32] All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Wikipedia. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Wikipedia is untrue, [33] and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources [34] [35] show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this [36] which are linked to these articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

Comment Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like Bo'ame as an example. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell This is not respectful to IP editors who want to make an account. Why would IP editors want to register an account if they could not use their new account just like people with Wikipedia accounts who have been here the same amount of time as them? Maine 🦞 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather @HJ Mitchell Yes, this discussion went on for a long time. But I don't think that user user:You see the wet pores in his skin slough started this ANI as HJ Mitchell said; they just commented here. Were they blocked for that, or was it for abusing multiple accounts (in spite of their denial)? I could be wrong. David10244 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither HJ Mitchell or I suggested that they opened the section. What I said was that their third ever post to Wikipedia was to this section on ANI. I found that, combined with their second edit, rather suspicious. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the first edition of the 2,366 bytes article you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Wikipedia. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you’re trying to change to the subject when i have debunked your lies, info boxes on these mentioned articles will relate to the sources [37] and changing the subject to a users contributions will not change the fact that these articles have previously been edited and also changed by many other previous uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: If you are saying that I told lies, please show the edited difference. The garoweonline article you showed exactly reveals that Somaliland has effective control over Tukaraq, however Puntland is objecting to it. I wrote about it in the article Tukaraq.[38] But you removed it.[39] Can you explain the reasons for your edits? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the source states there is no somalia presence this region, why did you ignore the source and change the info box [40] when there is already a dispute article as previously mentioned. [41] You also changed the source of the article to confuse readers [42] which i had to change back again. [WP:POV] states that opinions and not facts so you cannot just change them to your own accord.

Administrators and others: The conversation is going in circles. First, please give me your opinion on whether the copy-paste edit ("On the beginning of..."[43]) that Hawkers994 mentions immediately above is a violation of Wikipedia's rules or not. If this is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules, please your opinion on whether my rewrite ("Somaliland's Minister of Interior..."(the same link)) constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You lied about me of not adding adding any articles to wikipedia then when i debunked your lies [44] you said “Maybe its an exaggeration” and when confronted your changed the topic to Individual user contributions while trying to confuse users that info boxes should relate to sources. It seems you are the one going around in circles.Hawkers994 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I will talk about this one first. I have reviewed your history for the past 500 edits or so (about 2 years) and concluded that "You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland." But you had an edit in the past that was over 1000 bytes. You made the edit 5 years ago and it is only 1 of your 900 previous edits. Given this situation, can we say that I told a lie? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to quit making contested edits for a minute and read Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I was not cool with the editorial with Hawkers994. For this reason, I have now stopped editing the article disputed with him regarding the nationality of the town. I have called for dialogue with him on Talk:Tukaraq, Talk:Wadamago, Talk:Bo'ame, Talk:Yagori, Talk:Sool, and Talk:Hudun, but he has not responded. Currently, these articles are written to his liking (except for the articles that have been further edited by another person). Dialogue is effective only when the other party responds, and is meaningless if the other party does not respond. I think just editing without responding to dialogue is a sufficient violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a step forward. Now, isn't ownership of these areas part of the Puntland–Somaliland dispute? If so, the articles should just say that, instead of the two of you trying to fight the war on Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is a dispute article [45] many times on here for this region which these towns come under, yet this user ignored this as well as the sources which show control of these towns. Its pretty straight forward that info boxes should relate to that. User Freetrashbox does not need to change and deflect the topic.Hawkers994 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you also pursued a campaign of assigning ownership of disputed territory to just one side? Sennalen (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, i mentioned that there is a dispute article for all these pages, and that the info boxes should relate to the sources that show control of the towns and are present on the ground since all these articles already mention that its disputed.Hawkers994 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please thread your comments.
2. If I'm reading the diffs right, Freetrashbox wants to claim things for Puntland, and Hawkers994 wants to claim things for Somaliland. You both recognize that there is a dispute when it comes to adding claims, but you both have also removed claims.

Add sourced claims, removed unsourced claims, and quit being partisans for a side. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to say to Hawkers994 is to write based on sources, and don't erase it just because it is a bad source for him. Hawkers994 also claims that "the town is Somaliland because it is under the control of Somaliland", therefore, I have given examples where Hawkers994 edited that it is Somaliland even though it is not under Somaliland's control. I am not claiming that these towns are Somalia (or Puntland); I am pointing out that Hawkers994's editorial stance is wrong as an earlier matter. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What i would tell Freetrashbox is to let the sources speak for these articles and infoboxes, as these articles already mention them being disputed in the article info section and the local governments that run these towns. Your editing attitude should also be straight forward without being indirect about users editing contributions.Hawkers994 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: I think such a topic could be resolved on the article's talk page (of cource when you join the discussion.) However, your attitude of editing without sources, deleting sources you don't like, and your double standard by the article is unacceptable to me. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have made multiple violations including WP:POV on these articles as well as lying about user’s contributions as your previous replies show. Choosing and ignoring sources to your liking and stating your opinion as fact goes against wikipedia rulesHawkers994 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always explain with evidence, your opinion is always just some impressions... I don't need to tell you which is more contrary to WP:POV, describing one or both in a description of where there is a disputed. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some comments on whether Hawkers994's behavior is problematic, or totally acceptable, or problematic but within acceptable limits? Freetrashbox (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Freetrashbox avoiding sources and deletion of articles must be stopped, he has been warned many times in talk pages and doesn’t seem to care of the consequences. Wikipedia is not a place were you can do as you wish. His earlier replies indicate his behaviour wont change will be continue to ruin sourced articles Hawkers994 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any comments as to whether I am correct, Hawkers994 is correct, or both I and Hawkers994 are wrong... Freetrashbox (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no comments at all, do you all think this is just a form of article warfare? As you all know, there are so many pointless editorial battles in the field of the Horn of Africa rewriting Somaliland to Somalia and Somalia to Somaliland. I think the only way to prevent this is to ensure source-based editing.Freetrashbox (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you have dragged this out on this page for over a month now. No administrator has seen evidence that their intervention is necessary. It's time to drop the stick and move on to something else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As long as Hawkers994 does not make any problematic edits in the future, I will forget about this.Freetrashbox (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkers994 has no intention of changing his editorial attitude.[46] As usual, he has not added source to his edits. The editorial rationale for "unexplained removal of content" is also inappropriate... Freetrashbox (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [47] [48] [49] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [50], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

• Just because u are from Iran doesn’t mean everything belongs to Iran! (this was very their very first comment towards me)

• Dear HistoryofIran please use some sources before adding your personal opinion!

• what’s your problem, why do u think everything on Wikipedia should work the way you want it to work? Furthermore, instead of just writing your feelings, please add some good sources!

After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STONEWALLING and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [51], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [52]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request closure

As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly WP:STONEWALLING the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, @HandThatFeeds: the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs:

• he thinks Backgammon a Persian game:
  • Just wanted to add what it's called in Persian, it is a Persian game.

————————————————————

• He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian
  • here is the source

————————————————————

• He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people.

• • I putted sources on, the Azerbaijanis people once spoke a Northwestern Iranian language called Old Azeri language. But the Turks forced the Azerbaijanis to speak Turkish. The genetics of the Azerbaijanis are very close to the Persians.

And much more!!! Af420 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more WP:ASPERSIONS by this user, if not also lack of WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to push an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UN and The New Yorker appear reliable to me. Either or both parties should seek input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of edit warring. I see some low-grade incivility from Af420, but he seems prepared to follow NPOV recommendation of presenting all views found in RS. Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need, as they're not reliable per WP:SPS as mentioned up above. I fail to see how constant insults and taunts is only "low-grade incivility" and demonstrates that he is ready to "NPOV recommendation", even though he was also removing sourced information as mentioned above. Can an admin please address this? This is frankly getting ridiculous, is this how we now treat fellow users and engage in disputes? Is instant WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, edit warring, WP:STONEWALLING, taunting, the way to go in a dispute? Since it seems to be working. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no clean hands here. One of the three sources was SPS. The appropriate resposne would have been to remove that one citation and WP:PRESERVE the claim and its other two citations. Sennalen (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't put me at his level, in no way did I behave even as remotely as him. Despite his persistent attacks and taunting (including in this very report), I have tried to maintain a calm and nice tone, only to get comments like "There are no clean hands here." This is what SPS says; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In other words, two news articles written by non-academic, non-historians are not WP:RS. Either way, sitting here and discussing what is WP:RS and what isnt is pointless, since Af420 didn't even bother to do that himself, instead resorting to well.. I rather not keep repeating myself. The report here has more than enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussing it here is pointless. Discuss it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're not helping. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing so it doesn’t get archived. HistoryofIran (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tritto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been up for almost a month, way longer than it should be. I'm not a fan of constantly bumping an article, but I'd like to see something done, whatever that may be. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indeffing user:Af420. Said "user" is displaying some serious WP:CIR-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be WP:AGF'd. The fact that he digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Wikipedia, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits in any way by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years[53] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: [54]. Looking at their recent contributions, they seem to have taken this one to heart, which is good, but they're still doing something similar, that is, making large numbers of small edits to a single article, burying a much more substantial edit in the middle. Combined with the lack of edit summaries, this makes it quite difficult for editors watching articles to notice that larger edits have occurred. As an example, here's an unsourced edit that was dropped in the middle of 20 different edits done over the space of an hour and a half to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe: [55]. Depending on other editors' watchlist settings, they'll either have their watchlists blown up by all these edits, or just see this presumably unobjectionable one: [56]. I don't mean to allege bad faith or to say that making multiple edits to an article is inherently disruptive. But in the context of this ANI discussion it seemed worth pointing out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Special:Diff/1141799904, specifying Luhansk and parts of Donetsk and Kharkiv as being outside the Pale of Settlement. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micga you are copying without attribution, which is a real problem besides the others raised by Levivich, and aren't recognizing the problems with your edits. Unless something changes, I'll be supporting sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Where?Micga (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue of unexplained content removals and addition of claims not supported by the added references in Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Section_ordering_and_repetitive_content in the past. The edit comments weren't communicating the scope of the changes made, similarly to the asilvering's example above, and Micga didn't respond despite being pinged. The comment in the edit that removed a half of a section was outright misleading, leaving an impression that content was added rather than removed in the edit.

The content added by Micga to Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_vs._other_types recently is a largely unreferenced essay. (Most of the references are from the lead that has been removed by Micga; none appear to directly support the 'types of Russophobia' discussion.)

The identical issues with Micga's edits in a different topic area were discussed at ANI previously. --PaulT2022 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micga did not address the concerns here and has simply continued with the same kind of editing. In post-Soviet states now they made unsourced changes and moved around text without explanation,[57] which I reverted, then they restored the changes adding a couple refs in an edit[58] which do not fully support the changes and then proceeded to make a bunch of changes, again without using the edit summary, which are unsupported and hard to follow. Where is "Pax Russica" in this edit mentioned in the sources? I could not find this. If there is a history of this kind of editing, then action should be taken here, because it is clear this kind of editing will just continue. The edits on anti-Russian sentiment look particularly problematic. I am counting 127 edits on that article since 24 February, with major changes without any discussion and the edit summary used only for one of those edits. How is someone supposed to follow these changes? It is not possible and so probably no one will bother to check. Mellk (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the participants from the previous ANI discussion in November 2022. It seems like this is an on-going issue with Micga. Following the last ANI, admins neglected to take any action and surprise surprise here we are yet again. It seems that Micga's generally non-constructive editing tactics have and will continue indefinitely unless admins impose some sort of sanction. If this happened for the first time, I'd call for WP:GF leniency, however, based on Micga's talk page history, past ANI and block, this user has had several warnings from countless editors. We are way past the point to call this a "GF error". Micga has had ample opportunity to improve their editing methods within this time period. In most cases, Micga continues to make dozens and dozens of rapid edits without providing any edit summaries and often without any WP:RS. Even during this discussion, the user continues to edit, in my opinion, recklessly without any explanation and without sources. Myself and Subtropical-man, among others had expressed concern about this exact situation in the last ANI. Seeing as how this seems to be an on-going issue, I too support sanctions. Otherwise, I fear we will be here again in a few months. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After I made this comment I see that Micga made almost 40 edits to Russian world, not one of them using the edit summary, which again involve making unsupported changes. In this edit they re-use the same refs as before (as in [59]) to write different statements unsupported by the sources (which looks like WP:FICTREFS). I see that Johnuniq pinged Micga here asking for a response but they decided to continue with those edits instead despite the concerns raised. Mellk (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to take action at the moment but someone else may like to. I left a final message at User talk:Micga#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the initial edits which affect the substance, albeit being supported by the necessary references, the majority of these 40 edits are related to language polishing. I often read multiple times the inserted passages as well as admit to having, as a non-native English speaker, endless doubts whether I used the proper sequence of the syntax. However, I still have no clue in regard to allegations of copying without attribution. Micga (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the sources is the denial of the Belarusians, Ukrainians and Rusyns as nations or the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Rusyn languages, reducing them merely to dialects of Russian language mentioned or even anything about this doctrine? I do not see anything about dialects or even languages. All I see is you used the same sources for the statement about the "near abroad" from post-Soviet states and used them for completely different statements in a different article. Including using previously cited sources from the post-Soviet states article including ones from 2001 and 1994. Mellk (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also none of the sources you cited mention autocephaly[60], so it looks like WP:FICTREFS. Mellk (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I can see that Micga's reply above does not engage with the details and does not address my comment below at 02:24, 5 March 2023. However, if I'm going to indefinitely block Micga, it would be better to make a water-tight case first. Please focus on edits made after Micga's reply above (after 10:19, 5 March 2023 UTC) and reply here if you believe any make a claim that is not supported by the reference (preferably something that I can check). I'm looking for one clear and recent example that I can ask Micga about. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to beat on a dead horse, but he's still editing everywhere without edit summaries, without sourcing his contributions, and making several tiny edits with a bigger one in between. Ostalgia (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also observe that no one has, at any point during this or the previous ANI incident, mentioned anything positive about Micga's edits. Regarding the ones since the last warning, I don't edit in this area so I can't immediately recognize if any of these edits [61] are howlers, but they are certainly unattributed changes. These others [62] include some changes to the wording that don't seem likely to be controversial, but the edits to that first paragraph appear to change the meaning, and I can't check that URL to see if they agree with the source - it just times out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Micga: Whether or not your edits are helpful is hard for outsiders to quickly assess. What we can see however is that several established editors say that there are problems. What is your response to that situation? Is there a discussion somewhere showing that some agree with your approach? For those reporting here, I recommend that a wikiproject be involved with a discussion focusing on a small set of related articles. Do not make an editor the subject of the discussion—at a wikiproject, the subject should be whether a particular set of edits was helpful. Having a wikiproject involved would give someone like me more confidence regarding what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the editor continues to edit without responding to your very reasonable questions, Johnuniq. Its clear that "several established editors" have expressed concern with the users editing both here and in the last ANI (at least eight editors here alone, among others from the previous ANI and from the users talk page). So what now? Archives908 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micga (talk · contribs) has been editing for 18 years with one short block in May 2021. They contribute frequently here and at the Polish Wikipedia. I can't indefinitely block Micga due to unclear concerns. Is it because they are not adequately engaging in discussions about their edits? Where is a recent example? Is it because they make several minor edits to an article with one large one in the middle with significant changes of meaning? Is there a recent example of a change of meaning that the sources or Micga have not justified? As mentioned above, I'm looking for one clear and recent example of a claim that is not supported by the reference that I can ask Micga about. Please only reply here if you have links showing recent issues. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently asked Micga to provide a single source that would directly support the claims that a section Micga wrote (initially, almost without references) makes.

Instead, Micga added five references for a single fairly short sentence. All referenced sources are of considerable size. There are no page numbers or quotes to indicate where either of the sources may support Micga's edits and it's unclear why such a short sentence might require five references in the first place. None of the sources has a long list of events, which, as the sentence referenced to them claims, haven't been subjected to any serious public debate attempts in Russia and historiography taught in Russian schools continues either to omit these events entirely or to tell them in a version entirely invented PaulT2022 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is -- and this is a structural problem that, um, may have been mentioned before -- edits like the ones asilvering points to above (Combined 1, Combined 2) are an absolute nightmare to review. There is so much content changing there -- with no change in sources that I can determine -- that I can't figure out at all whether that's correcting the content, expanding the content, or distorting the content, and it would hours to run that content down against the sources and verify it.

Here's another way of looking at it: Compare Pale of Settlement on February 25 with Pale of Settlement on March 9, after Micga's edits. Just look at the first paragraph. These are not improvements in my view, and that's without even figuring out if it's verified, nevermind npov.

So to answer John's request for a recent unsourced diff... well, if you look at the "1805–1835" sections of the Feb 25 and Mar 9 versions, "Lithuanian governorates" was removed, and "Southwestern Krai" was changed to "Northwestern Krai without rural areas". Without edit summaries, I do not know which of the many edits between those dates made those changes, and I don't see any inline citations in the before or after to help make verification easy. So I have no idea if those are correct edits or not. Levivich (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian governorates formed together the Northwestern Krai, while the General Government of Kiev was otherwise known as the Southwestern Krai. I just rectified the nomenclature and removed redundancies, but the substance was left unchanged. Micga (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Levivch's and PaulT2022's analysis. During this ANI discussion, Micga has made roughly 40 edits on Post-Soviet states. Not a single edit summary has been provided. Text has been added, removed, and altered without any rationale. Therefore making it extremely difficult to decipher if these are improvements or not- especially the text added with no WP:RS. These are the exact concerns which were raised in the last ANI. Micga had conducted a massive overhaul of European integration. Hundreds of rapid edits were made, with zero explanation, and no sources. It was a logistical nightmare to keep track of. Since then, the user has not shown much attempt to improve their editing methods or address these concerns. It is problematic and contrary to Wiki ethos. Regardless if the user has been editing for 1 year, 5 years, or 18 years is not a valid excuse to ignore the concerns raised by countless editors. Archives908 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nml25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also

• @Daranios, Onel5969, Onetwothreeip, and Daniel Case:

Concerning:

• Sexton Blake bibliography
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present

Nml25 has created four articles with massive amounts of unsourced original research. Multiple editors have made an attempt to remove unsourced material. Nml25 continues to add this unsourced material back into the articles.

They were blocked by @Daniel Case: [63] for edit warring on 11 February 2023. Since the block has been lifted they have continued the editing behavior they were blocked for, reinserted unsourced material without adding references to independent reliable sources and reverting editors that object to the unsourced content.

These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:

[64], [65], [66], [67]

More (see article histories for all)

[68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73],[74]

See discussion here: Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Splitting the article and Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?  // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I had hopes after the initial block that they would learn, but unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. A longer block is warranted, but the length I am not sure of. The last time, as soon as the block was over they returned to the same behavior which led to their initial block.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what TimothyBlue is talking about. I have restored content after communicating with Daniel Case, who put in place the block and provided guidance on content. On February 19th I posted the following communication to him:

Pages have been restored and revised with more detailed citations as per Daniel Case's' suggestions.

Title info has been included to meet standards of verifiability as put forth by Daniel Case

"Sexton Blake tales were all independently published in story papers, (usually 1 paper 1 tale) with the title of the tale used as the title of the issue of the story paper, therefore it is necessary only that their existence be verifiable."

Example

1955

The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || ||

Year, Magazine Title, Issue # Title of Story, Author

Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided.

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576

ISBNs have been provided for all modern publications.

Comic Books plus has three pages of digital files for the Sexton Blake Library

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=2177

and a page of Union Jack titles as well

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=732

If citations are needed I ask that you use the citations needed function for guidance. Nml25 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I received no message from Daniel Case that the material was inappropriate. From Feb 19 to Feb 26 I have received no message from anyone that there was aproblem with the information provided in the Sexton Blake bibliography pages. Other edoitors made tweaks on the page. On the morning of Feb 26th I discovered that Onel5969 had hidden three of the pages. No explanation given. So I reverted it back. Then TimothyBlue reverted the pages. So i reverted it back. Again TimothyBlue gave no explanation and he appeared to have no knowledge of the communication with Daniel Case.

To recap:

I took advice on board from Wikipedia for citation of sources on the four pages in question, I corrected citation of content to meet that advice, I notifed Wikipedia that new content was posted, I requested I be notifed for any errors in citation through the needs verification function. Other editors looked at the pages, found no issues and tweaked content for more than a week.

What excatly did I do incorrectly?

@Daniel Case @Daranios

And again: The material is not unsourced. There are 9 citations in the Compiling the Sexton Blake Bibliography section of each page which describes where the material comes from.

TimothyBlue and Onel5969 have made the creation of this page a highly toxic experience.

It's all viewable here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANml25#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion Nml25 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just wanted to say that I believe that the disupted content is "unsourced original research" is incorrect. Everything else can be read in the discussions linked by TimothyBlue. Daranios (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it's sourced, most of it isn't. Restoring contested content without sourcing is disruptive per WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I informed Daniel Case, the admin that it had been revised and restored on Feb 19th to comply with his guidelines. There was no objection. TimothyBlue and Onel5969, who had not participated in that conversation, decided unilaterally to take down three pages. No examples as to how the content did not meet the guidelines. Nml25 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They contain massive amounts of content that is not sourced and is against WP: NOTDIRECTORY, as it would appear your other articles do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue "These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:" I'm confused. Diff 63, at least, includes references. I didn't check the others. David10244 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and additional material: I believe these are additional examples of unsourced original research in articles created by Nml25 and should be considered:

• The Exploits of Fidelity Dove
• The Sexton Blake Library, The Nelson Lee Library
• Harry Blyth, Nelson Lee (detective)
• William Murray Graydon, Robert Murray Graydon, Francis Addington Symonds, John William Staniforth, George Hamilton Teed

 // Timothy :: talk  18:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue you're coming across more like an obsessed stalker than an objective editor.

All of these pages were approved months ago by other editors. And true to form you make broad general claims without specific examples. Nml25 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question to everyone: Is there any actual doubt about the accuracy of the content? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this question hitting heart of WP:Verify. Unsurprsingly, I myself have no actual doubts about the accuracy of the content, also seeing as most of it can be double-checked at the Blakiana website. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes, but it's difficult to be certain without sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Aside from Blakiana, some of the old magazines are also available at archive.org, like Detective Weekly 251 I had linked here. In case you want to check out accuracy exemplarily yourself. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable or not, great big lists without any real context are against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The four articles starting this thread are just republishing the lists compiled by the Story Paper Collectors' Digest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but this criticism that the lists are drawn directly from another publication seems inconsistent with the criticism above that the lists are unverifiable OR. Also, don't we frequently include bibliographies in author biographies as well as articles about prominent fictional characters? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually include weekly or bi-weekly magazine publications over many years in a biography section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have list articles that are each many times the size of main articles, those lists include extra details that are unsourced (and could well be OR, I've made no comment on the OR issue). So no there is no inconsistency in my comments. What is seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN after the content of these articles has been challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: With regard to "seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN", the thing is that the ongoing discussion is about if the citations are not already present for publication information and plot-summary. There is only a small percentage of uncited "extra details". WP:BATHWATER applies then. Daranios (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously disagree with how much is unreferenced, it's certainly not "a small percentage". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: I have explained why I think the vast majority is referenced - though not by footnotes - in detail at Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?. Maybe you would like to explain why you think otherwise or where you think my argumentation is wrong over there. The other participants of the discussion have so far refrained from doing that. Daranios (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple people's arguments haven't explained the problem, maybe the the issue is your not hearing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other ongoing discussion is whetber these should be merged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which entry do you think is inaccurate? Pick one. Nml25 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Check the section for fans. The title is "FOR ALL SEXTON BLAKE FANS" It"s on all four pages (the section title is formatted manually instead of as a section title, (which would appear in the TOC) so you need to search for it.  // Timothy :: talk  12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm staring at the wrong item, the "section" in question is not so much a section but the heading of an announcement that the editor copied verbatim into the article (with proper referencing). I have no opinion on the dispute, or on the editors involved, or on Sexton Blake, but I just thought this was worth pointing out. Ostalgia (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy has a history of not reading things closely.... or at all. Doesn't stop him from having an opinion though. Nml25 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - despite the large wall of texts above, the editor continues to add large blocks of uncited material to articles, which is why Daniel Case blocked them for a week the first time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the block log, the block was for edit warring, not for adding large blocks of uncited material to articles. Perhaps Daniel can clarify. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: NML25 continues to add material to the articles, but still has not added references or sources or addressed objections by other editors. They continue to claim that comic book collections, fan clubs, and personal websites are independent reliable sources, which they are not. After further looking at the few references supplied for the lead material, there is also a problem with SNYTH and PUFFERY which needs cleaned up.  // Timothy :: talk  08:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The bibliographies cited, although not from academic publishers or the like, include compendious compilations of bibliographic information by people knowledgeable about the subject. This type of source is often used on bibliographical articles (for example of second-tier authors and comic-book characters) and sometimes necessarily so. These articles could use some clean-up, but if we are going to have a Sexton Blake bibliography, and I don't see why we shouldn't, what other sources does anyone suggest could be used? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand what the problem is. Can somebody drop a diff of an OR/unsourced/synth/puffery/whatever edit, post-block? Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TarifaXxx (talk · contribs) has been (re)adding copyrighted pictures without permission to Roger Schmidt (footballer); user won't stop, even after pictures are deleted from Commons for copyright violation. [75] [76] [77] [78]

I suspect TarifaXxx is Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) and its multiple sock accounts, who had the exact same behaviour at João Félix. (too many diffs to post here; see between 25 September 2019‎ and 4 July 2019) SLBedit (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might find someone who'll block from here, but this should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: TarifaXxx is edit warring at Roger Schmidt (footballer), now with another copyrighted picture. User will not stop until it gets blocked. SLBedit (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not call users "it".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Account equals it, i.e., until his/her account gets blocked. I will continue reverting his/her copyright violations, as those reverts are exempt from 3RR: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." SLBedit (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TarifaXxx has been edit warring for days now, readding copyrighted pictures. SLBedit (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing is ongoing. User won't stop. SLBedit (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then file a damn WP:AIV report for vandalism or WP:SPI to see if they're a sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My WP:SPI report was ignored. SLBedit (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel the need to amplify a cry for help I've just noticed dated February 3 at WP:PNT, titled Himetataraisuzu-hime. It is extremely unusual to have several people asking for help with a particular editor. I am emphatically not competent to evaluate Japanese translation and past experience says that Japanese is one of the languages machine translation truly does not handle well.

I know nothing about any of these people btw, and would be delighted to find out that they are wrong. However the idea that a "prolific" editor who does not speak Japanese is producing machine translation from Japanese is very alarming, and likely this is causing not just ugly English but serious errors of fact. Cleaning up such work is a huge and tedious time sink for people who actually speak the language in question, and I would know having just listed one from French out of sheer exasperation. Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(a bit later) It looks like the article has gotten some help, and it's two editors not three but the questions raised are still alarming, so I am quoting the meat of the plea:

29 January 2023 (UTC)

Himetataraisuzu-hime Edit The initial language of this article was Japanese. Auric talk 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The current "translation" is a travesty of bad machine translation, worked over primarily by a human editor who doesn't understand how to do translation, doesn't understand how to look up terms, doesn't understand Japanese at all, cannot read the phonetic parts of Japanese writing, and is wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. This user is prolific, and nearly all of their content is generated the same way -- machine-translating articles from non-English Wikipedias, and then badly reworking the result. Various editors, myself included, have attempted to advise them to stop utilizing this deeply flawed process. See also User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and related threads in their Talk page archives. About the Himetataraisuzu-hime article itself, I am not sure if this is sufficiently notable for English-language readers. About the user, I have followed them for some months, and I am convinced that their editing activities here result in a net negative effect for the Wikipedia corpus: so much is wrong, and so many of their newly-created articles are for niche topics that few other English-language editors will see, and if they see them they may not be able to recognize them as bad, let alone fix them.

I am much less active here than on EN Wiktionary, so I am much less familiar with process. My recommendation is that some kind of administrative intervention is needed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look but my (mediocre) strength is conversion, not text. But I know the grammar and such EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can read an earlier version at Draft:SiliconProphet/Himetataraisuzu-hime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)--Auric talk 15:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a Japanese-speaking admin, I agree that there is a significant problem here that needs to be handled at this venue. I simply have not had time to bring it to ANI myself, and may not be able to produce a complete summary now. When the issue was raised on my talk page, I wrote the following: "I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (WP:SOCK given the history of overlapping use of accounts, WP:C as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (WP:CIR, particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (WP:CITE, WP:F, etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account." There are several issues involved, only one of which is the machine translation:

• There are copyright problems involved in the direct machine translation of non-free texts; I raised this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuhitobe. As noted above, machine translation involving languages the editor is not able to read are resulting in significant factual errors. Japanese is not the only language for which this is occurring.
• There is overlapping use of accounts, although only one is currently active, and this is being used to push through a set of articles that were draftified; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SiliconProphet/Archive, at which I mentioned the case of Himetataraisuzu-hime specifically: "Looking at Himetataraisuzu-hime may give a good summary. This is a real, but very obscure, topic in Japanese mythology. The article was created by SiliconProphet on October 12, 2021. It was edited extensively by SiliconProphet, but was draftified per talk page consensus on October 14. It was moved back to article space by SiliconProphet on October 22, and SiliconProphet continued to edit the article, followed by extensive edits from Scientifical Poet. It was then draftified again by an uninvolved editor on January 13, 2022. Immanuelle then submitted it to AfC without significant changes the very same day. Immanuelle continued to edit the article and it was approved at AfC by an uninvolved editor on May 3, but a recent edit by an IP editor still notes: Overall, this section is dreadful and clearly the mangled product of autotranslate, but I don't have time to fix it all. I doubt the process would have gone this way if clearly dealing with a single contributor to the translation."
• The history of having these drafts and articles objected to goes back further than the current account, due to the switching of accounts.
• When draftification occurs, the editor is merging inaccurate information into existing articles rather than improving the drafts; see User talk:Dekimasu#Help with a particularly problematic user and recent examples at Fuhitobe, Ichidaisotsu, and Girl Temple.

I would have liked to go through these items individually and clean them up for presentation here, but problematic articles continue to be created, so I will put this out there now in the hope that others can begin to evaluate what's been gathered together so far. The editor does not seem to concede that there is a problem, and I agree with the evaluation at the top of the section that this will end up creating a massive amount of work for other editors trying to clean up past contributions. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt to convey the scale of the potential problem: I primarily rehab articles from French, *a language that is related to English* and which is my language of education. There is a huge backlog of machine translated French articles created by a single user about military history, one of which, for example, translated something along the lines of "it was not until (1943?) that the unit saw combat in WW2" as "the unit did not see combat in World War 2". Some errors are more subtle than that, and I knew to look for that one, as that particular sentence construction is frequent and not intuitive for English speakers. A superficial copyedit by someone who does not speak French would not have spotted it. I have seen artist Joan Miró become Joan Looked. It gets much worse from there, the more divergent the language is from English. I've had four semesters of Japanese and do not consider myself literate in the language, just (possibly) able to get through counting, verbal greetings and thank yous. Hopefully this explains my alarm. Thank you for any brainpower applied to this. Elinruby (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[79] is an example of what Dekimasu is saying about overlapping accounts. The article was reported at WP:PNT a year ago by the same user (@Eiríkr Útlendi:), and nobody responded. Other examples of how there just isn't enough bandwidth to allow this stuff at [80] and the CTX subpage here Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the accuracy of the translay from Japanese, but I came across many of these articles due to referencing issues. Many had missing or partially corrupt referencing, as well as wikimarkup in article text. The way of dealing with this by SP was to simply delete anything that the machine translation had broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Immanuelle has added a user page comment stating, "In case it was not clear I retired on translating pages from Asian languages recently." However, previous retirement statements on the User:SiliconProphet account (here and here and perhaps elsewhere) simply resulted in switching to the current account, and Immanuelle has continued to edit the same set of drafts based on translations from Asian languages since making the new statement. In light of this, and since Immanuelle has not taken part in the discussion here, I propose the following remedies for this case:

• 1) Immanuelle will be limited to one user account. Other accounts including User:SiliconProphet and User:Scientifical Poet will be blocked indefinitely.
• 2) Immanuelle must not create new drafts using machine translation from any language, including Western languages, and must ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.
• 3a) (Option 1) Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
• 3b) (Option 2) Immanuelle is prohibited from creating new article drafts.
• 4) Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion.

Violating any of these rules would result in blocks. To me, this is a very lenient set of remedies. The problem of the articles that have already been altered by improper and/or inaccurate machine translation has yet to be resolved. However, these measures would help limit future damage, and the results of these remedies could be monitored more easily than under the current high rate of output. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Non-administrator comment), taking reports above on faith as I don't know Japanese, and voting to support based on my experience with translation from other languages, and the heavy burden created when editors "translate" from languages they're insufficiently familiar with. This needs to stop, and these remedies will help. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In determining which of options 1 and 2 is more appropriate, it would be helpful to know if there is any evidence of productive writing from Immanuelle that does not fall into this pattern. Just skimming over their created articles, all I've seen are translations and copies from Simple English Wikipedia. (I'm checking by comparing reference sections between wikis) And if they're also using an LLM to create articles as mentioned on your talk page, that’s not really much better. small jars tc 16:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with preference for 3b over 3a. This is hardly the first time someone's enthusiasm has vastly outpaced their abilities in the Japanese topic space (the meat of lumps, souped in soup example comes to mind, along with its hundreds of machine-translated companions from that article's creator). In addition to the obvious problems with machine translation output, eager "translators" who don't actually speak/read the language cannot judge the quality of the input, so they often do not realize that the Japanese (or other language) Wikipedia article they're "translating" is terrible, and they plow ahead regardless. Frankly, I would prefer a more straightforward "no machine translation" or even "no AI-assisted editing" remedy. But I fully support the current version as well. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this will also help address another issue not yet discussed here: Immanuel is using ChatGPT or another AI to create articles and make additions. I tagged one with info on what the problem was, but Immanuel deleted that draft and continued working with AI text additions. The issue has not been fully discussed with them, but 3 a or b would simultaneously solve most of that prob anyway. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Belatedly) Support, for all of the measures outlined above. I don't see 3a and 3b as mutually exclusive, and both appear to be appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Non-administrator comment) - anything to stem the tide. I would also be in favor of explicitly forbidding machine translation and ChatGPT for this user to make it clear what the problem is here, and encourage reviewers to go a little deeper with this user's contributions, even if at first blush they seem ok-ish. I don't really know how that process works, but it seems like we're hoping AfC will catch the problems. They are catching quite a few based on the user talk page, but considering the potential nightmare we are contemplating... But we should definitely implement this proposal at least. Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. (Non-administrator comment) So glad to see this here. I left a message on this user's Talk page about the Simple English translations here: [81], suggesting AfC, to no reply. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't speak Japanese, but I know Eiríkr Útlendi from en.Wiktionary and trust his assessment that this is a serious problem, especially backed up as it is by a few other Japanese-speaking editors above. Frankly, given how hard it might be to enforce a ban on machine translation (how do you prove the user machine-translated and didn't just ineptly human-translate?), and given that the user has apparently said they'd stop doing this only to then switch accounts and continue, I wonder if a block would be better, in terms of preventing harm / the creation of copious incorrect and/or copyvio content that needs cleanup. -sche (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • -sche, WP:BEANS applies here, but at least for Japanese, machine translation produces characteristic errors that differ from the kinds of errors that humans tend to make. I can immediately think of a couple of grammatical structures that a person with low-intermediate Japanese ability could easily understand and translate properly, but that machine translation will reliably translate incorrectly. While this isn't 100% definitive on its own, there is a supplementary method, which is to ask the editor how they came up with a particular translation in the event of an apparent error. People who rely on machine translation typically cannot explain their thinking about translating from the source text at all, for the obvious reason that they did not actually think about it in the first place. That said, you may be right about the block, but Dekimasu is offering them a chance for course correction, which I agree is worth trying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Additional remedy proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support this and the above remedies. I commented on the SPI about this editor recently. My position was that their use of multiple accounts in isolation wasn't enough to justify sanctions, but that there are broader conduct issues that should be addressed at another venue such as ANI. I share the concerns raised above about machine translation and use of AI, and I don't find Immanuelle's statement about "the standard I hold myself to now" convincing considering that they were adding factually incorrect AI-generated content to articles as recently as this Monday (see the example above about Draft:Confucian Shinto). There have been other instances of poor behaviour. For example, after Onel5969 draftified some of Immanuelle's articles, they indiscriminately reverted dozens of Onel's draftifications in what appears to be retaliation [82]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that specific restrictions on machine translation and AI usage are enforceable, and I question whether this user's approach to editing is broadly compatible with the project. However, I support these restrictions as a start. Also support WP:TNT deletion of machine-translated articles that have not been improved by others. Spicy (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An outcome was reached for a new track map color scheme in order to provide MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [83] [84] and [85]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng [86] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83 [87], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3RR here. He continued edit warring there by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [88] [89] [90], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". This behavior is also present in edit summaries where he reverted edits on EN-WP as "useless" during the past few months. Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused a participant of canvassing in the discussion on commons and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors here while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. Given the fact that multiple blocks have occurred due to this behavior and the fact that there have been AN/I threads in the past related to it, I am bringing this here. There is a right way to go about handling discussion outcomes you disagree with, however, I don't believe that occurred here. Noah^Talk 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neddo23.nr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the article Transfiguration of Jesus, this user wrote that the event is "mythological" here, here and here. I'm not saying such religious beliefs should be considered to be true; however, the added content is unsourced and POV. I tried discussing this with them but they stated "It is mythological" and "If it’s not proven as fact by evidence, it is mythological by deduction.", which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. They do not at all seem open to discussion. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This board should be the last place to go, and we only address conduct issues here, we don't settle disputes. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to have even a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies, like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:Citing sources. I'm don't know what to discuss with them. I was simply patrolling recent changes and I saw an unsourced statement, and I found out they wouldn't accept my explanations. That's all. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've pageblocked them in resposne to the AN3 complaint, so they can learn about the relevant policies. Also, this is edging into the historicity of Jesus topic area. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was the historicity of Jesus ever subject to discretionary sanctions? I know that it has been a contentious topic in the usual sense, but I thought that it had never been defined to be a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything in the logs or what I can find of expired sanctions. Jesus has been semi protected by various admins repeatedly and often since 2005 with vandalism as the primary reason, no mention of community action/sanction. Historicity of Jesus seems to have a few short protections and Transfiguration of Jesus has never required admin action.Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had somehow gotten the impression that there had been some kind of sanctions regime concerning the historicity of Jesus, but I can’t find anything either. Not sure how I formed that idea, maybe there was a long-ago kerfuffel that never made it to arbitration, or was a thread on the drama boards. Acroterion (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: it did make it to arbitration Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus but DS wasn't a remedy and received very little support Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision#Discretionary Sanctions. A single editor remains topic banned although was apparently already community topic banned before that anyway and has been fairly inactive since 2018 (and wasn't really that active even then). Theoretically pseudoscience may cover some aspects of historicity, even more of the transfiguration; but since it's only pseudoscience and fringe science rather than generic fringe theories, only in a very limited fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user, who can’t seem to decide whether their name is Bigdan201 or Xcalibur, has been pushing unanimously unpopular fringe takes on Gamergate incessantly, despite repeated warnings against bludgeoning. Evidence:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Suggestions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Another_idea
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)&diff=prev&oldid=1139814652
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#insurgency/asymmetrical_conflict

I think this problem has gotten tedious enough to require a topic ban from the article and its talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On top of this, their talk page also shows a long, LONG history of WP:IDHT on fringe theories. This is extremely problematic and may require an outright block. Dronebogus (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice.

As I said, there was no reason for you to prematurely close discussions. It seems like you didn't even read what was said -- I was brainstorming different ideas each time, and the last discussion led to a productive edit (although there was a hangup with the RS). I wasn't "pushing fringe takes": first, I suggested "describing the false claims in more detail", then describing their political views further. As it happens, consensus was against these, and the second point was addressed in the article already. I considered detailing more about the history, but consensus sees that as UNDUE, so I let it stay deleted. My latest brainstorming avoided these issues and moved in the right direction. Discussion would've went fine without this overzealous policing.

As for my talk page, yes, I've had issues before, but since an editor gave me a helpful reality check, I've been trying to improve. IDHT on fringe theories that's not really accurate, though. My disputes were mostly not about FRINGE (although admittedly, I was too stubborn then); the exception is a noticeboard discussion that escalated, and didn't even involve article edits!

I note that your talk page indicates that you have a habit of arbitrarily closing discussions that you don't approve of. This is not helpful, and certainly wasn't in my case -- closing should only be done for lengthy discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant, neither of which is the case here. This is an overzealous response. Xcalibur (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant

Those discussions absolutely fit these criteria, and the fact you cannot see that makes it very clear you need to step away from the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of Bigdan201/Xcalibur proposing the same false balance stuff from back in 2020, and not getting anywhere then, either. At this point it does look like they need some help staying away from this topic. A topic ban would be appropriate in my opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there was a significant time gap, and once the consensus was clear, I accepted it. Still not seeing any validity to claims of false balance or bludgeoning. BTW, I believe sealioning involves intrusion, especially by following ppl to other areas and platforms; not trying things out on a relevant talk page. Xcalibur (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bigdan201 - are you aware that this topic falls under the WP:CTOP rules? If not, I will post a notification about it on your talk page so that you have the relevant guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 2018 notice from the DS era on their user talk, and a modern one from last month here MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that Doug Weller notified him in February. WP:AE might be a better venue for this complaint. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe sealioning involves intrusion - dude, are you honestly sealioning a discussion about whether you're sealioning? --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am learning towards thinking Bigdan201 needs an topic ban from the gender and sexuality topic area under the contentious topics procedure. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Did not want to be the first to say it, but Support topic ban from the gender and sexuality {contentious topics)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a topic ban is actually too weak, IMO this [97] appears to indicate that they see themselves as a soldier and this as a war. That would be clear WP:NOTHERE and should result in separation from the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Asymmetrical warfare? On an encyclopedia? Gag me with a spoon! No objection to WP:site ban. Look, "all we are saying, is give peace a chance." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support a topic ban at minimum, and a site ban would seem appropriate for comments like JK Rowling receiving threats/harassment/stalking just for publicly disagreeing with trans.. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide a diff for that, so we can see the comment in context? I mean, it's poorly phrased, but JK Rowling has received harassment for her public comments in that topic area. I don't think we should be automatically jumping to a site ban based on a comment like that. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's in the diff Horse Eye's Black provided above. Simply describing transphobia as "disagreeing with trans" is ... well, "yikes" is the best way I can put it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That context helps, thank you. Certainly, that was a very strange line of argument. At the same time, nowhere does our article say that her views are transphobic in Wikipedia's voice - just that they have been described as that by various commentators. I'm not saying that I agree with Rowling's views, but I don't think that we can start site-banning people for failing to call them transphobic. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the site ban, but I have topic banned for a year as an AE action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may respond here: yes, I'm aware that it's a contentious topic, obviously. I thought I was behaving myself, just brainstorming to get a feel for consensus, then moving ahead to edit. It was Dronebogus who was completely overzealous in closing topics IMO. I see that a fair discussion is not to be had here. I hope those who prosecuted me here actually read my comments instead of jumping to conclusions, eg the asymmetrical topic was about the structure and operation of the movement, not editing itself, as you seem to believe, and it led to a productive edit (we have an article on the topic, btw). "yikes" I was trying to be fair & neutral instead of condemning wrongthink. Lastly, I won't get baited by that IP. I guess this is what passes for fairness? Xcalibur (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just be blunt: Wikipedia does not work on fairness. Like academia, ideas are questioned, criticized, and sometimes attacked. We operate on what reliable sources say, and neutrality is based on those sources, not "balance" towards the subject in question. While we assume good faith in other editors by default, that doesn't mean editing choices are treated "fairly." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and I've acknowledged that controversial topics can't be a pro/anti split, but follow the RS. I was referring mainly to the deliberation/discussion here. For reference, my posts led to this edit [98], which has been ironed out to [99]. I would tweak the wording further, but now I'm not allowed. I'm trying to say that the thread closures, and this ban, are a disproportionate response. Xcalibur (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thread closures were absolutely appropriate, and the ban is because you kept insisting on reopening them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's the key issue, then. I thought it was justified, since I kept trying new ideas, but at this point, other editors are too riled up for me to work productively there. This felt like a kangaroo court, especially with editors grossly misunderstanding my point about asymmetrical/insurgency -- I was referring to Gamergate, not editing wiki! I thought Dronebogus went too far, but consensus says that I went too far instead, so I'll have to accept that. Xcalibur (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formal vote on topic ban and block

I think Bigdan/Xcalibur’s behavior has gone far enough. They have been warned countless times that their fringe sealioning antics are unacceptable and responded every time with variations “okay, I’ll work on it” that obviously were not taken seriously. I propose a topic ban from sexuality and gender, a topic ban from fringe theories, and an indefinite block from the wiki. Dronebogus (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already issued a topic ban for GENSEX, and I accept that judgment. There is no reason to keep escalating this into disproportionate penalties. Again, I have in fact made an effort to be less stubborn/experimental, and my only FRINGE issues were in a discussion away from article space. The troublesome edits in this case were because I thought your thread closures were excessive, but consensus is against me. Anyway, since an admin has already made a ruling (topic ban, not sitewide), I request that this matter be closed and not pursued. Xcalibur (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep insisting that you’ll improve your behavior but then just move on to some other topic to continue it. You have officially exhausted the community’s patience. Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The community has spoken, with a topic ban: [100][101] and then, hours later, you posted this thread [102]. A decision was already made, so while your earlier actions may have been justified, this is veering into BATTLEGROUND territory. Also, while I caught it quickly (since I was lurking), you did not notify me of this escalation, as you should have. Overall, this motion should be closed for being excessive & redundant. Xcalibur (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus Failing to adhere WP:AGF is a casus of block. I strongly urge you to strike your comment. 95.12.113.130 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

See also Don't link to WP:AGF. Bishonen | tålk 23:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think this is quite true; let's say, arguendo, that I see a comment and think to myself "that editor is a gaslighting jerk." I stew about it all day and harbor horrible thoughts. I can be blocked for that? Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Dronebogus Andre🚐 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support this remedy. lettherebedarklight晚安 04:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some WikiPedia administrators literally vandalized the ZeroNet article, spreading malware and fraudulent cryptocurrency scammer versions of another software on it. Authors of other "forks" have repeatedly vandalized the ZeroNet article. The multiple requests to protect the page were manually removed without discussion. I request that the article be immediately locked at the highest level of security possible.

Please secure the article with the following recent edits, which restore the original article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZeroNet&oldid=1143408236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.91.162 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been rather unclear about which links might be scam/malware (I've asked you twice elsewhere). Some of the content you removed was clearly not a scam, and seems to have been done so for political reasons (based on older talk page messages by 5.143.55.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I presume this is also you). Nonetheless, I've removed all but two of the external links - the original official website (which also shows up highest on a Google search) and the page's GitHub. If you have reason to believe anything else is malicious, you need to be clear which links and why. — Czello 15:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a bunch of external URLs in the body, I've removed them per WP:EL. Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As far as I can see these all linked to the official GitHub and so shouldn't be malicious - but fair point on WP:EL. — Czello 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Wikipedia administrators did not vandalize the page in question. The article is subsequently undergoing an overall to remove content that was vexatious.. A little WP:AGF would have gone a long way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2023-03-07 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia; it is defined as deliberate attempts to damage the encyclopedia. Notably, it does not apply to edits made in good faith, such as those restorations of content. Accusing other editors of vandalism is a serious breach of assumption of good faith, and could be interpreted as a personal attack. Also, please ensure that you provide specific diffs of actual "malicious" links, including a clear explanation as to why. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all cleared out, now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is using factually wrong information on the infobox of Golden Horde, and edit warring. He says [103] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit however he doesn't even reply to the talk page. His only talk contribution was [104] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit on Talk:Ilkhanate without a reasoning. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be making arbitrary and often unsubstantiated changed. Qiushufang (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gomati Sharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've had three stage 4 warnings for adding unsourced content to articles since returning from a 2 week block for the exact same behaviour. Edits like this one are exactly what this user was doing before; adding wives and mothers to historic Indian figures and then creating an unsourced article, usually a copy and paste from an article that they themselves wrote on Bharatpedia earlier this year. Gomateshwari on Bharatpedia would appear to be the same editor as the articles created are the same and with the same content. Just this morning I had to revert this edit as well.

Just before they block they created OR/hoax articles Rachnadevi, Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress), Kimveka (Mahabharata) and shortly after return they have created more of the same content, just with different kings associated Jayalakshmidevi, Shubhapradha (Rashtrakuta Queen), Tarinidevi, Pushpavati all of which are, at best, OR, and, at worst, hoaxes.

I'm not seeing any improvement, unfortunately. Also straight up denial like this and pot calling the kettle black like this apparent tongue-in-cheek comment, gives me no confidence that things will get better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've indeffed them. They can try and convince an unblocking administrator that they'll change, but they're just deliberately ignoring all calls for sources which is not acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I couldn't see this going any other way, sadly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-opened this. I'm concerned about this edit summary. @Spiderone: have you seen any evidence that would suggest this is actually a block evading or multi-username user? Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few discussions in various areas about this user and possible socking. I've tried to compile some of it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shravani Chatterjee. User:Utcursch has informed me that they have some more evidence of possible links with other blocked editors and will submit this when they have time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This editor has had 11 articles moved to draftspace, 10 articles rejected at AFC, 2 speedy deletes, and 3 AFDs and have received a warning regarding improper article creation last month (see User talk:CARLITOAHUISA). They do not appear to be taking any of the advice given in their talk page and they continue to create articles with the same issues.

I think they have good intentions, but this should be looked at as they do not seem to be taking the talk page notices to heart, perhaps they need a mentor.  // Timothy :: talk  11:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: sorry to say this but it looks like they've just created another problematic article just now, Dapeng Airlines. Would perhaps a mainspace block on new articles be appropriate? This would still allow the user to use AfC should they wish. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and a rude response Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac563 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suret language: Changed sourced info and a literal quote by an author twice 12 December 2022 8 March 2023

Aramaic: changed sourced info [129]

Turoyo language: changed sourced info [130]

Arameans: removed sourced info [131]

Seems to have a thing for "Assyrian nationalists", a word he throws around a lot, including to our fellow users;

"With al due respect, @shmayo is an Assyrianist who tries to Assyrianize the Arameans in all possible ways. I already asked before if it is possible to block Assyrian nationalists from editing the Aramean page. Shmayo tries to make it look in all possible ways that modern Arameans don't exist and he tries to confuse readers by limiting/minimizing/manipulating information about Arameans to avoid that this name/identity gains any popularity."

"Seems like you are obsessed with your Assyrian identity. Your changes where you change Aramean into Assyrian confirm that you try to Assyrianize the Aramean people by name, identity etc."

I could bring out more diffs of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour of Syriac563. But meh, I couldn't bothered. Hope this is enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: Aside from this case, I have one question: Are there sources that very specifically, without the need for SYNTH, state that Arameans do not exist? And if there are, how do they reason their way to this conclusion? Are they clear about how they do that? As you know, there are people today that continue to speak modern Aramaic and identify as Aramean. Are there sources that specifically state that they don't exist? The Arameans "were an ancient" indicates they no longer exist. That is in addition to the fact that at least one government recognizes their existence. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant question. I will try to keep my answer short. I will assume that you have not been involved in similar discussion here before; this is a very complex issue to solve here (or anywhere else for that matter). As I have been involved in these discussions and RFCs here for 10+ years, I will try to add some relevant points here. True statement, some Syriac Orthodox adherents identify as Arameans (mainly in the diaspora, Aramean-Syriac or Syriac-Arameans being common alternative terms they use in the English language). However, the article "Arameans" is the equivalent of, for example, "Assyria", i.e. the ancient peoples. The modern people (in its simplest form defined as Middle Eastern adherent of four major churches, all identifying themselves as Sur(y)oye/Sur(y)aye in Neo-Aramaic) is described in this article. This article, previously under names such as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" (as you can see, even more terms are used, Aramean probably being the fourth most common in the English language when referring to the modern people), is today named "Assyrian people" per WP:COMMONNAME. However, this article is already in the lead mentioning the different terms used. "Terms for Syriac Christians" is a good complementary article on the identity subject, also referred to in the article in question. I would like to refer to old discussions (e.g. regarding the WP:COMMONNAME) or RFCs, but there have been numerous during the years. But to summarize earlier RFC discussion, or discussions regarding new articles; separate articles for a modern people with an "Aramean-Syriac" (or any alternative term) identities have been created (mostly by now blocked users and their socks) earlier, however all these are WP:CFORKS. Here is one example of an old discussion on deletion of a WP:CFORK, but there are plenty more. Multiple articles (or forks) for the modern people would lead to edit warring in an even larger scale as we have seen earlier (in all articles referring to the modern group, whether it's people, or areas, or any other subject relating to the modern group). Shmayo (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those IPs are chasing my edits, falsely accusing me of disruptive editing and reverting my edits repeatedly based on his/her false accusation.[132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139] Probably these actions made by one person who abuses multiple IPs. I beg administrators to sanction those IPs. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two and the last two IPs appear to be proxies.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raniere is convicted racketeer serving a life sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Judge Raner Collins granted the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the suit on grounds that Raniere failed to exhaust administrative remedies (in line with the Prison Litigation Reform Act), and his lawyer's insufficient service of process.^[1]

  Within weeks of the dismissal, Raniere filed another suit against the Bureau of Prisons that is active as of March 2023^[update].^[2] Raniere has used the lawsuit to file an affidavit making far-ranging claims about his imprisonment, including a claim that he is in danger of a death in custody akin to those of Whitey Bulger and Jeffrey Epstein should he be transferred to a Communications Management Unit within the federal prison system.^[3][4] He also says "a billionaire media mogul from Mexico" is seeking to hurt him.^[5][6][7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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