Marcelus has a clearly WP:NOTHERE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GRUDGE attitude, because of his behaviour on the article Zigmas Zinkevičius, its talk page and the report on No OR. Marcelus has a long-time grudge against this dead man and has repeatedly voiced his hatred of Zinkevičius:

1. Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - 11 August 2022 [1]

2. Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources - 15 January 2023 [2]. This was Marcelus' response to me commenting about the Anti-Polonism section (created by Marcelus): This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. Marcelus wants to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist of recent times due to Marcelus disliking parts of his work. Marcelus has a grudge against this dead man already for quite some time, considering that Marcelus said (...). ([3])

Turaids noticed this due to the report and then became involved in the talk page. Regardless, Marcelus continued WP:POVPUSHing with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that Zinkevičius is nationalist and anti-Polish, despite no sources naming the foremost Lithuanian linguist of recent times as such. When Turaids said to Marcelus You are the one openly admitting of adding things to the article with the intention of "proving" that "he was chauvinistic pig", Marcelus' response confirmed this with ...my intentions is to describe him as such....

Marcelus is clearly editing in a disruptive manner. I am writing this report because Turaids proposed it on my talk page with the reason being He made his intentions very clear from the beginning and his activities clearly go beyond just original research. We tried resolving it constructively.

Marcelus should be WP:TOPICBANned from the topic "Lithuania" (broadly construed) and all topics covered in Zinkevičius' many works, because WP:ABAN on only Zigmas Zinkevičius would result in nothing considering that he wrote a hundred books and many hundreds of articles, mostly regarding Lithuania, but not only, so banning Marcelus only from that article alone would not stop Marcelus' hate-filled disruptive editing overall.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly should be a reason for my ban? A negative opinion on the subject of the article is not sufficient reason for a ban, does not break any rules and does not exclude you from writing an article on the subject. Let me qoute WP:YESPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. In my opinion, the fact that Zinkevičius was an active politician, and as such pursued what is nationalist politics, belonged to the nationalist anti-Polish organization Vilnija (organization), and his scientific work is tainted by a lack of objectivity and mixing ideology with scientific facts, was an element missing from the article as an important part of the biography. Therefore, I decided to add it. I was accused of WP:SYNTH, but I don't see where in the article there is a problem with it. It was suggested earlier that the first sentence was problematic, so I removed it. The "Anti-polonism" section is based on several works by recognized researchers, Polish, Lithuanian and American. I purposely limited myself to academic sources, and didn't use any journalistic sources.

If I were to be completely honest I would like to see Zinkevičius excluded as a source for articles on Poles in Lithuania, their origins, rights, etc. Because already, if only by virtue of his direct political involvement, he is not reliable. At the same time, I do not undermine his merits for Lithuanian linguistics, or for Lithuania in general, or science in general. But I believe that there are better, newer, more moderate works that achieve a neutral point of view in this field. And they reiterate those of Zinkevičius' findings, which are free of bias and ideology.

At one time, by the way, I already made such a submission to WP:RSN, in which I listed examples of passages from his works that are either misleading or outright false. Here is a link. In fact, it has already been previously established on Wikipedia as the source of the false information that it was illegal to speak Lithuanian on the phone in Poland before 1990. Here is the link. As hard as it is to believe, such information can be found in his works published as scientific. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence What exactly should be a reason for my ban? and the rest of the response only further prove you WP:DONTGETIT. Turaids and I have repeatedly (!) told you the problems with your editing: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Instead of appropriately addressing them, you disruptively edit. As for your submission to WP:RSN, considering that you made it on 6 April 2022 and no one paid attention to it, this only proves that you have an unjustified WP:GRUDGE against this man and your disruptive editing has been going on unadressed for far too long. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all of them, but ok, I can do it again. 1st link: he was the member of Vilnija and other also were, as I said I don't inisist on keeping this, but I don't agree that it breaks any rules, or that it is an "association fallacy". It would be the case if they weren't active in the same organisation, but they were. 2nd link: no concrete issue here, but another mention of me being problematic. 3rd link: another mention of me having a "grudge" against Zinkevičius, I adressed it in my first comment here, to sum it up "it's irrelevant". 4th link: I adressed your issues about Jundo-Kaliszewska here, no reposne from you, so my guess is that you were satisfied with the answer.

So out of all 4, only 3 are actual issues, and all of them were addressed by me. So it seems that IDOGETIT. Marcelus (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casually dismissing concerns is not "addressing" the issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds Which one did I dismiss? We can keep talking about issues with the article, but the other side needs to be willing to cooperate. @Cukrakalnis listed four issues, only two are about article. First ("association fallacy") I don't agree, because it's not aplicable here. It would be if person A would be in a nationalist organisation but also in a, let's say chess club with person B, and by this association I would claim that person B is also nationalist. This isn't the case here, all people mentioned in the article were members of Vilnija. And as I said I don't insist on keeping this part, but I don't agree that it is "association fallacy". Second issue with article is that Jundo-Kaliszewska is according to @Cukrakalnis "controversial", and he said why he thinks that, I addressed his concerns (although as I see now, I didn't provide the link the first time, so here it is). I'm still waiting for his response.

It's unfair to say that I "dismissed" concerns. Marcelus (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not adress any of the issues.

There is 0 sources calling Zinkevičius "anti-Polish", but you created an "anti-Polonism" section on the article ([8]). That whole section is WP:SYNTH, which makes it all WP:OR. Instead of removing that section because it is against Wiki's policies, you ignore the issue and sidestep it entirely.

Your whole approach is clearly of doing as you please and ignoring the rules. You yourself admitted that the "Anti-Polonism" section that you wrote went directly against Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV when answering to my message here.

It's impossible to work constructively with Marcelus, because he either ignores what others write, side-steps the issue entirely and claims that he 'adressed' them or fails to understand what is being said to him and agressively edits however he wants to. It's very fair to say that you dismissed these concerns, because you repeatedly fail to understand what is being said to you and then engage in the same behaviour that elicited that criticism in the first place. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis No, I didn't acknowledge that at all. The section is I believe written neutrally with reference to sources. In view of this, it does not break the WP:NPOV rule. My personal attitude towards the subject of the article is irrelevant, if one were to approach it in the way you suggest, it would mean that an article on, say, Hitler could only be written by people with a positive or neutral attitude towards him. This is, of course, absurd.

The section is called "Anti-polonism" because it describes actions against the Polish minority in Lithuania, a name reinforced by the fact that Zinkevičius was associated with Vilnija, which is described as an anti-Polish organization. I believe it is an appropriate name, but am open to changing it. What is your proposal? "Anti-polish sentiment?" "Action against the Polish minority in Lithuania"?

I have already answered why it is not WP:SYNTH, but you keep ignoring what I write and repeating, for the umpteenth time in a row, the same accusations, adding that I am not addressing them.

I get the impression that the only purpose of this submission is to censor the slogan about Zinkevičius and remove information that you find inconvenient. Unfortunately, I cannot agree to that. Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish. That section was not neutrally written, because you yourself admitted you wanted to smear him, which could already be inferred from you repeatedly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading linguist of the modern times. That section was written in a manner that breaks numerous Wiki rules, as other users like Turaids already told you. You never answered why it was not WP:SYNTH and keep side-stepping most of what other users point out.

WP:ICANTHEARYOU is a perfect description of your actions, both on the article Zigmas Zinkevičius, its talk page, the report about your original research, as well as here. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish., yes and he isn't called that in the article, only his policies are described as "nationalist" and "anti-Polish". Although this source, which I didn't use actually is doing that: [The appeal to expel the Polish party from parliament] was signed by extreme nationalists known for years: Romualdas Ozolas, Kazimieras Garšva or the former Minister of Education (from the 1990s) prof. Zigmas Zinkevičius, who proclaimed that Poles in the Vilnius region are Polonized Lithuanians and they need to be helped to return to their roots. Also under the appeal is the name of the once moderate political scientist Vytautas Radžvilas.

So let's try work out WP:SYNTH together then. Because you need to say exactly what conclusion is according to you mine own creation, and not based on sources. You already mentioned that "No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish", I answered to that hopefully in a satisfactory way for you. What else? Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That Polish newspaper article is questionable for numerous reasons, most importantly because it said that Dalia Grybauskaitė is a person who willingly refers to nationalism (...a także chętnie odwołująca się do nacjonalizmu prezydent Dalia Grybauskait?, która na wiosnę zapewne wywalczy drugą kadencję.). What's with Polish sources calling the most important Lithuanians of recent times like Vytautas Landsbergis, Dalia Grybauskaitė and Zigmas Zinkevičius (extreme) nationalists? Not to mention that time you cited [9] that Pole Marian Kałuski who literally said "Lithuanians became his [Satan's] instrument in sowing hatred between nations." (just check his article). And notice - that section is under the section "Personal views", not "Anti-Lithuanianism" or etc. Including a person's own quotes is by no means WP:OR. Unfortunately, your section is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, because you gather disparate information and yourself synthesize it into a 'narrative' where you basically smear Zigmas Zinkevičius. SYNTH has no place on Wikipedia and should be removed in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. If you actually read his works, especially his biographies, you would see that your accusation of Anti-Polish sentiment is unfounded. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. This article isn't used as a source. 2. Nobody is calling Grybauskaire "nationalist". 3. What Marian Kałuski has to do with all of that? Also you pointed out that his views are problematic, I ackonwledged that, and dind't use or insist on using him a source after. Do you see the difference between my approach and yours?

I don't smear Zinkevičius, I describe his actions and views. If that sounds like smearing to you, it says more about Zinkevičius than me. I have read his works, and you know my personal opinion. Marcelus (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot do that. Sources have to do that, otherwise you are violating WP:SYNTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds I'm not doing it, sources (Jundo-Kaliszewska, Weeks, Donskis) are straight forward, they describe his actions and views. None of the conclusions are mine. As I understand at this point, the biggest problem is the title of the section, so I change it to a fully neutral one: "Relations with the Polish minority in Lithuania", will it be ok? If there are any other problems, please indicate them, but I mean literally, individual sentences, constructions, indicate conclusions that are mine in your opinion and do not result from sources. Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Marcelus is saying is not true. Neither of these sources describes Zinkevičius as anti-Polish, nationalist, etc. What Marcelus is doing is WP:SYNTH of various statements. The problem was never about the section's title but the section itself. Because no source calls Zinkevičius 'anti-Polish' or anything of the sort. Marcelus not understanding after more than a week of interaction with other editors that the section itself is the problem due to, but not only, it going against WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and breaking multiple Wiki rules, is a clear indication that Marcelus is WP:NOTHERE and is WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as Marcelus' behaviour constantly proves. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Zigmas Zinkevičius is:
  

1) an author of many recognized publications. For example, he was Editor-in-Chief of the first three tomes of the Lithuania Minor Encyclopedia (Lithuanian: Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija, online version can be found HERE; see: confirmation about authorship mentioned here). Moreover, he is an author (confirmation) of many articles in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (the most extensive Lithuanian encyclopedia which is also accessible online and is published by a Lithuanian state-funded publishing house). These sources can be described as the most important, extensive and reliable sources available online in the Lithuanian language and has high quality articles almost about every Lithuanian topic.

2) a famous academic. He had a 72-year academic career, was professor (since 1969) and the head of multiple departments of the Vilnius University.

3) a Lithuanian minister of education and science (1996–1998).

Moreover, Google search gives zero results for "Zigmas Zinkevičius chauvinist" or "Zigmas Zinkevičius nationalist".

That being said, his extensive publications covers many, many Lithuanian topics and I support that such actions by multiple times calling him as chauvinistic pig (1, 2) and saying that your intentions is to describe him as such (3) is strictly against Wikipedia's rules. Mr. Zinkevičius clearly would have not achieved so much recognition in a democratic and recognized European country Lithuania if he was a chauvinist (and chauvinistic content clearly would not be presented in the primary Lithuanian encyclopedias published by the state). So we must evaluate how such claims about him comply with WP:OR.

Moreover, by keeping in mind that Mr. Zinkevičius published extensive articles about many Lithuanian topics we must evaluate how such attitude will comply with Wikipedia's fundamental principle WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE by editing Lithuanian content. For example, Mr. Zinkevičius is author of article the origin of the Lithuanian language in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia, so according to Marcelus it is written by a chauvinistic pig? This could easily lead to WP:BATTLEGROUND, but we don't need that and as far as I understand this report happened because of similar circumstances. Such motifs editing Lithuanian content definitely should be carefully examined and evaluated as we are Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, not to insult/discredit sources and publishers, especially such competent and recognized experts in Lithuanian content as Mr. Zinkevičius. -- Pofka (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka calling him as "chauvinistic pig" and saying that your "intentions is to describe him as such" is strictly against Wikipedia's rules what rules exactly?

So we must evaluate how such claims about him comply with WP:OR. where do you see such claims in the article? Can you pinpoint exact sentences?

For example, Mr. Zinkevičius is author of article the origin of the Lithuanian language in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia, so according to Marcelus it is written by a chauvinistic pig?, everybody has right to his own personal opinions, including me. Being a great academic doesn't mean being perfect in all areas of life.

I'm sorry, but this slowly starting to be a witchhunt. Seems like the focus is on me instead of an article. And that two users: @Cukrakalnis and @Pofka are doing everything they can to eliminate me from the project. @Pofka even rallies other users against me. Marcelus (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, the purpose of this noticeboard is to examine the conduct of editors, not the content of articles. (Also, you should provide diffs to support accusations against other editors.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd Well then, the main accusation in my direction is that I expressed my opinion about the subject of the article in harsh terms. Is this a breach of any particular rule? Because, after all, it is difficult to require me not to have my own opinions, or to write articles about things to which I have an indifferent attitude, because these are usually things about which I have no idea. That's why we should also talk about the article: is it written according to the rules, in neutral language, using reliable sources, etc.?

For my part, I can promise that I will refrain from expressing my opinions in such a harsh manner in the Wikipedia discussion space. But, as I said, I feel that I am the victim of a vilification. As I said @Pofka is ralliying other users against me and was banned for personal attack against me, and the ban was lifted literally couple days ago. Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, the main accusation in my direction is that I expressed my opinion about the subject of the article in harsh terms. The main accusation is that you are a disruptive editor, with attitudes and actions that clearly contradict Wikipedia's policies. There is a clear different between "harsh terms" and outright dehumanization, which is what Marcelus did in calling a person a chauvinistic pig.

Your answer further proves you WP:DONTGETIT. No one is saying that having opinions themselves is bad. However, there is a difference between an opinion and repeatedly dehumanizing a human being (see the the quotes in my report). What Marcelus did here absolutely WRONG.

I remind that on that report where Marcelus asked for Pofka to be banned, Marcelus succesfully got Pofka WP:TOPICBANned from Lithuania on the basis of WP:PA, which pale in comparison to what Marcelus is saying of Zigmas Zinkevičius. And Marcelus is now asking for a free pass to continue dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar in linguistics, linguistic history, etc. of recent times.

That's why we should also talk about the article: is it written according to the rules, in neutral language, using reliable sources, etc.? Your answer is obviously WP:IDNHT. When others precisely told that - for example, on the noticeboard on OR and the talk page, you dismissed, side-stepped and ignored what they said. I said on the talk page: "This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. (...)" [10], Marcelus' first reaction was Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources. [11]. This a clear admission that Marcelus wrote that section without caring about WP:NPOV, because he is basically saying that he admitted that he wrote the article in the manner that I said he did. And I said that Marcelus went absolutely against the non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV, to which he agreed. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis, again manipulation: I remind that on that report where Marcelus asked for Pofka to be banned, I never asked for him to be banned. Pofka was banned because he had a long history of getting into conflicts and being generally difficult to work with.

Another dception: for a free pass to continue dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar, which part of the article is dehumanizing Zinkevičius? Marcelus (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What other WP:Sanctions did you expect for Pofka when you said in the report I warned him to stop insulting me or I will report his behavior.? It seems like that was what you were going for.

No one said that within the article you were dehumanizing Zigmas Zinkevičius - the problem is that you did it at all, no matter where and never ever apologized for dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar. NEVER. Instead, you hide behind I have a negative opinion of Zinkevičius, I am entitled to it. [12]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I asked for him to be blocked. So stop spreading misinformation.

never ever apologized, why would I do that? And who should I apologise to? What rule did I break? Marcelus (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see any reason to apologize at all for repeatedly and wrongly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading scholar as a chauvinist pig? You broke the rule of basic human decency. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me the page description of this rule? Marcelus (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not party to this dispute, nor am I an expert on the subject around which this dispute revolves, but on superficially reading this discussion I found this particular comment to be simultaneously amusing and in incredibly bad taste due to its conntations: Mr. Zinkevičius clearly would have not achieved so much recognition in a democratic and recognized European country Lithuania if he was a chauvinist (and chauvinistic content clearly would not be presented in the primary Lithuanian encyclopedias published by the state). This hits me as a rehash of old Eurocentric tropes that have (fortunately) long been questioned in the West, but in this case being put forward by someone from a "latecomer" to said West, who probably missed out on the "fun" of judging every other nation from the heights of Western ego when it was in vogue. Personally, I am usually loath to use the term "Eurocentrism" as it has (sadly) been much abused to criticise well-grounded, high-quality research on account of it having been produced by "white, Western men" with complete disregard to its content, and often employed to artificially elevate pseudo-scientific and anti-academic mumbo jumbo to the status of scholarship. In this particular case, however, I think Eurocentrism perfectly encapsulates the sense of that sentence. I believe, or would like to believe, that we live in an era where it is absolutely clear that you can most definitely be a chauvinist and "achieve so much recognition" in quite literally any country, and that chauvinistic content can be (and has been) published in state-issued books and encyclopedias all over the world, Western or otherwise. None of this means that Zinkevičius is a chauvinist, and I do not intend to imply that by any stretch of the imagination, but your defense of this person and his work should focus on the latter's quality and content - it can never be "he achieved recognition in a democratic European country, ergo he can't be a chauvinist!" Ostalgia (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quality and content of Zigmas Zinkevičius' work is the reason why he received recognition in several democratic European countries besides Lithuania, such as Latvia, Sweden and Norway (he was a member of the respective countries' academies - it's in the article's intro). A person of such high standing in late 20th century and early 21st century scientific societies certainly did not exhibit behaviours like chauvinism because that would have immediately ruined any chance of him remaining in such a position of international high standing. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're doubling down on your countryman's Western exceptionalism argument. You will find plenty of examples of people who have remained in good standing to the very end in spite of having made "regrettable" comments and holding reprehensible views (for one recent example, see Indro Montanelli). Only post mortem were this views challenged, even though they were always in plain sight. I repeat, none of this means the subject of the article was a chauvinist, and the onus is on Marcelus to prove it, but this line of argumentation is laughably naïve at best. Ostalgia (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about Western exceptionalism - if a person was a member of several African or Asian academies, the same would apply. Academies have standards and people who don't follow them are kicked out. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and your countryman put quite some emphasis on "democratic European" to now claim otherwise, but the point is the same. There are plenty of examples of intellectuals having held abhorrent views (or even engaged in digusting behaviour) that contradict your apparently rosy view of these institutions (and countries). Once again, the onus is on the editor who introduced those changes to prove that those changes are accurate, which he has not done, but you'd do well to drop such a line of argumentation.

Also, as a recommendation, issues with WP:CANVASSING have already been raised here by the accused, and the way this is developing, it is also beginning to look like WP:TAGTEAM. The fact that you answer to every comment made not only in reply to you, but also in reply to every other Lithuanian isn't a good look, and it's also making this section bigger and more unwieldy by the minute, and it might eventually reach the level where no admin will touch it (I have experience with that...). You have a point about the introduction of unsourced, potentially synthesised content (nothing to warrant a TBAN from every topic related to Lithuania, though!), but it's getting buried under an unholy word salad while nothing new is being said. Wait for a bit until an admin reviews this mess and, if anything, add diffs or other concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Ostalgia (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's good taste to describe, in a talk page discussion, a subject of the article using pejoratives, but we don't have a NPA policy against non-editors. BLP can sometimes be an issue, but the subject here is dead. I don't see anything action worthy here, although I'd caution Marcelus to make avoid pejoratives as a general rule, and certainly don't escalate them against editors. At the same time, I'd caution the editor who reported them here that reporting editors for non-policy violation can be seen as a form of WP:BLOCKSHOPPING (huh, really, a red link?) and invoke WP:BOOMERANG. Both parties need to descalate and WP:AGF before someone gets themselves into real trouble. And remember that WP:NOTAFORUM, the talk pages are not for criticizing (or praising) the subject, but discussing how to improve the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, you don't have a problem with somebody calling a given country's most notable academician, linguist, etc. of recent times a chauvinistic pig and then doing everything in their power to "prove them as such" when no sources call that person 'nationalist' or 'anti-Polonist'? To put it in another perspective, would you have a problem towards someone introducing a whole section of WP:SYNTH calling Józef Piłsudski "anti-..." (could be anything really, 'antisemite', 'anti-Ukrainian', etc.) and then finding random disconnected parts and stringing them into a whole section dedicated just to smearing Piłsudski? Do you not see the problem here? Obviously, both cases are obviously objectionable for any person that values Wikipedia's core policies. Ergo, Marcelus' behaviour is disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IF Marcelus was edit warring to keep such a section, then I'd see a problem. I see no diffs for that. If he added it (again, diff for that please?), and then defended it (presumably) on talk using some language that is pejorative to the deceased subject, but not to other editors - no, I don't see a problem worth reporting here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd just give my experience as an initially uninvolved onlooker and the reasons I recommended Cukrakalnis to make a report here. I first joined the discussion after seeing Marcelus insist, I have conviction that I described his views in neutral way. Two immediate red flags: Marcelus' openly strong views on the subject, which he still seems to claim are the only reason multiple users have a problem with his edits, and Marcelus summarizing his own edits as "him describing Zinkevičius' views", which sounds like textbook WP:OR. My suspicions were confirmed in the very first sentence, where a source saying However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is the lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts. was attributed to the blanket statement Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work., which in turn was presented under anti-Polonism. I pointed it out and it was partially resolved, but that's where the constructiveness ended.

My objection that even with his changes it still sounds like a more general criticism of Zinkevičius's work and not anti-Polonism was ignored. My follow-up question on whether any of the used sources actually explicitly call Zinkevičius views and actions "anti-Polonism" was dodged and my request for him to provide corresponding quotes from the other sources so I could see for myself went unanswered. My very first edit to the article where I tried removing a list of seemingly handpicked members of Vilnija as irrelevant was almost immediately reverted by Marcelus with the explanation that naming his collaborators is part of his biography without ellaborating on this supposed collaboration. When I called it out as an example of WP:SYNTH on the basis of association fallacy, Marcelus chose to double down on Zinkevičius' membership status in Vilnija instead.

At this point, I joined the discussion of Cukrakalnis previous report, where I responded to Marcelus repeated argument about his sources being reliable by reiterating that his application of them clearly is not. and voiced a general proposal to move the overlapping content from the Reception and legacy section to a separate subsection Criticism and discard most of the content in the Anti-Polonism section as duplicate and unimprovable., which was then used by Marcelus to do the exact opposite. When I reverted his edit and called him out for twisting my words, Marcelus went to my talk page accusing me of having a "personal grudge" against him and informing that he will not allow me to remove, factual sourced material from Wikipedia. When I referred him to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as the seemingly sole underlying motive of his edits it was reflected back on me. And after he brought up Zinkevičius being nationalist yet again, my response that "nationalist" and "anti-Polonist" is not something that can just be thrown around interchangeably was once again met with confusion, which makes it seem like a hard case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. He repeatedly asks for concrete examples and when they are provided either immediately dismisses them as just someone's opinion or outright ignores them. –Turaids (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turaids When I called it out as an example of WP:SYNTH on the basis of association fallacy, Marcelus chose to double down on Zinkevičius' membership status in Vilnija instead. Because if they all were members of Vilnija it cannot be association fallacy, that's logically impossible. That was my reasoning for reverting your edit, and something you ignored and not even mentioned now.

which was then used by Marcelus to do the exact opposite., Here you omit the order of events, which is important. After I introduced the "Anti-Polonism" section, Cukrakalnis trying to erase it, and when I stopped it then moved parts of it to other parts of the article, changing their tone and adding things not confirmed by the sources. Such as that Zinkevičius was criticized only "by some Polish scholars" (although I myself quoted Leonidas Donskis, whom Cukrakalnis simply removed because they didn't fit his thesis), or that Jundo-Kaliszewska "strongly disapproved" of Zinkevičius' views (which she doesn't, and certainly not "strongly"), and that she denied the existence of Polonized Lithuanians (which Cukrakalnis based only on use of quotation marks). Cukrakalnis also misquoted Mirosław Jankowiak. It was Cukrakalnis who duplicated the content from the "Anti-Polonism" section, not the other way around. In addition, he did so in WP:BADFAITH.

When I reverted his edit and called him out for twisting my words, Marcelus went to my talk page accusing me of having a "personal grudge" against him and informing that he will not allow me to remove, factual sourced material from Wikipedia. Excuse me, but that's simply untrue. I went to your talk page, to explain you in detail, I removed changes made by @Cukrakalnis, but you simply ignored it, and instead you said to me: "Spare your lengthy ramblings". And only then I replied: "Ok, I'm done with you, it seems you have a personal grudge against me at this point. I just want to let you know that I will not allow you to remove fact-based material from Wikipedia," and this post here has not changed my mind one bit.

He repeatedly asks for concrete examples and when they are provided either immediately dismisses them as just someone's opinion or outright ignores them, Not true, I addressed all the comments, agreed with some and disagreed with others. I have no reason to make all the changes requested if I think they do not improve the article. Marcelus (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you still understand what an association fallacy is, because that's exactly how you describe your motive: I think that the mention of other nationalists with whom he collaborated shows his environment, so it says a lot about himself. or in my simplest paraphrasing: "these people are X and Zinkevičius was also there, therefore that means he is X as well". You keep bringing up Cukrakalnis, but the order of events between you and him and what Cukrakalnis did or did not do is irrelevant to how you interacted with me. Just like who duplicated what first doesn't change the fact that you manipulated my words to continue edit warring with two on-going discussions about you. Even now you're the only one continuing to edit the article for a second day in a row.

And with already two on-going discussions you started a third one in my discussion page where among accusations and warnings you gave me a long essay of how Poles in Lithuania have supposedly been mistreated, which, regardless if true or not, does not justify WP:SYNTH. The few quotes you added just now and only after I called you out for ignoring my initial request show the same pattern of WP:SYNTH on the basis of the said association fallacy. You have one source calling Zinkevičius a Vilnija activist in one place and descibing Vilnija as a "nationalist organization" with "its main goal the earliest possible Lithuanianization of so-called Southeastern Lithuania" that you carry over to Zinkevičius and presented as anti-Polonism. The quote from the other source (Budryte) does not mention Zinkevičius at all. How long do I have to keep on unravelling your WP:SYNTH? –Turaids (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turaids Everything you have just said shows your prejudice against my person, ignoring my arguments and forcefully presenting my person and my actions in the worst possible light.

First of all, you are the one who does not understand what association fallacy is. The original sentence was: In 1988, he became a member of the nationalist organisation Vilnija (lit. 'Vilnius Region'), whose main goal was to lithuanize the Vilnius region as soon as possible. Members of the organisation included: Kazimieras Garšva (chairman), Alvydas Butkus, Romualdas Ozolas or Arnoldas Piročkinas. There is no fallacy of logic here, as all these individuals were members of the same organisation.

The quote from the other source (Budryte) does not mention Zinkevičius at all Because this quotation is about the Vilnija organisation

How long do I have to keep on unravelling your WP:SYNTH? For you, does WP:SYNTH mean using several sources to write an article? I could confine myself to the Jundo-Kaliszewska article, which explicitly cites Zinkevičius as the crowning example of "late 20th century anti-Polonism", but then you would probably attack that source and demand others. Marcelus (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you have just said shows your prejudice against my person, ignoring my arguments and forcefully presenting my person and my actions in the worst possible light.

What Turaids wrote is very far from that. Marcelus' response shows that Marcelus doesn't separate between a Wikipedian's criticism of his edits and persistent editing behaviour (formulated in a very neutral manner as well) and somebody having a grudge/being opposed to him. Claiming that a person you never encountered prior, suddenly developed a grudge against you in the matter of days, shows more about the person claiming it than the accused one.

The reliability of Jundo-Kaliszewska's article is under question due to numerous WP:FRINGE statements that she makes that are unconfirmed by any other sources, e.g. Zigmas Zinkevičius being a member of Vilnija. Not even the organization Vilnija itself said that, and they would definitely want to. One of many very doubtful statements on her part.

There is no fallacy of logic here, as all these individuals were members of the same organisation. You still don't seem to understand what Association fallacy is and then you accuse another person that you are the one who does not understand what association fallacy is. That's just plain sad.

Marcelus' WP:NOTGETTINGIT and his WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour is wasting everybody's time. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. It's clear that this is applicable to Marcelus, which is why this report exists at all. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: I suggest you stop seeing enemies in everyone who criticizes you. I have little interest in Zinkevičius, Poles in Lithuania or who you are as a person, but what I do care about is someone misrepresenting the sources. If Budryte's quotation is about the Vilnija organisation and does not even mention Zinkevičius, then what is it doing in an article about Zinkevičius? Even more so, if it does not only not mention Zinkevičius, but also does not say anything about Zinkevičius' anti-Polonism, then how including it under a section titled "Anti-Polonism" is not attributing things to it that it does not say? And before assuming what I would or would not have done maybe you should have included Jundo-Kaliszewska's opinion of Zinkevičius in the article from the very beginning (with a clear attribution)? So far all I've done is point to Cukrakalnis objections. Whether Jundo-Kaliszewska is a reliable source or not is another discussion to be had and one I've never expressed interest in partaking. But what's clear either way is that you can't just generalize one person's opinion as fact and then pile a bunch of sources talking about other things on top of it to make a whole section about it just to make your point. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that. –Turaids (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turaids: thanks for describing Marcelus' actions in detail (from a perspective of an initially uninvolved onlooker = neutral). Multiple users here already point out that Marcelus employ WP:SYNTH (WP:OR) when contributing to Wikipedia and in this Zinkevičius' case he has clearly done that to realize his intentions to describe Mr. Zinkevičius (original text: my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as chauvinistic pig (1, 2). So pay attention that he came to article Zigmas Zinkevičius not to improve this article in a WP:NPOV way, but had an exact initial aim which he openly described in the mentioned quotes.

Excerpt "which often influence his scientific work" proves that Mr. Zinkevičius publications' were targeted by such activity as well (above I described Mr. Zinkevičius works importance in Lithuanian topics). Marcelus accused him as "known for his nationalist views" without any references (1). That is a clear WP:OR (for a context: keep in mind his own words what motivated him to edit Zinkevičius' article). Later we see that the intensive warring continued and culminated with 6 reverts between Cukrakalnis and Marcelus (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). So lets check if claims that Mr. Zinkevičius was a nationalist improved (referencing-wise) and if protection of such claims by aggressively revert warring was justified. In the sixth revert there still is an accusation that Mr. Zinkevičius "was described as anti-Polish", however provided reference's content is not accessible and it is not possible to check the page 163. This raised concern for neutral user Turaids as well, however as he described "My follow-up question on whether any of the used sources actually explicitly call Zinkevičius views and actions "anti-Polonism" was dodged and my request for him to provide corresponding quotes from the other sources so I could see for myself went unanswered." So Marcelus actively accuses Mr. Zinkevičius of being "anti-Polish", but persistently does not provide any direct quotes from accessible sources proving it. The current version still is the same and he ignored complains by Turaids and Cukrakalnis (WP:ICANTHEARYOU). By the way, Google search offers zero results for "Zigmas Zinkevičius anti-polish".

In my opinion, insertion of content without references or with unverifiable references and refusal to remove or improve (verify) content is an example of OR POVPUSHing, especially if it results in a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Marcelus here at AN still demonstrates his personal perception of Mr. Zinkevičius: "Everybody has right to his own personal opinions, including me. Being a great academic doesn't mean being perfect in all areas of life." (1) and I think this is not a big difference from the initial motives to edit Zinkevičius' article: my intentions is to describe him as such (1); chauvinistic pig (2, 3). Judge yourself what are the chances that he would continue identical revert warring (his edits in Zinkevičius' article following this AN report did not remove "anti-Polish" claim).

My final evaluation: this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Lithuanian content in Wikipedia does not become better by inserting personal opinion and refusing to verify it for other contributors with valid sources (accessible quotes). -- Pofka (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka

(original text: my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as chauvinistic pig (1, 2); that's a manipulation, I said: Sources clearly describes him as nationalist politican, member of nationalist anti-Polish organisations, and that's what is in the article. And yes my intentions is to describe him as such, because without his biography is incomplete. ([13]); how you can accuse me of coming to article Zigmas Zinkevičius not to improve this article in a WP:NPOV way, but had an exact initial aim which he openly described in the mentioned quotes, if I explicitly said that I wanted to complete the article of source-based information that Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician. Without this information, his biography was incomplete. Please do not manipulate my words or twist them.

Marcelus accused him as "known for his nationalist views" without any references that's untrue; there was several sources that called his views "nationalist", all of them were put in the bibliography.

In the sixth revert there still is an accusation that Mr. Zinkevičius "was described as anti-Polish" that's untrue; the sentence is saying that Vilnija was anti-Polish organisation. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka I demand that you remove the accusations against me, in which you twisted my words and made one out of my two statements. This is outrageous manipulation. I will give you 24 hours to do so or I will file a report on you. Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• that's a manipulation No. Marcelus' edits from before prove that Marcelus precisely came to the article Zigmas Zinkevičius to do that. Already in August 2022 Marcelus dehumanized Zinkevičius [14], who was Lithuania's leading linguist of recent times. And then on 15 January 2023 Marcelus created a whole section of "anti-Polonism" with the express point of 'proving' that Zinkevičius was 'anti-Polish', 'nationalist', etc., when sources do not say that. When I wrote ([15]) on the article's talk page that the section Marcelus created absolutely disregards WP:NPOV, among other things, Marcelus answered in the affirmitive, in his own words: Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources [16]. So, the way he uses his 'sources' is purely WP:SYNTH and he is doing so with the intention to smear while absolutely ignoring WP:NPOV.
• I explicitly said that I wanted to complete the article of source-based information that Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician. There are no WP:RS that call Zigmas Zinkevičius a "nationalist policitian", but Marcelus insists on adding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR despite being already told too many times to stop doing so. Marcelus is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT.
• the sentence is saying that Vilnija was anti-Polish organisation. No. What Pofka said is correct. The sentence [17] is that "Zinkevičius in 1988 became a member of (...), and was described as anti-Polish." The "and" means that the statement "was described as anti-Polish" is about Zigmas Zinkevičius, instead of the organization. For your knowledge, I checked the page referenced, and Budrytė is not calling Zigmas Zinkevičius "anti-Polish". This is another case of Marcelus fabricating a reference (please see WP:DNTL) and WP:OR, but what makes it worse is that Marcelus repeatedly keeps doing this sort of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing behaviour and basically engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Clearly, there's no manipulation on Pofka's part, as I have shown. Instead, Marcelus is making untrue accusations about the conduct of another editor. Which is lying - marked by or containing untrue statements - as defined by Merriam Webster. I remind Marcelus: WP:Don't lie.

Marcelus' statement of I demand that you remove the accusations against me, in which you twisted my words and made one out of my two statements. This is outrageous manipulation. I will give you 24 hours to do so or I will file a report on you. is an obvious case of WP:INTIMIDATION, which is basically a personal attack by Marcelus towards Pofka. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis I never said my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as a chauvinistic pig (1, 2), that is manipulation. I have a negative opinion of Zinkevičius, I am entitled to it. However, the article was written with neutrality and with sources.

Another manipulation is the failure to quote the entire sentence, which reads: Zinkevičius in 1988 became a member of the nationalist organisation Vilnija (lit. 'Vilnius Region'), whose main goal was to lithuanize the Vilnius region as soon as possible, and was described as anti-Polish, the last part referring to the Vilnija Organisation, as suggested by the Budryte reference, which defines Vilnija in this way. Marcelus (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dehumanizing is not a "negative opinion", you're literally denying a human being their humanity - why are you downplaying that? You are not entitled to dehumanizing others.

However, the article was written with neutrality and with sources. It was not written with neutrality as you yourself admitted at the start [18]. No one denies that you put some sources on the article, the problem is the way you faked references, used different sources in WP:SYNTH manner and did it all with the purpose of smearing Zinkevičius. All of which is WP:OR and has no place on Wikipedia.

I was quoting the sentence in that manner in order to show to you that part of the sentence you wrote 'and was described as anti-Polish' part was referring not to the organization but to the Zinkevičius. It was done to make the sentence structure clear, because otherwise the main components of the sentence could be unclear if the long sentence is kept. You immediately interpreting my attempt of clarification as manipulation shows that you are WP:AOBF. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis No really, I've had enough of; spamming the same accusations over and over again, in a reply to every comment here, ignoring the fact that I've responded to them more than once, exaggerating what I said ("dehumanizing" etc.), for the obvious purpose of giving the impression that the whole topic is full of negative opinions of me, shows that Cukrakalnis has a personal grudge against me, and is part of organising a witchhunt against me. Just because I dared to take up a topic that is uncomfortable for Lithuanians.

This doesn't surprise me at all, as he himself has a history of general nationalist POV-pushing, denial or justification of anti-Semitism and collaboration during World War II in Lithuania and promotion of fringe historical theories on Wikipedia, and has already been blocked for it. Then he didn't stop doing it at all, for example he wrote that Belarusians are actually Slavicized Lithuanians, with reference to Nazi anthropologists.

Cukrakalnis with such an editing history is now full of big words and has the audacity to lecture me on how articles should be written. This is ridiculous. Marcelus (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling somebody a pig [19], [20], is not dehumanizing them? Come on, Marcelus.

I do not have a grudge against Marcelus, because I even fulfilled his requests (as late as 20 January 2023) from late March 2022 to find a source he wanted me to find - [21]. I even went out of my way to attempt to collaboratively edit together with Marcelus here in his sandbox some time ago - [22]. Considering that Marcelus has said You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus to me, my behaviour is very composed compared to his.

How could I be organising a witchhunt against me if I was asked by another user to report your behaviour here? It seems that Marcelus thinks that everyone that disagrees with him has a grudge against him. Marcelus actually reported me once here, on this noticeboard actually, on July 2022, but it got literally 0 attention, because of how unfounded it was. Marcelus has been accusing me of nationalist POV-pushing ad nauseam, even on one admin's talk page [23]. Suffice to say, what he claims is not true, because it never got any attention, and he is doing it in order to get me banned, because he does have a WP:GRUDGE against me - Marcelus has said Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. ([24] on 21:30, 22 December 2021). More than a year has passed and Marcelus' attitude towards me don't seem to have changed at all. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks just like a content dispute. Maybe there’d be some BLPVIO issues with text on the talk page (though not in the article) if the subject hadn’t passed away five years ago. Other than that this seems to be just trying to use an admin notice board to advance a particular side in a routine disagreement over content. Volunteer Marek 02:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that this seems to be just trying to use an admin notice board to advance a particular side in a routine disagreement over content. A report about a certain user consistently ignoring, side-stepping what other users are repeatedly telling him in order to improve Wikipedia and simultaneously engaging in disruptive editing is just a content dispute? Marcelus dehumanizing a notable academician as a chauvinist pig is a clear sign that this is more than 'just' a 'content dispute'. Your comment is a clear misinterpretation of what the report is about. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no edit warring in article's content, what's the problem? I've seen, on occasion, some editors refusing to get the point on talk. Annoying, yes, particularly when they are wrong and I am right :D But they have the right do do so. There is no policy saying one has to agree with others in a discussion, as long as one is not attacking fellow editors and such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, I don't see any policy violations or behavorial problems by Marcelus. They did an unwise choice of words which at first blush (only) look like a POV warrior. I have a lot of problems with the wording in this thread which tries to assert severe behaviorial problems in inadvertant vague witchunt structure and advocating a severe whack to Marcelus. The latter effort is potentially much more harmful but since Cukrakalnis probably sincerely felt justified I would not advocate a boomerang. Which leaves this as basically a content dispute to be handled accordingly. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus' response of Can you link me the page description of this rule? to me saying: "You don't see any reason to apologize at all for repeatedly and wrongly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading scholar as a chauvinist pig? You broke the rule of basic human decency." clearly indicates that he is disruptive. How is this even allowed on Wikipedia? Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they had tried to put that in the article then it most definetly would be a violation. But this is an opinion they expressed on a talk page and emphasized that this is just their personal opinion and were not planning on putting anything like that in an article. It's insulting and if this was a BLP then problematic. But it's not a BLP and while expressing such opinions is not especially constructive to forwarding the dialouge it's not anything sanctionable. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its a content dispute (same old crap) Folks, please (@Cukrakalnis, @Marcelus and @Pofka) Don’t report each other expecting to eliminate content rivals this way. I can always help out, just reach out to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: I disagree, please see my comments. The involvement of multiple other users with certain biases of their own seems to have muddied the waters a lot, which is why I probably should have made a more focused report myself. Systematic WP:SYNTH and WP:ICANTHEARYOU has to be resolved first before there can even be a content dispute of what's left. –Turaids (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I’ve read Marcelus replies also. You folks keep disputing the content and reliability of sources (taking accusations aside, same thing, over and over again in this topic area). I follow those disputes (Cukrakalnis versus Marcelus) for a while now. Currently, Pofka, who has been freshly un-banned joined the duo orchestra, so we’ll have 2 against 1 now. They need assistance in sorting disagreements. Reporting, in what it looks like, hope to knock out an opponent is not helpful. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was made aware of the Pofka situation, which is why I'm judging Marcelus on how he interacted with me (a third party who's not Lithuanian or Polish and hadn't even edited the article prior to this) and approached editing the article in general. If this indeed is a contentious topic area and disputes like this have been a regular occurrence then Marcelus should know better by now to hold his personal views to himself, keep his biases in check, not to overdo paraphrasing and construct his own narratives by arbitrarily combining different sources, as well as formulate opinions as such and attribute them to whoever said it and provide relevant quotes when adding references or immediately after anyone asks him to, especially for sources not in English. –Turaids (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turaids Unfortunately, I cannot consider you as an impartial person. Mainly because you describe the dispute so one-sidedly, respond to my explanation of the edit with "Spare your lengthy ramblings", and urge other users to file reports on me.

Moreover, you raised objections to the first sentence (""Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work"), which I took into account. But then you raised objections to the fact that mentioning other members of Vilnius is an "assocation fallacy", which I disagree with, as I have explained several times. Marcelus (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to this, so I advise you read WP:DISCUSSFORK. And you simply proclaiming of believing something or disagreeing with something does little to advance the discussion or in this case, explain what exactly the said Vilnija members have to with Zinkevičius besides being linked to the same organization. –Turaids (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that enough? We can argue about that. But so far you were accusing me of "association fallacy", which it clearly isn't the case. Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not list every single member of Vilnija if the mere association with the organization is enough for you to implicate him? –Turaids (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because my source listed only them, and they were the most prominent. Marcelus (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most prominent what? Collaborators of Zinkevičius? –Turaids (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Vilnija Marcelus (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So of all the prominent members of all the organizations Zinkevičius has been a part of or associated with was it you who decided to include only the ones from Vilnija, because you believed that naming his collaborators is part of his biography, the mention of other nationalists with whom he collaborated shows his environment and says a lot about himself and the others don't serve this purpose? And it's an anti-Polonic collaboration between Zinkevičius, Garšva, Butkus, Ozolas and Piročkinas that the source (Jundo-Kaliszewska) does not explicitly state or detail, but you conclude happened because of all of them being associated with the same organization and is proportional to their prominence in the organization? –Turaids (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were all involved in creating anti-Polish propaganda and promoting the forced Lithuanianisation of the Polish population in Lithuania. I believe that this is an important part of his biography. Jundo-Kaliszewska describes it this way. Marcelus (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly provide the part where Jundo-Kaliszewska writes about Zinkevičius creating anti-Polish propaganda and promoting the forced Lithuanianisation of the Polish population in Lithuania together with Garšva, Butkus, Ozolas and Piročkinas? –Turaids (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I think we should move to: Talk:Zigmas_Zinkevičius#Vilnija_activity Marcelus (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically bolded the part I wanted to see. All it says is that he was an activist. And I don't see Jundo-Kaliszewska using the words "propaganda" or "forced" there either. I advise not getting too carried away with paraphrasing and go for inserting direct quotes instead, even more so when you already have other editors saying you're misrepresenting sources. –Turaids (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you can't see the forest for the trees; they all were activists of Vilnija. I don't think I misused this source in the article. Marcelus (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I merely compare what the source (i.e. the tree) says versus what you claim it does, not how fits in my or your worldview (i.e. the forest). I also didn't see Jundo-Kaliszewska calling Zinkevičius a "member", a word you previously repeatedly used, which just goes back to my original point of not getting too carried away with paraphrasing. The very least you can do is acknowledge that other editors might have completely different interpretations of the very same sources without those interpretations being inherently right or wrong, which is why you should keep your own personal interpretations and generalization of sources to a minimum and use clear attribution and precise quotations as much as possible when writing about topics you feel strongly about. –Turaids (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see here is that it all started from a simple problem: users Cukrakalnis and Turaids requested Marcelus to provide a reliable source which could be checked and explicitly include statements that Zigmas Zinkevičius is "described as having expressed anti-Polish sentiments" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) or that "Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work" (7). But he haven't done that. Why? Eventually after so many complains in reverts comments, talk pages, descriptions of Mr. Zinkevičius as "chauvinistic pig" (1, 2), intense discussions here in the administrators noticeboard, and considerations about some kind of sanctions Marcelus himself removed this disputed statement. Hey? But it was mentioned in Budryte's reference? Or it was a WP:HOAX, WP:OR and WP:POVPUSH from the start? If it is then it should have been modified or removed earlier before this all escalated.
I don't see any problem to describe Mr. Zinkevičius as "anti-Polish" with reliable references which anyone can check, but everything that happened here by not providing a reliable source is really not a case of Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, and likely would have resulted in much more reverts if not this report and Cukrakalnis' good will decision to stop reverting. And Marcelus statements here like "what rules exactly?" (he violated; edit) gives little hope that it will not happen again. Consequently, I believe that such actions should be properly evaluated so that nobody would want to repeat it. We certainly do not need such conflicts in Lithuanian or any other topics which arises from simple problems but escalates into big problems. -- Pofka (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It all started with @Cukrakalnis repeated attempts to remove content he don't like from the article Marcelus (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: So can you please finally provide a reliable source (and which we could check ourselves) which explicitly describe Mr. Zinkevičius as in the mentioned quotes above you inserted to Zinkevičius' article? Otherwise, you performed actions of WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POVPUSH which resulted in big problems (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Why you keep avoiding to quote any reliable sources for other contributors? And you keep accusing Cukrakalnis that it all was started by him (further denial of doing something wrong in this case)... Statements without WP:RELIABLE sources must be removed and if you do not provide sources – it is nothing wrong to remove them, so you should not cause revert warring. -- Pofka (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything, I made it more clear, so it would be obvious that it was a reference to Vilnija. Cukrakalnis wasn't removing only this two sentences that you described as problematic, but the whole section. It's called WP:EDITWARRING. Marcelus (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: So you will not provide sources explicitly describing him with statements as "described as having expressed anti-Polish sentiments", "Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work"? You ignore my request not for the first time already and other contributors (Turaids, Cukrakalnis) also addressed this problem and evaluated that you act in the way of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Being part of an organization and actually doing something which was described by WP:RELIABLE sources as an anti-Polish nationalism/chauvinism is a different thing. -- Pofka (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you couple times already. Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: what about this? Me simply removing an attribution to Budryte for a claim Budryte clearly does not make being reverted as attempt at censorship, because Jundo-Kaliszewska says so. What? And then rolling over some of the changes you made. How do we work with someone who continuously denies just about anything and keeps reverting everything? –Turaids (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored information that Vilnija was described as anti-Polish, it shouldn't be removed. Also Budryte is describing Vilnija as organisation which main goal was Lithuanisation of Vilnius Region. The source shouldn't be removed. Marcelus (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budryte's quote of Anti-Polish sentiments were publicly expressed in February 1995, Vilnija and its sister organizations were especially offended by the decision of the Brazausks government to officially recognize the Polish War Verterans Club. from page 163 that I removed says nothing about Lithuanisation of Vilnius Region it was attributed to. The least you can do is get your quotes and pages right, and that can be done without abusing the revert function. –Turaids (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move the reference there Marcelus (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move it there either and yet instead of just adding the right one you unnecessarily reverted not only me removing it, but also all the other changes I made. –Turaids (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

?[25] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turaids wanted a longer translation of Jundo-Kaliszewska Marcelus (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the part where Marcelus said Jundo-Kaliszewska describes Zinkevičius creating anti-Polish propaganda and promoting the forced Lithuanianisation of the Polish population in Lithuania together with Garšva, Butkus, Ozolas and Piročkinas specifically that warrants his inclusion of these four people in the section about Zinkevičius' anti-Polonism. –Turaids (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I report the user Rafaelosornio. He reverts my contributions in the article Padre Pio. Although these have a clear source, he deletes content. He is acting from a Catholic fundamentalist understanding of the article on Padre Pio. The user has already been warned several times for his disruptive editing behavior. In particular, he alters religious and psychological topics according to his extreme Catholic POV. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. However, @Mr. bobby:, please do not refer to good-aith edits as vandalism, as you did here and here, even if you personally think that they did not improve the page. Doing so is uncivil and promotes a hostile editing environment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is both content and conduct dispute. I post facts here, give cleanly the source and the reported reverts that. The intention of this is clearly recognizable and consists in taking away the criticism of a canonized, extremely controversial person. On the talk page of the reported one can document his behavior and corresponding complaints exactly. His comments on his changes are not understandable. Simply any out of the air statements and assertions. Please take a closer look. The reported one uses permanently hagiographic sources, sources directly from the fundamentalist Catholic environment, worship websites etc...Mr. bobby (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s worth noting that Mr. Bobby has brought this to ANI twice before in the past 3 months, with neither report resulting in admin action.

I see a reasonable amount of back and forth at the article talk page, which is the appropriate place to resolve a content dispute. I do think Mr. Bobby should be advised to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks; aside from the accusations of vandalism presented by Red-tailed Hawk. Mr. Bobby has twice called Rafaelosornio a fundamentalist. He has also shown some battleground behavior by referring to the version he published as “the correct version”. None of this behavior seems to merit admin action, IMHO, but a firm warning to focus on the content, not the contributor, may be in order. Retracted per this post.

It looks like SanctumRosarium attempted dispute resolution at the end of October 2022, but it was closed as being premature. Perhaps it would be worth trying now? Or if the reliability of the sources involved are in question, WP:RSN seems like a better fit. Either way, this has not been shown by other resolution attempts to be either urgent or intractable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a rehash of the same issue Mr. Bobby reported back on December 30th. It's not even been a month, and you're dragging this back here again, because you didn't get the result you wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano

Of note, Mr. Bobby has been blocked from this article previously for edit warring over it, so I think we may be nearing a topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to bring this in to avoid an edit war. Now I'm being negatively interpreted as wanting to create publicity for simply reverting changes with clean citation of sources. Is anyone here also concerned with the disruptive changes to the one I reported? With its use of purely religious sources to seemingly prove alleged facts?Mr. bobby (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I add the following:

1. I am not against moderation of change to this article.

2. sanctumrosarium is practically a one-purpose-account. He too has responded disruptively to my secular edits.

3. Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me and is based on clear sources. This article is about extreme issues, including that the saint is said to have flown. I ask all reasonable contributors to pay attention to reliable sources here after all. Therefore I cannot even begin to understand the idea of a topic ban: What are the edits to the article that are to be objected to here? From the reported, on the other hand, it was insinuated several times in the editing comments that I would not reproduce the sources correctly: A very serious accusation that is not substantiated anywhere.

4. And finally: what would be the correct side/place to which I can turn with this problem and this conflict? Mr. bobby (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bobby You cannot modify to your liking what the sources say. The German source in question clearly says: "Veratrine was once used as a paralyzing muscle insecticide, primarily against lice, but was also described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain."^[1]

And your modified version says:

Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted in insensitivity to wound pain.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is exactly typical of Rafaelosornio's work. He himself distorts content and at the same time insinuates distortions to me. In this case (there are numerous others) the quote is: German:

„Veratrin hingegen fand einst als muskellähmendes Insektengift, vorzugsweise gegen Läuse, Verwendung, wird von der Pharmazie aber auch als „äußerlich wirkendes Reizmittel“, das gegen Schmerz unempfindlich macht, beschrieben.“

English translation: „Veratrine, on the other hand, was once used as a muscle paralyzing insecticide, preferably against lice, but is also described by pharmacists as an "externally acting irritant" that desensitizes to pain.“

Source: ^[3]

The central part is Schürmer's reference to the pain effect. Pio ordered huge quantities of the preparation secretly and without prescription. I found this source and used it in the article.

In Revision as of 13:35, 21 January 2023 he simply deleted this important information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=1134918987

saying: „Luzzatto is not a chemist, this is not a chemical article, that goes on the corresponding page. And the other cannot be verified. Failed verification.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want to put what veratrine is, that's what the link to the corresponding article is for, let the links do their job, one clicks on veratrine and it takes you to the article and tells you what it is.

And about the source in German, you had not placed the link to where the information was, so there was no way to corroborate what was said. Once you put the link I was able to corroborate that in the Wikipedia article you had put something different.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be written in a Neutral POV WP:NPOV WP:RNPOV

"Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources".

It may not be reliable to take Luzzato's Padre Pio book as a reliable reference to explain scientific explanations about events associated with Padre Pio since Luzzato is a Historian, not a scientist. Also, there is no need to describe what Veratridine is while a link can explain what it is. Exanx777 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely secular perspective? Secular is defined as the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion, so that is exactly what we should strive at. But it is true that this is not a question for admins. Rather, it belongs on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The article needs to be neutral, that is, secular. Extremely secular, if possible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The substance is said to be veratrine, not veratridine (which is obtained from veratrine). There isn't much about veratrine per se in the veratridine article; the information about how veratrine was ... described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain is not contained therein. I was notified by Mr. bobby of this discussion and I have a slight WP:INAPPNOTE concern. I feel that I am detached enough from these issues to be able to see things neutrally. —Alalch E. 16:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything from the above contribution of Exanz 777 is to be judged critically:

1. of course everything in Wikipedia must be described from a neutral point of view. Religious belief cannot be presented as if physical facts were presented here. (Pio, according to his fans, flew for real and fought off bomber pilots...).

2. Luzzatto is a serious historian. He does not have to be a pharmacologist to be able to tell us seriously what Veratrine was used for in Pio's (!) time. (And as already said Veratrine is not the same as Veratridin).

3. An article has to explain certain facts to the reader, so that he understands the context. Blue links are not always enough. In the present case, everything is very meticulously documented with appropriate sources.

4. with the whole cast of catholic believers of these hand wounds, which are held for divine stigmata, the effect of a secretly ordered medicine is of course extremely important and of encyclopedic relevance.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, NPOV does not mean we must throw out all the religious beliefs in an article. We do not treat them as factual happenings, but it also does not mean we must go to undue length to debunk them. That's not Wikipedia's purpose.

No, we do not need to go into excessive detail about a blue-linked topic. There's good faith arguments to be had about just how much detail needs to be given, but it is not necessary to go in-depth.

Frankly, it does sound like you're here to debunk religious beliefs, rather than simply documenting the facts surrounding them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say here consists of insinuations. As has been said twice now, Veratrine is not Veratridin. So it must be explained what it is about. Nowhere is it about debunking of religious beliefs. Please prove that to me. All it is about is distinguishing (!) a religious belief system and its assumptions from the accounts of secular scholars and historians. That is exactly what is being obstructed here. My work can be seen well in the article Miracle of Lanciano. There, a fantasy system had been compiled from the most obscure and largely falsified sources. Several contributors have worked with me to make the article now meet encyclopedic standards. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It comes across that way to me as well, and very emotional at that. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Hand That Feeds You" has managed to push the entire discussion here in one direction with his one-sided, distorted and unsubstantiated expression of opinion. Rafaelosornio has in both articles Padre Pio and Miracle of Lanciano my changes constantly reverted. In both articles he leaves in fake, invented, unreliable sources, the main thing is that the claimed miracles are proven by this extremely religious „sources“. In "Miracle of Lanciano" several editors have meticulously proved for years that most of the sources were falsified (see talk page). Nevertheless, for years a fringe theory could hold on in the article. And nevertheless absurdly "The hand" demands a topic ban for me. It would make sense to give him a topic ban for this discussion. Rafelosornio's posts aim to undermine, delay and keep extreme POV sources in the article. Just take a look at his posts for once.Mr. bobby (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my earlier statement that Mr. Bobby only needs a warning; I am now agnostic to that point. After being warned by multiple editors, they have attempted to canvas many different editors, characterizing this thread as a “slanted discussion”, and characatrizing Rafaelsosornio as “a religious user” who is distorting content based on a religious POV. This is after being cautioned to comment on content, not editors. He has referred to User:HandThatFeeds’s post above by claiming “everything you say here consists of insinuations”, particularly odd as HandThatFeeds has insinuated nothing, and outright stated how Mr. Bobby’s actions appear.

I wonder if there’s a language barrier at play. He has said that Rafaelsosornio’s comments are “not understandable”, but I find them easy enough to comprehend. In the disputed edit regarding veratrine above, Mr. Bobby’s preferred language “Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted…” makes it sound as if he’s saying in wikivoice that Padre Pio took the mixture, for which I do not see a reliable source. I could see him intending this to mean, “In that period, the alkaloid mixture could be used to…”, which would be accurately summarizing the source.

This could easily have been resolved on the article talk page, but Mr. Bobby’s conduct comes off as moderate battleground behavior, as seen in this thread, as well as what seems to be some ownership, as shown by statements like “Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me…”.

I remain agnostic on the content dispute; religion isn’t my field, and I don’t consider myself qualified to discuss the reliability of sources or what constitutes a neutral point of view on this matter. I will say that, from what I read of Rafaelsornio’s posts, he appears to be making a civil and good faith effort, and doesn’t seem to me to be engaging in battleground behavior. Which is another reason why Mr. Bobby might wish to, as suggested above by Hob Galding, go to the relevant noticeboard for discussing NPOV issues. Repeated restating of the content dispute at this venue reinforces my impression that Mr Bobby is here to win an argument, not to better the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if it's appropriate to go to user's pages to enlist help in support of opposing "religious" users, as if their religion is in itself reason enough to oppose them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&oldid=1135215187#Padre_Pio YouCanDoBetter (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal

Given the above insistence that other editors are using fake, invented, unreliable sources, and constant aspersions against anyone who disagrees with his stance, I believe Mr. bobby is here to right great wrongs rather than productively edit the encyclopedia. As this is not restricted to a single article, I'm proposing a topic ban on religious articles, broadly construed, in the hopes that he can edit productively in other areas.

• Support as nominator. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. I have known Mr. bobby for a long time and he is a very reasonable editor. The key problem here is that the underlying editing pattern seems like a content dispute which it actually is not: Mr. bobby's edits are compliant with WP:RS and WP:V – they are being reverted because of that. Wikipedia is not a place for propagating conspiracy theories (e.g., that Padre Pio was able to fly or bilocate, or that he had other supernatural powers). Forcing a topic ban on an editor who removes nonsense from Wikipedia articles and edits according to Wikipedia's core content policies is unreasonable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For a variety of reasons, including the extreme emotionality which he apparently approaches the subject, and the circular reasoning he uses. I'm afraid this won't result in a ban, but I definitely support. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per the below comment. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here I quote voices of editors on the talk page of "Miracle of Lanciano." No statement here is from me. But it clearly shows that even invented sources were used in the article.

1: „It says that there are 2 stories about the weight: Fella and Valsecca but that they don't contradict (even though they do). It mentions Linoli (and the blood claims) and a mysterious rapport from the WHO from 1976 (that no one has ever been able to show). ( )This source should be removed.“

2. „The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon." I have never seen a source for this, no scientific publications for this miracle that would be the proof that Catholicism is true. I don't think the Higher Council even exists. This source should be removed.“

3. „It is in Italian. I don't know whether it was peer reviewed and I don't know whether it is a prestigous journal. I don't care, it has never been cited in 50 years. (and would only proof Transsubstantiation to be real) It goes against MEDRS. This source should be removed.“

4. „Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20.: is a dead link for me. Google (and google scholar) an Bing gives nothing.“

5. „I have found a copy of "source" 7 on the wayback machine: Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20. This is clearly an unreliable source. No author information. Not printed in a peer reviewed journal.“

Another user:

6. „I removed the paragraphs talking about the WHO study since it's been proven to be, in part, a fraud.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. While Mr. Bobby does seem to be on the right side of things in terms of content, the battleground behavior does not seem to have responded to warnings in this thread. Despite claims in this thread, I don’t see the other editors claiming Padre Pio could fly or bilocate; that seems to be an exaggeration. What I do see is escalating battleground behavior, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVAS, and incivility which Mr. Bobby has not acknowledged much less pledged to curtail. If I did see such an acknowledgment and understanding of what behaviors could be improved and how, I would change my !vote to oppose. In the absence of any such indicator, I would be very hesitant to edit anywhere I saw him active for fear of "crossing swords"; this behavior drives away editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=875252163

In the version from this time you can read:

„People who had started rebuilding their lives after World War I, began to see in Padre Pio a symbol of hope.[14] Those close to him attest that he began to manifest several spiritual gifts, including the gifts of healing, bilocation, levitation, prophecy, miracles, extraordinary abstinence from both sleep and nourishment (one account states that Padre Agostino recorded one instance in which Padre Pio was able to subsist for at least 20 days at Verafeno on only the Eucharist without any other nourishment), the ability to read hearts, the gift of tongues, the gift of conversions, and pleasant-smelling wounds.[15]“

You find bilokation and levitation. (Some say he flew throught the air against pilots, but I did not find that in the English Wikipedia.)Mr. bobby (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) That diff doesn’t show what you claim it does. 2) It does not assert, in wikivoice, that Padre Pio did any of that. It asserts, in wikivoice, that his close acquaintances attested that, which is factually accurate; the acquaintances did, indeed, so attest, according to the sources. In an article about a canonized saint, I think presenting the factors that lead the church to its decision (especially identifying them as hearsay, i.e. as being by close acquaintances) is very relevant. 3) Even if it did assert supernatural powers in wikivoice, it was not by Rafaelosornio, and so is not relevant to this content dispute. 4) Even if it were to have been by Rafaelosornio, that content is still in the article now, so the argument that this dispute is because you’re trying to keep it out of the article has no weight.

Mr. Bobby, I really wish you would stop doubling down on the narrative that you were right. Even if you were right about the content dispute, this thread is about your behavior. It’s clear that you can be a very productive editor with a dedication to venerability. If we knew that you understood that your behavior was wrong, why it was wrong, and wouldn’t be repeated, I don’t think a topic ban would be necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't think the user is able to detach himself from his dislike of the article's subject sufficiently enough to write neutrally about it. He is consistently having the same circular edit wars with other users over and over again - for years now, and to a point where it gets really tedious.--Medusahead (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.I regret that I got involved in arguments and can only assure that I will avoid that in the future. At the same time, I believe that I have improved the article through my contributions. Of course, I do not claim ownership of this article.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have already blocked them once for edit warring, have them advice on how to proceed, and warned them against making personal attacks. It doesn't seem to have made much of a dent in their behavior. At this point we're left with vanishingly few options. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right to talk about "them" here. This is really about two Wikipedia editors. The discussion here is exclusively about my behavior. On your advice I have posted the recurring problems from my point of view here with the consequence that only I am criticized here. You had blocked both of us.Mr. bobby (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because by starting this section in the way that you did you have managed to stick a nice boomerang-shaped plank in your eye, while the speck in your brother's eye that is already a known quantity, doesn't seem like "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" business in comparison. May this canvassed intercession induce in you a transverberation, such that you may repent of self-righteous vainglory and wrath, and Divine Mercy might wash over you. —Alalch E. 02:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per [26], in which OP complains that another version of the subject's photo should be used, in which he looks "demonic". Also see [27], my suggestion the last time OP was here: basically that this could be handled a lot less emotionally. As someone said above, it is one thing not to want hagiography, (which is admirable, even) but quite another to actively seek to disprove other people's religious beliefs as nonsense and to portray their saints as "demonic" and supporters of Mussolini. DUE. The miracles need to be discussed in the context of his canonization, and this can be done without all this dismissiveness. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there's some language barrier issue there. He probably meant to say how the undoctored image didn't look saintly enough, so it was heavily retouched. On the actual merits, the proposal is pretty reasonable: He isn't really proposing to change the image to some negative image of the subject, it's only about changing from a doctored version to an undoctored photograph (which can be retouched reasonably in a way that does not create a religious icon -- example). —Alalch E. 18:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right about a language gap. That's the same image he said was demonic though, and also the same as the one we are using now. The latter has been colorized, is all, and this one has had exposure or maybe shadows adjusted. But hey, I admire your skill at AGF. The image rant seemed fairly unreasonable to me, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. He does seem to want to debunk the miracles, which do need to be discussed --neutrally-- because Padre Pio is apparently notable for being canonized, for which miracles are a prerequisite. ::See Bijli Pasi for an example of legend/myth neutrally handled imho. I don't personally care about the padre either way, mind you. I just thought the thread was iconic of an attitude. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is iconic. But his objections are often reasonable; doesn't mean everyone is obligated to agree, however. If he would show that he understands what battleground behavior is and if he can see the irony in fixing alleged (and real) fringe religious POV while acting like an inquisitor, he should get one last chance to work in this topic area. —Alalch E. 23:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial-Info22 (talk · contribs · count) appears to be using an AI to produce articles. This was tested using OpenAI's own tool (OpenAI produced ChatGPT). The tool is hosted at https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/. For each of the three articles Artificial-Info22 has produced, the tool estimated a 99.98% chance that an AI produced the text.

• Draft:The Eternium Element A hoax about element 123.
• Draft:Coral Reef's An essay on coral reefs.
• Draft:Gecko's An essay on geckos.

It is interesting to read them (The Eternium Element will probably be deleted soon as I've tagged it as a hoax). It is that article that clued me in as to the possibility that this was an AI. The text is remarkably "bland" when reading--hard to describe the sensation of reading an AI-generated text, but that's the best I could do.

Recommendation indef the person for hoaxing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving archived versions of Draft:Gecko's and Draft:Coral reef's here for posterity since they'll likely be G3 deletes. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for abusing apostrophes. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'you mean "an' fo' abusin' apostrophe's"? :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indef for you! Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comma, abuse, is, much, more, annoying,,, — rsjaffe 🗣️

But; what; about; semi-colon; abuse;;; —Locke Cole • t • c

So they violate various rules regardless of the source of the written material. Seems like our regular systems and requirements work fine. Silverseren^C 03:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm not sure using AI is a problem as long as the information is properly vetted. After all, Wikipedia is not the place for original ideas: it is a reprise/summary of knowledge from elsewhere. However, AI is susceptible to abuse if the person doesn't check the correctness of the text. It makes it easy for a person to write a good-sounding article about a subject the person doesn't know anything about, which is a danger. It is also a quick way of producing a good-sounding hoax. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the AI apparently doesn't contribute any sources to the articles it writes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So someone abusing it can simply attach reasonable-looking sources to it to appear legitimate, whether or not the sources actually correspond to the text. That's why I commented above that one of the dangers is having someone without adequate subject knowledge use this tool. Note that Artificial-Info22 added references but didn't footnote anything. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be concerned about copyright; if it could be argued that OpenAI retains copyright on any of ChatGPT's output, then copying and pasting it into a Wikipedia article would be a copyvio for sure. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a tangent, but we have well-established precedent that only a human can be granted copyright. The company cannot claim copyright on works created by a non-human. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) This isn't a new thing since people sometimes use machine translation to translated content. Note that last I checked while simply posting a machine translation is forbidden on en, someone with a good command of both languages is allowed to use such a tool if they manually check and correct the output. It's not generally consider a problem since AFAIK in the US at least, the output of algorithms cannot give copyright to the algorithm creator nor the algorithm, nor for that matter the person using the algorithm (for the raw output, obviously someone could potentially modify it enough that they may have demonstrated creativity to earn copyright). See e.g. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. However one thing which has sort of been discussed at the sidelines but has recently received a lot of attention especially with the ability of such tools to produce 'art', is that such tools generally rely on input from a lot of copyrighted sources. The general view seems to be that it is unlikely they retain enough from any particular work to be consider derivative but this is I think mostly untested in court and may also depend on the output. But see e.g. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. (As might be clear from these, this is likely to be tested more soon although mostly against the producers of such tools and their use of the copyright works for training data which arguably is somewhat disconnected from users of such tools. It's probably going to difficult for cases about the legality of specific outputs because you'd need to find someone who can argue the specific output is produced in violation of their copyright, is willing to put their name and maybe money to a case, and someone distributing the output that they feel is worth suing.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That US rule doesn't apply everywhere. For example, S.9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 reads: "In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken" (1link). IDK if it's been tested in court. Narky Blert (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "arrangements necessary for the creation of the work" is referring to actually making the music with computers, not letting the computers do it themselves. It's meant to cover the use of things like Logic Pro. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAI doesn't retain copyright: "OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output." However the model can still output copyrighted content, which can be demonstrated by asking for the lyrics of a song or poem. I'm not aware that safeguards are in place to ensure that it isn't copying content from sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm not sure using AI is a problem as long as the information is properly vetted. I get the impression that AI just frankensteins together a bunch of pieces in a fluent-sounding way. For example, who knows if the references it uses correspond to its prose, or are just random. I think using AI to generate articles could be pretty dangerous, and like hoax articles with fake citations, or close paraphrasing copyvio, is subtle and could create an incredible amount of work for whoever ends up checking all the references. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Either one has to put in as much work as it would have taken to write the text acceptably from scratch, or one puts a burden on the rest of the Wikipedia community. XOR'easter (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generative models predict the most likely next token, given a string of previous tokens; generative pre-trained transformers (that link goes to a comprehensive explanation of the basic architecture) do something much more complicated involving multi-head attention, but the general principle is the same. They are quite capable of many tasks, but if asked to write some big wall of text in the general style of a Wikipedia article, they will do precisely what they are asked to, which is to give you some big wall of text in the general style of a Wikipedia article. The problem is that this is a very stupid and useless thing to ask for, and people should not be doing this with the presumption that it will produce worthwhile output. jp×g 09:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having now slept on this, I think the biggest problem with AI is GIGO: garbage in garbage out. The accuracy of the information is related to the set of information used to train the AI, and I am sure that no one else is using the same rules for WP:RS that Wikipedia is using. The AI also has no concept of "correctness". This makes it a dangerous tool, particularly for those contributors who are not intimately familiar with the topic they are contributing to. And I suspect that people without deep knowledge of the topic would be the ones relying on an AI for their Wikipedia contributions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the propensity of these things to just make shit up and their inability to provide sources for what they make up, I am worried about the likelihood of unintentional plagiarism and circular reporting (citogenesis) when using them, because they copy their content from somewhere and we don't know where or how well-digested it might have been. In some cases it was copied from Wikipedia itself, in other cases who knows? For example, the "Gecko's" draft contains the phrase "found in warm climates all over the world", which searching reveals to be common to much web content on geckos, and appears to be closely paraphrased from the text "found in warm climates throughout the world" that has been in our gecko article since 2003. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to operate under the assumption that AI generated texts are copyvios. These texts are not written by the AI: the AI is instead taking many (probably thousands) of texts and squishing them together into a coherent-looking chimera. The AI cannot itself create a copyrighted work, and these syntheses are undoubtedly derivative works - ask it to paint a Mark Rothko and it will succeed, because it has been trained on Rothko's oeuvre; ask it to paint a landscape in the style of my work, it can't, because it hasn't seen them. The amount of copyrighted material (from each given source text) in a final text is probably very low (they are effectively unattributed and really unattributable), but it's not zero. Deciding whether (and in what circumstances) the text retains the copyright of the originals is an undecided matter of law, because this is such novel technology. Copyright laws weren't written with this in mind, and only future legal cases will decide how they apply. Several such lawsuits are beginning; surely more will follow. This will take years for courts come to a definitive conclusion, and really no-one knows how they will decide. Until they do, we have to err on the side of fearing they may. In any event, submitting such a text requires agreeing to the statement "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License" - but the submitter definitely doesn't own the copyright (maybe no-one does, maybe the AI's owner does, maybe thousands of people do). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly...ag this point in US law, it is not clear if AI generated works fall under fair use or not or even if they are derivative works. The US Vopyright Office has made clear machine generated works have no new copyright of their own but have not spoken of the issue of copyright of the media used within the engine. And there are now a few cases in the works that will challenge that (notably Gettys v Stable Duffusion). For now we must assume AI text is derivative of the underlying work, and unless the engine used to generate the text has been validated to only use text sources in the public domain/CC world, the text should be taken as a copyright derivative work and not meeting our contribution guidelines. Masem (t) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make it too philosophical, but what is copyvio at this point? If paraphrasing from sources is your definition, then what we are writing at Wikipedia is effectively copyright violation through and through. CactiStaccingCrane 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a settled matter of law that what we do, with human editors summarising, aggregating, and synthesising, is legal (otherwise every newspaper, encyclopedia, or reference work would be a copyvio). It's not settled that an AI, which might achieve a similar-looking result but by a very different means, is analogous. I imagine those defending the legality of AI generators will make an argument along the lines of what you've said; they may very well prevail. But those opposed might show the judge generated Radiohead-esque songs or Jeff Koons-ish sculptures, and argue that these are more than just remixes and reinterpretations; they may very well prevail. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay McWalter Just notifying you that there is a draft policy/guideline page about this: WP:LLM. About the AI creator, I support incremental warnings as per usual when disruptive editing is concerned; but not really opposed to an indef. —Alalch E. 16:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note as I sort of hinted above, if courts do rule that these tools can infringe copyright from the training data, we potentially have a reasonable problem with some articles. As I mentioned above AFAIK editors are allowed to use machine translation tools provided they manually check and correct the output. And many of these do use similar techniques even if generally in a lot less sophisticated fashion and are produced in part using copyrighted content as the training data. (Although DeepL is actually very similar I believe.) And this is only en. I'm fairly sure some other projects require very little or even nothing from a human editor before submission. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least this lends credence to the discussion at WP:VPP. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per very long-standing Commons consensus copyright can't be assigned to algorithm output, and the US copyright office just cancelled a registration for being based on generative model output. While it is certainly possible that future legislation or case law holds differently, it would seem to be pretty firm on the issue as of right now. While it's true that some rando is suing Stability for alleged copyright infringement, it seems quite dubious that it would succeed; even if it does, this is still a long way away, and in general I don't think it's a good idea to vastly limit ourselves on the premise that there could be some hypothetical future situation where it's illegal to say "the" on the Internet. jp×g 09:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source verification

Is anyone able to verify the existence of the following sources from Draft:Gecko's?

1. Kellaris, G., & Autumn, K. (2008). Gecko adhesion and the van der Waals force. Journal of adhesion science and technology, 22(1), 1-16.
2. Russell, A. P., Denny, M., & Huey, R. B. (2015). Thermal physiology: how lizards survive and thrive in hot environments. Integrative and comparative biology, 55(3), 517-529.
3. Highfield, A. C. (1990). Gecko tails: a study in regenerative biology. Microscopy Research and Technique, 17(2), 132-144.
4. Rösler, H. (2000). Geckos: biology, behavior, and reproduction. Krieger Publishing Company.
5. Gecko Care Sheets. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Care-Sheets/Lizards/Geckos/
6. Gecko Conservation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.geckosociety.org/gecko-conservation/

–dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave, for one, the websites don't work. I've also attempted to reproduce this - asking ChatGPT to produce a Wikipedia article with a list of references will produce a similar list of bogus, but acceptable on first sight, items. Silikonz💬 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's an unlikely coincidence, I suppose the websites could have existed during the model's training phase and gone dead since. However I was able to confirm that the first three journal articles are fabricated - They do not exist in the cited volumes. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The websites needn't have existed in the training corpus; GPT-3 will generate something that seems plausible without checking if it's in fact real, so the URLs look like they could be genuine but don't necessarily point to actual pages that have ever existed. CharredShorthand (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked Artificial-Info22 as a hoaxer, given one hoax article and several falsified sources. I leave aside the apostrophe abuse. The AI discussions should continue in the venues linked above. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two do not exist. They are in real journals with correctly dated volume and issue numbers, but if you look up those volumes and issues you will find different papers, not those two. The third one has a slightly off date (that volume and issue are dated Feb 1991) but is otherwise the same: not actually published in that issue. If I saw a person doing this I would be very tempted to immediately block as too subtle a vandal to give any slack to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Superficially plausible, fake citations undermine the project in a way that is time-consuming to detect and to repair. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new phenomenon. There's actually been a paper published on this: Trout, Kilgore (2007). "Towards a new hermeneutics of falsified citations". Information Integrity. 4 (38). doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.12.003. jp×g 10:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgore Trout, huh? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And when humans do it, it's vandalism, hoaxing, POV-pushing, or some other variety of disruptive editing. Automated tools that by their very design make bad output are bad tools. XOR'easter (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user using AI

See Draft:Electric Underfloor Heating. This also scores at the 99.98% level. Note the paucity of specific references and the regularity of the language. This was written by LivingHeat (talk · contribs). Judging from the above conversation, I'm going to, for now, not do anything special about this submission related to its provenance, and just judge it on its general merits. Is that correct? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now tagging these articles with the {{disputed}} tag, as there is no guarantee of accuracy with AI-generated text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straightforward promotional username block, since they appear to represent a firm of the same name that makes floor heat products. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, given that the sources in these AI drafts seem to be fake (see section above), I think WP:G3 (hoax) might be appropriate for AI-generated articles in general. Thanks to Acroterion and Bbb23 for handling this specific user and draft. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A real hoax using a large language model would have been an article about a made up species or a nonexistent company -- this was a real species and a real firm. The prose was not intended to misinform. Therefore these were not true hoaxes. Fictitious references would indicate a hoax, but here we have more reason than not to believe that the information contained in the drafts is okay, and we know that the LLM generated the junk text references as part of emulating Wikipedia content, as opposed to a human engineering a deception; if it stops being a hoax when you simply remove the references, and becomes a poor draft about Geckos, then it wasn't a hoax in the first place, it's just the standard lack of verifiability problem, characteristic of drafts. —Alalch E. 11:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With our long-standing love of templates to slap on stuff and walk away, perhaps we need an {{ai-generated}} clean-up notice to go on these things, saying something like “This text appears to have been generated by an AI learning model, which is generally disapproved of on Wikipedia. It requires editing for accuracy, prose and referencing.” — Trey Maturin™ 11:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to split hairs over hoaxing versus falsified sources. They both fall into the realm of making things up, which is incompatible with the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Both instances should result in immediate removal of said article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be possible that LivingHeat is a sockpuppet of Artificial-Info22? I'm highly concerned of a lack of communication from either editor; it seems both are using the WP:RADAR approach to conceal their AI "writings". Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 15:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the articles was an obvious hoax about the ficticitious 123rd element Eternium. And if the AI is fudging the references, how do we know it's not also fudging the facts? This isn't just speculation. Compare these passages from Draft:Gecko's with our Gecko article:

It gets a few things wrong just in these few sentences:

• Not all geckoes belong to the family Gekkonidae, which doesn't have 1500 species.
• Not all geckos have specialized toe pads that allow them to climb vertical surfaces.
• The largest geckos are 23"-24", not 10".
• Not all geckos are oviparous; some bear live young.

This really isn't a usable draft, as these generalizations are factually incorrect and seem to be based on material written for pet owners rather than scholarly sources. This exactly the type of "vaguely plausible bullshit" that LLMs are known for and we need to make sure that every fact is checked for accuracy before passing it off as a viable draft. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that this is worse than a poor draft about geckos. Not sure if we would call an unreferenced draft (about a non-fictitious subject) with such errors created solely by a human a hoax but this is still a lot like a hoax. —Alalch E. 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of tag proliferation, but this situation sits between "hoax" and "disputed facts" without fitting well within either category. If anything of an AI-generated article is worth preserving, it would be useful to have a new "ai-generated" tag that explains the problem, briefly. Currently, I'm using "disputed" as the best fit, as all the facts in an AI-generated article need independent verification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work, but: User:Trey Maturin/AI generated is my first draft.

User:Trey Maturin/AI generated

Other editors' mileage will vary. — Trey Maturin™ 20:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fake references issue and dllthewave's comment above about subtle factual inaccuracies, I don't think that AI-generated articles will usually be salvageable. Perhaps a better wording for this template would be "This article or some of its text appear to have been generated by an AI model. Due to false references and factual inaccuracies, AI-generated text should usually be deleted." –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After review of the articles and trying out the AI myself, I agree with Novem Linguae's wording. It's like going down a rabbit hole distinguishing truth from falsehoods. As ChatGPT's FAQ states, such outputs may be inaccurate, untruthful, and otherwise misleading at times. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both. We currently don’t have a process for this type of thing. Instead, when this happens, people rush to ANI and a debate begins on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin until eventually someone IAR-deletes the AI-generated article. Rinse and repeat. We need some sort of agreed process otherwise ANI becomes the place to do this by default and it’s already enough of a timesink as it is. A clean-up notice, whatever the wording (feel free to edit or copy mine!) is a start. A new A or G speedy criterion would be useful too. Failing that, a policy page directing people to XfD rather than ANI would be good. — Trey Maturin™ 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "G" CSD criterion is needed, as I was catching this in the Draft namespace. I've made a proposed edit to your template for your review. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the direction of this discussion and archival at the Wayback Machine (in case their content needs to be referenced further in this discussion), I have deleted Draft:Gecko's and Draft:Coral Reef's as G3 hoaxes. ^Complex/_Rational 19:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy to prevent egregious misuse of language models

Note that there is a draft proposal at WP:LLM which I have trying to get people to look at for a few weeks, so forgive me if I plug it a bit aggressively here. Please, go look at it, and go look at the talk page, and pitch in, because I think we are going to need something like this sooner rather than later.

As we have seen at the unbelievably long VPP thread, and my own LLM demonstration page, there are a lot of things that LLMs are good at doing, and a lot of things that they are bad at doing. Per WP:LLM, which is currently being drafted towards a proposal, I think it is perfectly fine for people to use them for things they're good at (formatting tables, identifying potential problem areas in articles, rephrasing sentences). I also think it is a bad idea to use them for things they're bad at (writing entire articles from scratch without giving them access to any sources). To be blunt, it is a gobsmackingly dumb idea: why would it ever come up with anything useful? It can't look things up. Anybody who understands how these models work ought to know this: it is about on the same level of stopping a guy walking down the street and asking him what he thinks about something, and not letting him take out his phone. Or a high school essay. I think that the main problem we face here is people who have no idea how they work, and think that it is just a button that magically generates text from the Computer God.

I have certainly enjoyed using ChatGPT to fix the colors in badly-formatted tables, and diagnose template errors, and wrote a couple Signpost articles with GPT-3 in August: but this is a labor-intensive task that requires carefully formatted prompts and careful analysis of the output. That is to say, if you want it to summarize AfD discussions, you need to paste the entire goddamn content of the AfD page into the prompt window. If you want to write an article based on sources... you need to paste the entire goddamn source (or a lengthy summary of it) into the prompt window, it's not capable of looking things up. I am inclined, frankly, to say that anyone who doesn't understand this has no business using it to generate huge piles of gobbledygook. And, while I am being frank, I think we might end up needing some kind of approval process where you demonstrate that you have some idea of what you're doing, like we do for the pagemover permission or the AWB list. jp×g 09:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rephrasing sentences" is something ChatGTP and similar actually suck at big time. They tend to remove all nuance, all doubt, and turn hypotheses into facts, examples into rules, trivia into essentials. Fram (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so does the freakin' news, am I right? But we do not have a blanket ban on citing the news in articles -- editors are simply expected to use intelligence and common sense (as well as our very well-developed policies and guidelines) in determining whether something is legitimate or horseshit. jp×g 10:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that rephrasing sentences is among the "things they're good at", which in my experience isn't true. Your reply doesn't address that point, just states that other things may suck at it as well. You are positioning yourself as some expert, someone who would easily pass the "approval process" separating "people who have no idea how they work", "anyone who doesn't understand this has no business using it to generate huge piles of gobbledygook", from people like you, who know that you can't use it for complete articles but it is good for e.g. rephrasing sentences. Well, you did this here, which you claimed was "solely editing for tense" and "reviewed by a human (me)", but the end result was that the combined efforts of ChatGTP and you introduced new errors in the text. So excuse me if I am rather sceptical of your claims of what it can do and your expertise in it, and also rather unconvinced by your reply here which just misses the point completely. Fram (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by this is that neither you nor I have ever typed "Write a Wikipedia article about the yellow-spotted bandersnatch" into ChatGPT and then copy-pasted the resultant wall of crap directly into a redlink without verifying anything. This would imply we are more qualified in this area than people who have done so. jp×g 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dumping ground for wild LLM content

• Draft:Draft:GPT-4 has some obvious tells (the strange formatting of a high school essay, combined with an extremely high score on the analyzers I tried it on). jp×g 07:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft:The Benefits of Mindfulness in the Workplace seems to have the same issue of fake sources as the Gecko one above. E.g. "Mindfulness and its relationship to work engagement: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 365–384.)" can not be found in the contents. Similarly, the second source, Hansen 2011, "A systematic review..." is not to be found in the source given. The author involved vehemently denied using ChatGPT on another article (Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Iraqian economic influence in 2023), as if it somehow was a greater insult to claim that they posted ChatGPT-created rubbish than that they actually wrote it themselves... Fram (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft:What Is Informative Writing? seems to be LLM writing as well. Fram (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A germ of an idea is forming in my head, which is that it would almost certainly be possible to deploy one of these GPT analyzers on Toolforge and automatically run it over new drafts (or drafts with recent large text additions). The analyzers themselves are open source and available for download on Hugging Face. If this works, it would be possible to make a bot report page for the highest percentages, which could then be manually examined (reference check, et cetera). Obviously not a perfect solution, but it'd be something. Would anyone like to use something like this? jp×g 11:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A system similar to CopyPatrol would definitely be helpful for screening potentially GPT-generated content. It's definitely not perfect, but it will catch the most blatant cases; might it also be possible to build in a mechanism to determine whether added "references" actually exist? At least for now, while tools can still distinguish human-written and AI-written content... ^Complex/_Rational 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note to anyone who is tagging these for speedy deletion: it may be useful to retain the text from some of these articles, so that we can use them as examples (or as training data) for detection. I am going to keep some of them at User:JPxG/LLM dungeon, and encourage others to add to this collection. jp×g 12:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a few of these drafts which were already tagged for speedy deletion. I'm happy to provide you with copies if you'd like. ^Complex/_Rational 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would maybe be useful to be able to filter the deletion log by "likely AI-generated" or similar. —Alalch E. 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. If it is too cumbersome to post on-wiki, you can just send me an email of the wikitext (jpxg-dëv at prötönmail döt cöm without the umlauts). jp×g 21:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I emailed you the wikitext from the three I deleted today. The other two were archived at the Wayback Machine and are linked above. ^Complex/_Rational 01:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Lots of stuff in motion to address this issue. See Wikipedia:Large language models and Template:AI generated, and their associated talk pages. Also, the enormous discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_response_to_chatbot-generated_content. Many more pages showing up in draft, a few passages in articles. Some, like me, are templating whole-cloth LLM-generated drafts (I just templated another 17), and deleting unsupported LLM-generated passages under WP:V, but there's a range of actions being taken.

I'd like to see this closed unless there are objections. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: Since virtually all LLM chatbots like the infamous ChatGPT are completely incapable of external lookups, thus references are fictitious, can Perplexity AI (and the upcoming Microsoft Bing w/ ChatGPT integration) be used to help finding references (especially the citations part on Perplexity AI search engine, but be careful about source reliability on this part as some if not few of it probably listed on WP:RSP) for text on WP articles with citation needed tag appended? 2001:448A:3046:34F2:B825:A231:DC69:F03F (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is best asked on Wikipedia_talk:Large_language_models as there are discussions there on what LLMs are useful for. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scabab (talk · contribs · count) has been citing this single link in four different articles to support information regarding box office: Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', Dragon Ball Super: Broly and Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero. The problem is that the information cannot be verified by the reader with that simple link. I already brought up the issue with this site here and here. However, I also noticed that it is not the first time that editors have issues with the edits of Scabab regarding box office stuff and sourcing; there are at least two previous discussions: [38] [39] Xexerss (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems like a troll. Has not responded kindly to this criticisms in the past (as both these diffs show). This seems less like a dispute resolution issue and more a combo of failing to cite these apparent sources they speak of and inability to learn from mistakes.

One good thing is because of his specific focus, any socks this guy uses are gonna be easy to spot. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. It's clear that the user doesn't care about policies and guidelines and just makes edits the way they deem correct. I would revert their edits myself in these articles, but they would probably do the same and I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. Xexerss (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to add (verifiable) sources to these four articles. I request some input on it if the user re-incurs in adding original research content to the articles. Xexerss (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are verifiable as well as hugely outdated and incorrect. I'll only ever put the correct number. Scabab (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scabab: Ok, so it seems that you still don't get it. The objective of Wikipedia is to have reliable and verifiable sources that can confirm the info to which they are attached when someone accesses to them, not to keep updated figures just for the sake of keeping them updated and use any source available out there that you think that can work and you consider enough. What you deem "outdated and incorrect" and "correct" is totally irrelevant; you've insisted on adding ambiguous, self-published and generally poorly sourced links to articles, ignoring any guideline, policy and warning that have been told to you, keeping on making edits however you want. Xexerss (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source. It's not my fault other people don't subscribe to see the information that's there on the site. Adding a source that can be confirmed means nothing when it's factually incorrect like the ones you're adding.Scabab (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you could add a different source that has the same information (if such source exists) and can be accessed for free. If it's reliable infomation, this source should exist. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scabab: If it's so important to you to keep the figures updated and use any unreliable source that you think is fine anyway, like Sportskeeda or Anime Hunch, then you could edit the Wikia of these films. It has been explained several times to you about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth with no understanding on your part. Xexerss (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now this user insists on citing unreliable self-published websites and blogs like Anime Hunch; Erzat and Sportskeeda. The later is already listed as unreliable on two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources. Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He also removed warnings from his talk page. Timur9008 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This just needs to stop. Putting forward a TBAN on movies for Scabab. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's attitude clearly falls under WP:NOTHERE. They don't recognize their fault and don't even (at the very least) cite their sources in the right way, adding bare links with errors to articles. On top of that, they have the nerve to demand that other editors change their unreliable sources for better ones to support the content that they deem correct. As I pointed out above, Scabab has a long-term history of disruptive behavior, so I'm still wondering why they haven't received any sanction yet. Xexerss (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mast303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am 100% sure this is a WP:DUCK, the account was created in November last year and since then it has done what I call the more advance user editing which I associate more with a long term seasoned editor. The contrib is highly suspect also in my opinion, this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruan Oliveira doesn't seem to be setup quite right. Something is going on here, the account was blocked already once, I'd ask for an SPI check if I knew who it was before, but I don't know that. All very suspect. Govvy (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I firsr encountered them as simply disruptive, but only right on the border of hopelessly-CIR. But looking more deeply, for example jumping right into multiple deletion processes and template editing, they are obviously not new. Don't know whose. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it a little odd that this user continued to edit after my accusations and didn't come to defend him/herself after the ANI notice was posted on their page. There are certainly odd edits like this [40], I am wondering if the account is related to User:Judeobasquelanguage and the IP User:86.30.52.72, there are similarities. I seem some similar editing between them. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My account is recent. Also, I plan to make more constructive edits in the future. Mast303 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Locke Cole, who warned them about disruptive page-moving. They just now did another one: claiming to be undoing an undiscussed move, which is technically true but had persisted unchallenged for 11 years. And they only moved the article not a nest of talkpages, which is itself disruptive and demonstrates both a lack of competence and a lack of recognition in that lack. They already had many of their page-moves undone. DMacks (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only interaction with this editor is with their undiscussed move of C Sharp (programming language) to a hyphenated form. IIRC they also failed to move talk-page archives with the move as well. A short review of their edits exhibits a combination of newbie-like behavior mixed with (as Govvy says) more advanced editing. Agree that it comes off WP:CIR-like, is it possible they've edited on other MediaWiki wiki's and perhaps that explains the more advanced editing? Being cognizant of WP:BITE, I hesitate to suggest anything with so little to go on as yet. They've been blocked once: if their behavior warrants it, progressive blocks might make sense if there is further disruptive behavior. In my interaction, the undiscussed move was reversed, Mast303 started a proper RM which was SNOW closed a brief time later with no consensus to move. I guess my recommendation would be to monitor their edits for a time to look for other potential issues, unless a checkuser wants to look into any potential socks. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious WP:DUCK and obvious sock. Apparently 99% of their mainspace edits have been reverted as disruptive or unhelpful. Considering their last prods and AFDs, they are only asking for being banned. Cavarrone 14:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to make more constructive edits in the future. Mast303 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something constructive you could do now is to withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iodosilane. This is a deletion discussion you started for an article about a compound that has been the subject of many studies. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to have articles about such things, even (or especially) if neither you nor I had heard of them before. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: How do I close an RFD discussion? Mast303 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just say "I withdraw this AfD nomination" in the discussion and someone who knows how will close it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment about whether or not this is a sockpuppet, because my only interaction that I know of has been in Iodosilane and I have looked no further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (or several someones) is trying to flood the RfC with oppose !votes from IPs and SPAs with extremely similar form and content, such as this trio: [41] [42] [43], and the successive entries from this editor, identifying himself as "James M", and this editor, identifying themselves as "JD M". I may be an admin myself, but I don't have any experience dealing with this, so I urgently ask you:

• What do we do to get this to stop? Should we semi-protect the page?
• If I had to guess, I'd blame this ip, who showed up to a discussion about this attack enraged about people !voting support and saying the whole RfC is a joke. Whether that guy or someone else is behind this, how do we get him to stop instead of carrying on with his grudge indefinitely?
• Should this issue be taken up elsewhere, too? Is opening a sockpuppet investigation called for? Reporting as ongoing vandalism?
• Should suspect !votes be deleted? Tagged? Moved to the talk page? Otherwise handled in a way that doesn't result in being deservedly flamed to a crisp for messing with other peoples' comments?
• My #¤%& computer's crashing like every 20 minutes, real sorry to pass the buck, but could someone whose isn't please step in on this? --Kizor 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Strange pattern in recent opposes. Notice also that one of the newly created accounts attempted to delete tags appended by Avilich to said accounts' and IPs' comments to warn that they are suspicious. Æo (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of IP editors and new accounts showing up on both sides for this RfC. This is the problem with having anything on Wikipedia come down to a straw poll, especially something that's this widely publicized. That being said, it does look as though sockpuppetry might be going on, though semiprotecting the page or ECing it will damp participation even further. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think tagging is a productive use of time in this situation. Anyone who is going to be closing that RFC will be more than aware the situation. Additionally, most IPs are dynamic so it stands to reason that they would have made few edits outside of that discussion. Lastly, getting into the tagging game is going to lead to even more conflict, considering there are plenty of IPs and new users on both sides. We'd have to tag all or none. If we're going to try to tag only suspicious responses, just leave that to the closer to judge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And more not-too-coherent ranting from an IP about how this is all the support side's fault. --Kizor 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything really to do here. The RfC has been publicized in a couple places outside wikipedia, a sizeable percentage of the comments on that RfC are saying it doesn't matter when any of us editors think, it should be what unregistered editors think, and then when unregistered editors show up we, what, ask for semiprotection or EC-confirmed? That seems silly. Closer will just have to evaluate. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kizor, I disagree with your selective removal of SPA tags. Please either remove them all, or self revert and leave them all. You shouldn't be unilaterally making a decision between good and bad SPAs: either we tag all the SPAs, or we don't tag any of them. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic of the RFC primarily concerns the appearance for IPs and non-regular users (because the logged-in regulars have a preference setting they can use). As such, it would make the RFC even less representative of the people it affects if we tried to prevent IPs and non-regular users from participating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe this RFC needs a little supervision by Checkusers, there are a lot of accounts that appear to be Single purpose account or sockpuppetry. Yep, we all and always saying that RFC is not a vote, but... Lemonaka (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just saw this. Lemonaka, this change particularly impacts unregistered readers/editors, because they can't change their settings and can only toggle a few things in the particular screen they're looking at. Some of the single-issue accounts are openly explaining that they registered for that reason. Both they and those who participate as IPs should be allowed to have their say; it affects them more than us. In any case, whoever closes it should be trusted to appropriately weigh the arguments made. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of WMF employee email outreach

Note that the WMF has disclosed that one of them (against company instructions) has canvassed people to vote in the RfC[44]. While the email makes a perfunctory bow to no canvassing, vote however you like, everything else in it screams please support our Vector22 and vote oppose! Fram (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Oh, fucking shit, please archive it.... It may disappear soon and you may get banned if .... Lemonaka (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, it was (like I said) disclosed by the WMF, not found by me. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Disclosure of email outreach. Fram (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines and some of the wording in the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation left me with a chilling feeling. FWIW, calling RFC a vote and something like that. At one time I dealt with the WMF and it saddens me to think that they may be not only incompetent, but intentional.
I think the arbitration committee needs to take action in this case. Lemonaka (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the WMF should get its people to learn enwiki policy, if they're going to have any direct or indirect interaction with enwiki in their role as WMF employees. Here we see canvassing and ignorance of WP:NOT at minimum. CharredShorthand.talk; 04:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user who is currently creating thousands of random redirects to sections within articles (a very odd redirect like List of people from Loudoun County, Virginia), of which very few seem to be useful. I think this behavior should be stopped since it prevents an editor on Wikipedia from creating an article from its first edit as the article would be a redirect with the name of another editor. A few days ago same thing happened with me, when I was to create an article that was already redirected by them. I don't know if this editor Jarble's action has been approved by the community because it's such a huge piece of work that it seems like it needs to be consulted by wikipedians.--Sakiv (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: I want to be the sole creator of that coming article. I'm afraid that's just not the way things work around here. Wikipedia is intended to be an ever evolving collaboration between multiple editors who wish to contribute. 2600:1003:B855:87AF:E01B:ACD9:C820:8285 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is looking for additional context, this and this might be helpful. It seems like the only one creating a "big headache" here is the OP. ANI isn't the proper venue to ask someone to G7 a redirect solely because you want your name to be the first one in its edit history. Drop the stick. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I wanted "my name" to be the only name that appears on any page's history. This is unacceptable. I talked to them on their talkpage but didn't get an explanation, then went to the teahouse but forgot as usual. Please assume good faith in this discussion. You should probably ask the IP address that appeared out of nowhere without any edits. Sakiv (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your words: I want to be the sole creator of that coming article. As an established editor, you should know that's not how Wikipedia works. You've been provided the advice at both locations, including by several editors at the Teahouse discussion, that you can (a) create a draft, which upon completion could then be moved in place of the redirect at that title, or (b) edit the existing content at that title, thereby turning it into an article. It is unclear as to why you are so insistent on deleting this redirect instead of applying one of the two methods suggested. I'm trying to assume good faith, but bringing this to ANI because you don't like the responses you've been given seems like forum shopping. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say this at all. Call it what you prefer. I am not going to create any draft and submit it like a new beginner. That's not how it works for me. He should not create massive redirects without clarifying it to the community. With this he bars all editors not just me from creating an article from scratch.--Sakiv (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say this at all. Yes, you did. Again, as you've been told at both locations, and now here by me, you can edit the existing content at that title, thereby turning it into an article. No one is preventing anyone from creating an article there or at any other redirect that is unprotected. As long as it is a viable article, all of this could probably have been done without any of this unneeded drama. Unless you can clearly explain why that is not an acceptable solution, there's no point in continuing this discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this. As long as there is no bad faith. Is there usually more than one creator of an article? What you are doing is nothing more than a defense of Jarble's contributions. Sakiv (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided zero evidence that any of Jarble's contributions are of a nature to warrant their discussion at ANI. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it concerning that you denied making such a statement until there was a diff shown of the statement, upon which you then pivoted to a different stance. I fail to see how any of this report assumes good faith of Jarbles as well. Rhayailaina (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the redirect looks good to me and the title matches other similar pages for other countries. I have added the Template:R with possibilities template to the redirect to indicate that it is an redirect that could be a stand alone page but that is a minor thing. If you have content that you want to add to the page then edit the page to add content or to create a draft and send it to AfC. Gusfriend (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think per WP:MASSCREATE, consensus should be obtained for the mass creation of redirects. Levivich (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct—mass creation of anything without prior consensus is disruptive. Those asking the OP to suck it up are missing two points. First, generating a list of pointless redirects is easy (consider ChatGPT connected to a script) yet massaging that list into something useful would be very slow and painful. Second, some editors are human and they will be less motivated to create an article without credit. Those rubbishing the last point should bear in mind that the only reason to create redirects such as those reported is to increase one's edit count. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich and Johnuniq: I would need to obtain consensus if I were generating redirects automatically, but I have created all of these redirects manually; does WP:MASSCREATE require prior consensus for redirects that are created manually? Jarble (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters if you're using automated tools or not (WP:MEATBOT). The point is that if you're going to create a ton of pages, you should get consensus first; not necessarily BRFA, but at least ask the community somewhere if what you're doing is an improvement, before going forward with it as WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I for one do not understand the logic behind these redirects, which doesn't mean they wouldn't have consensus, and ANI isn't the place to discuss the merits of the redirects, but I think editors should get consensus before mass creating redirects. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich and Johnuniq: If I need to obtain consensus before creating a large number of redirects, I'll need to discuss them somewhere: what would be the appropriate place to request permission to create them? Jarble (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: In a recent RFC, the community in its wisdom declined to create a noticeboard for this purpose, and the closers in their wisdom declined to comment on any consensus beyond "Fails", but as I read the RFC, I think it's case-by-case, with WP:VPR being the catch-all if there isn't a better place. Levivich (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a hell of a condemnation of Wikignome work, Johnuniq ... they're only doing their under-the-hood work to buff up their edit count, why else would they bother? Smooth.

Startled sarcasm aside, indeed, some editors are human, and that's why we have a bunch of policies, guidelines, noticeboards and admins to restrain their less productive proclivities. I agree that mass creations can be disruptive, but that scarcely lets the OP off the hook. Ravenswing 04:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For someone who keeps asking others to extend good faith, I believe the OP's acting in poor faith by making this ANI complaint. What, precisely, is productive to the encyclopedia in his demand? As long as an article's a good one, I don't give a good goddamn -- and no one else should either -- who "gets" the credit for creating it. There's been far too much angst and disruption over the years from the folks who think Wikipedia is some geeky MMORPG for which they're chasing Game High Score, and an editor deterred from improving a redirect into a useful article because he doesn't have the egoboo of having his name at the top of the queue is likely to be one of those. Ravenswing 07:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't agree more, I found it odd how AGF was being applied selectively when the argument could be made this ANI report is directly violating WP:AGF Rhayailaina (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sakiv has been told numerous times now how to proceed in regard to that redirect, including by admins who declined their CSD tag (me included). If they want so badly to be the "sole creator" of the article, they can start a draft to supplant the redirect, but for some reason they believe only "newbies" should have to create drafts or go through AfC (though my guess is that, due to their long edit history, AfC wouldnt be necessary). This ANI filing is frivolous and verges on WP:FORUMSHOPPING and would recommend Sakiv withdraws it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's Jarble's actions we are talking about here. Keep going in this bad faith towards me. We are all human btw. Sakiv (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Everybody's actions in an incident are considered, including (especially) the person who brings it to ANI. See WP:BOOMERANG. Daniel (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Three things about this: First, can we not pretend to be shocked that a Wikipedian extracts some joy and gratification from being the one to create an article, and has some resentment for people who create unnecessary redirects (or, in other cases, one-sentence stubs) about articles they want to write a real article about? I dare say most editors who focus on content work have felt something like that at some point. There are very good reasons why those feelings don't factor into our policies, of course, but we don't need to scold people when they say the quiet part out loud (even if they blundered and said "sole author"). Second, as a tip for OP: the WP:PAGEMOVER user right allows you to move an article (e.g. a draft) over a redirect in many cases. Third, we still don't have a rule prohibiting high volume manual editing. MASSCREATE covers automated/semi-automated editing and MEATBOT is about when there are errors. Consensus isn't required beforehand here, even if it's still a good idea (because actions at scale attract scrutiny and there's less sympathy if you do start making mistakes). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Without commenting on the OP's conduct (I'm only here because Jarble is a name that often pops up whenever I enter a redirect page, as I have activated the XTools gadget), I've long been a bit concerned with this mass creation of unnecessary redirects. No one other than editors aware of the naming conventions for sections would type for these titles. It's like having a redirect to every section of an article.

While I don't think sanctions are needed, perhaps Jarble should slow down on the redirects and focus on creating more of the types suggested here. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Boyanov (talk · contribs)

This is the second time I had posted here (previously on December 2022 which no admins actions were taken nor any admins replied on) pertaining to Nikolai adding unsourced materials to various articles including BLP ones in violations of WP:BLP and/or WP:VERIFY despite being warned multiple times by me and other editors, and also getting blocked for the same disruptive behaviour back in November 2022, clearly Nikolai couldn't be bothered (WP:IDHT) to comply with our guidelines and policies especially WP:VERIFY. Also noting that majority of their edits were made on desktop (noting the lack of tags in their edits) hence not because of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Here are some diffs since Nikolai was unblocked.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]. And just today only with this ... not sure what to even say. Can any admin please issue an official final warning against Nikolai, thanks a lot. — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝) 08:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced again.[57] — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝) 11:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being already reported half year ago, this user continued to nominate software-related articles for deletion, actions already undone. already blocked at the Spansh Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of their 5 AfD nominations on en-WP that have been closed, 4 were delete and 1 was merge/redirect. It appears as if they are nominating articles that lack notability. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And considering how many articles you've created that have been subsequently deleted, it seems that you are the one who does not understand Wikipedia's notability requirements. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Mdggdj's edits, and if you refer to them as an LTA or vandal again, without providing evidence, I'll block you myself. I suggest you read Wp:RS, WP:Notability, WP:VANDALISM and, very importantly, WP:CIR. Looking at your edits, I question your ability to edit Wikipedia competently. Looking at a lot of the articles you removed Prod requests from, those articles should be deleted as non-notable so I think I'll nominate them all myself. Canterbury Tail talk 23:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do with this kind of disruptive users? User:Amitie 10g does not want to follow the rules and prefers personal attacks. Another Wikipedia editor blocked my Spanish Wikipedia account because he did not like my user handle. I do not know if there is a single sockpuppet account on the Spanish Wikipedia or many of the Spanish Wikipedia editors do not want to follow the rules. What do you recommend doing here? User:Amitie 10g has a long record of not following the rules. Mdggdj (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I asked the user who blocked Mdggdj on Spanish Wikipedia what their evidence was on sockpuppetry. See my talk page there to see what the response was. There might be some global lock evasion going on, however I'll leave that up to the admins to decide as from what I'm seeing it was simply just some WP:LOUT socking. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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[58] 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 [59] 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 [60] [61] 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 [62] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [63] 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. [64]

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]

@Canterbury Tail: Does seem static, with the activity immediately reoccurring could a longer block be placed? CMD (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Popcornfud keeps editing my text an Health and appearance of Michael jackson to promote his own piece about the problem with elegant variations. He only accepts his way of writing. Yesterday he made several changes inone edit making it more difficult to revert them because the page is semi-protected. When the article was in really poor condition he did very little to improve it but after my extensive he came out of the woodwork to blame me for my faults. On the other hand he doesn't revert edits with wrong information Last year we had a discussion about the Thriller video. Popcornfud didn't understand the werecat article.Sometimes he cuts sentences so much deleting most relevant Popcornfud is not objective. No, I don't like writing this. It's rude. But Wikipedia doesn't do anything about Michael Jackson articles to be messed up. Quaffel (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quaffel, you should be discussing your proposed changes on the article's talk page - people are allowed to disagree with you and revert your edits, you are then expected to discuss it with them. ANI isn't the place to settle disagreements about content, there is nothing here that requires administrative attention at this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "Lead edits" section on the article's Talk Page. Red the Talk Page and you'll know what a discussion with Popcornfud is like! Read what he wrote when we had a GA reassessment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson/1 Sometimes he just avoids the discussion. He doesn't show up here. A good way to gezt his will. Your comment is useless Girth Summit.Quaffel (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having read both Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson#Lead edits and WP:Good article reassessment/Health and appearance of Michael Jackson/1 I do not think that Popcornfud is the problem in either discussion. Looking at their last two edits which referenced WP:ELEVAR in the edit summary ([70], [71]) both look like improvements to me. I agree with GirthSummit: there's nothing here which needs administrative attention. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is possible for another admin to put this on their watchlist? The Talk is prone to off-topic, personal opinions about the subject, or clear personal attacks and harassment by various IP addresses. Ivanvector already put an admin note on here, but he is on vacation and various IP addresses seemed to ignore his note. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rocafellla has been avoiding leaving any edit summary in his edits or discussing any of his changes at talk pages.

I discovered this when he reverted my edits on Babylon (2022 film) twice here and here.

I decided to check his edits because he didn't leave any summary once and left him a message on his talk page after finding he has a habit of not leaving any edit summary [76], while also asking him to discuss the dispute he has over how to write the film's box office with me. He didn't respond.

I later contacted him on the article talk page by linking his name [77], but he didn't respond again. Then I finally decided to warn that I will complain to the admins [78]. There was still no response.

I've rechecked his edits and he very rarely responds. While I wouldn't have brought this if this was merely limited to a content dispute, Rocafellla doesn't seem to respond to me or anyone for that matter. Or provide explanation for his controversial changes and reverts. This is a violation of Wikipedia polices, especially WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:DISPUTE and WP:UNRESPONSIVE. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them the full edit summary warning; not an admin but months and months without an edit summary (or using canned one-word responses) isn't acceptable and they need to say something already. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked to see if they responded here or addressed this, and there have been further non-summarized edits today. Final warning given. Enough. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that (slightly)...they did type a summary for this edit, which removed the subject's race, which is pretty much a hard no in BLP editing. Reverted and hopeful they don't do so again. Nate • (chatter) 21:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MrSchimpf. But I see they still did not respond to you and besides that one article didn't post any summaries anywhere. Nor responded to me. I've warned them on their page that I'll request admins for a block if they don't start a discussion [79]. Hopefully it doesn't have to come to that and the user starts cooperating. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They did respond to you with an 'Ok', but that still isn't acceptable because they just think 'there I said a word close thread lol no longer in trouble'...then they post this, an unacceptable thing sourced to a forum, which they were again warned about by another user, then this; for a film editor they should definitely know what the difference between cinematography and visual style is. On their part, this is getting tenuous and @Rocafellla: needs to stop this, now. There are 108 keys on a keyboard and more than two of them should be used for an edit summary or to respond to an editor's concerns. Nate • (chatter) 22:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be happily engaged in solitary play. WP may be like a "knowledge game" for them. "OK" is the only thing they have ever put on a discussion page (their talk); no edit summaries; unresponsive; get reverted for unsourced additions. Could be WP:NOTHERE plus WP:CIR.-- Quisqualis (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charchasm has recently been doing some heavy editing to various philosophy-related articles. While some edits seem constructive (e.g. the removal of the "Aristotle's views on women" article, various category changes), others have removed a significant amount of text and have notably involved the deletion of various articles. I also notice that a lot of edits seem to be removing uncited information rather than adding citations (presuming reliable citations could be found for the content). Hence I'm requesting that someone better acquainted with the topic area review the edits to determine if they are indeed constructive or if perhaps the baby might have been thrown out with the bath water in places. 146.198.12.80 (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any specific objections to my editing, you are welcome to bring them up on my talk page or tag me on the relevant page. I believe that this, however, constitutes casting WP:ASPERSIONS? I will be happy to respond to any concerns that you have with my editing in either of those places, however. - car chasm (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if there are any concerns from anyone else, just to save a separate conversation, here are a few veteran editors I've interacted with recently if you need some reassurance that someone else is looking at my edits. [80], [81], [82]

But please, reach out on a talk page first next time? You'll be able to clear things up with other editors in the future without possibly antagonizing someone else by bringing them to ANI :). - car chasm (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI report with no diffs, no specific complaints, and no evidence of having discussed the supposedly problematic edits that you haven't specifically identified, is not likely to go anywhere. Removing uncited content from articles is virtually always acceptable, even if reliable sources to support that content could be found; the responsibility is on those who think the content should be in the article to properly source it if it is challenged. (And, though carchasm appears to have found this report anyway, you should have notified them on their talkpage as instructed by both the editnotice and the notice at the top of the page). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carchasm has been doing great work on philosophy articles, and we are in fact very lucky to have someone like them on this project. Yes, editors should be aware that removing badly sourced or badly written content will not automagically make new content grow in its place, and that sometimes it's better to just leave in sub-optimal information rather than to have nothing at all. But ultimately this is a matter of editorial discretion if everything is done within the bounds of existing WP:PAG, and it appears to me that Carchasm is rather self-aware about that. In other words, I don't see a problem here, and recommend that this thread be speedily closed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all other issues in this report, the OP has failed to notify Carchasm of this report, despite the red warning notice both on top and during editing clearly requiring such a notice. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to discuss MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) editing history as they are clearly violating multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies for a long time and despite many warnings they continue to do this (as they keep no talk page archive to avoid scruitny).

• They have been draftifying reviewed articles (older than 90 days and sometimes six months old articles) despite numerous warnings. It seems like they are using it as a backdoor route to deletion which is not allowed per WP:DRAFTIFY. Per WP:ATD-I, older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. but MrsSnoozyTurtle has done it dozens of time per their filter log and is continously violating it.
  • Warned by @Timtrent: on 31 May 2022 for draftifying a notable TV channel article, Draft:Colors TV ([91]).
  • Violations of WP:DRAFTIFY, warned by @David Eppstein:, [92].
  • kind reminder that they are violating WP:DRAFTIFY by @UnitedStatesian:.
  • Six months old article draftified and were warned by @Espresso Addict: [93] and they even didn't reply despite clearly violating.
• Their grasp of WP:GNG is so weak that recently they tried to PROD Tufts University and a defunct (but very notable) jewelry company, Michael C. Fina.
• Usually assumes bad faith and accusses users of stalking who disagree with them, e.g. User_talk:Jfire#WP:STALKING?, [94] and canvassing ([[95]]).
  • Deletes/removes sourced content without use of talkpage, for example, Sozo Water Park and Discover Pakistan TV were improved during AfDs, yet they still try to destroy the work done by good-faith editors.
• Previous warnings
  • September 2021: Edit warring warning by @Cullen328: [96].
  • November 2021: ARS comments and warning [97] and they replied take it to ANI.
  • December 2021: Warned for moving a six months old article were rightly warned by User:Espresso Addict [98].
  • January 2022: kind reminder that they are violating WP:DRAFTIFY by User:UnitedStatesian [99].
  • February 2022: violations of WP:DRAFTIFY, warned by sysop, David Eppstein, [100].
  • May 2022: Warned by User:Timtrent for draftifying a notable Draft:Colors TV ([101]).
  • July 2022: Warned by @GreenC: for disprutive behavior. [102]
  • August 2022: Warned by @Dolphin51: for deleting content without explanation. ([103])
    • August 2022: Warned about vandalising Manisha Ganguly by @Janedoe31:. [104]
  • ANI issue ([105]) with @Maddy from Celeste:.
  • November 2022: Accussing @CT55555: of canvassing without any evidence, again assuming bad faith. [106]
  • December 2022: Vanadalism-related warning, Sozo Water Park, [107] by @Lightburst:. Another related issue [108] with @Tryptofish:, @Dream Focus:.
    • Edit warring issue again! [109], this time with User:7&6=thirteen.
  • January 2023: Warning on disruptive editing and edit war [110], Tufts University by @ElKevbo:.
  • Trolling behavior here [111].
• Above warnings are already too much and still they haven't improved their behavior. They are doing more harm than good so, I propose some sort of topic ban to stop this, especially related to draftification issue. They have avoided scrutiny because there is as such no record of all these warnings (complained by User:David Eppstein and others). During the ban, they can learn about the guidelines, and possibly work on creating actual content that improves Wikipedia, rather just destroying/deleting notable content from Wikipedia.

82.45.23.31 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I find it absurd that my quiet note and conversation pointing out an error can be characterised in any way as a warning. This is the conversation. MST accepts a genuine error. Every editor makes errors. By no means all admit them.

Having explained that conversation, I am not sure that I need to take any further part in this discussion, but will respond if asked. I can say that I encounter MST rarely and have always found them to be collegial and a decent editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has made me look again at Colors TV. Interested parties may see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors TV. I should probably have followed through with that at the time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, am I missing an explanation of who you are somewhere? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ... tried to PROD the Tufts University article? What the pluperfect hell? That has to be either one of the most dramatic WP:POINT violations in Wikipedia history, or else the editor is profoundly clueless. That being said, I'd have to say that over eleven years after registration and 31,000 edits, MrsSnoozyTurtle has learned all the guidelines she cares to do, and can be trusted to follow them about as far as is practical to do. Which does not seem too bloody far. Ravenswing 17:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (As a postscript, I just looked over both MST's talk page and the Tufts talk page, to see if there was some attempt at apology -- "oops, I hit a PROD button by mistake." Nope. What I did see was her slapping a maintenance tag on the article, it being removed with an exhortation to discuss her problems on the talk page, and her repeatedly restoring the tags while declining to respond to that and further requests. Doesn't look very collegial to me.) Ravenswing 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How does one accidentally suggest TNTing an article on the basis that the article is Promotional and poorly referenced to the extent that WP:TNT is the best option for the encyclopedia? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, the PROD rationale was basically WP:TNT. I don't think it's a particularly good rationale for an article on such an institution (surely converting the article into a stub or simply removing some promotional sections would be incredibly less disruptive than deleting the whole article), but that's something for AfD (where this would probably be SNOW kept fwiw) rather than through WP:PROD, which is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth is damn near nothing. Going straight for the TNT on the article for an institution of the prestige and impact of Tufts University is at level best profoundly blinkered. This diff represents the state of the article at the time the PROD was issued [112]; everyone here can judge for themselves whether the article needed extensive editing to meet our standards.

  Not, mind, that MST attempted to do so. That PROD was her first edit to the article in at least five years. She has never put in an appearance on its talk page. If she's indeed one of those rare editors who will admit error, this is a fine place to start. Ravenswing 18:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm mentioned in one part of the filing above, and I have, indeed, been watching at least some of what has been going on. Although I've been a long-time critic of the WP:ARS, I also think that fair is fair, and I do believe that there are some significant issues here. If you look at this sequence of two edits: [113], [114], you will see the most recent single incidence of something that has been happening repeatedly, to the point where it's difficult to conclude anything other than that MrsSnoozyTurtle is knowingly trying to annoy the other editors at the project, without particularly compensating for it with anything constructive. There have been a couple of times prior to that where I reverted her: [115], [116] during edit warring over whether or not to include the closer's name. I also observed an incident where she falsely and hurtfully accused another editor of canvassing: [117]. I'll add that there has been inappropriate conduct going the other way: [118], but that was an isolated incident, whereas here we are dealing with a lengthy pattern. I'd support a topic ban from anything having to do with ARS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The notion that deleting Tufts University would be uncontroversial is simply mind-boggling, and certainly calls this editor's competence into question. This is a serious problem and I am not sure what the best solution should be, but we need to find one. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Tufts University article is horribly promotional in parts, with significant amounts of it being very close paraphrasing of the university promo material (with no citations, naturally), but that could easily be fixed by taking an axe to those sections. It's not even close to being in TNT territory. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The best solution is easy to find. It would simply be to block this editor to prevent any further disruption. We seem to be reluctant to block disruptive editors when they are prolific, but that's even more reason to block them because they prolifically make disruptive edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet this editor has a clean block log, so no admin appears to have found any of their 31,000 edits before this report particularly problematic. A solution such as that discussed below is perfectly adequate. Meanwhile, like HEB above, I would also like to know the actual identity of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a difference between "problematic" and "block-worthy". I have certainly found their edits problematic before, and have said so on ANI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This ANI discussion from October 2022 concerned actions by MST [[119]]. This includes @David Eppstein highlighting a long term pattern of bad draftications. ResonantDis_tortion 08:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Another example: 4 days ago MST sent to draft this article: Draft:Sergei Mirkin. This is nearly 13 years old and the article creator is no longer active. This very much appears to be backdoor deletion and the warnings referenced above have not worked. ResonantDis_tortion 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• MrsSnoozyTurtle: this would be a really good time for you to show up here and say something along the lines of 'Yikes, OK I get it, I will never again use draftification in cases like this.' Seriously, draftification is a valid outcome of an NPP review, but it's not OK for long-standing articles. If you think an article that has existed for years is chock full of promotional crap (lots of them are), then you should (a) look for a better version to revert back to, (b) improve it yourself, (c) cut away the rubbish, even if that means stubifying it or (d) nominate at AfD. Please indicate that you understand this, or suggest other options if you can think of them. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Girth Summit. Thank you for the advice. Yes, I understand that draftification is not suitable for long-standing articles. That was a mistake and I will be careful not to do that again. (Just to clarify, I haven't read this thread fully, but will do this soon when I have time). Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have promised to pay more attention to the rules of draftification more carefully before, for instance in this February 2022 thread where you professed to be ignorant of the rules against draftifying the same article more than once. And yet as recently as December 2022 we find you repeat-draftifying an article three hours after a previous draftification was objected to. What reason is there to believe that this time, your promises to actually obey the draftification rules will be kept? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon a brief look at the move log, while many are valid, there seems to be many other such invalid draftifications in the recent days as well 1 Jan 2023 after a de-prod, 25 Jan, 29 Jan. One thing in common, it appears, is that she tags the articles with COI/Advert/POI maintenance tags and then moves to draft. I also see edit warring [120], [121] (including a bizarre failed verification tag) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At minimum, it feels like a ban on draftifying should be enacted here, since that appears to be the primary disruptive activity being done (though there are several others too, that Tufts action is just ridiculous). Silverseren^C 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support a ban on draftification. I think that would eliminate the worst of the problems. The mistake of prodding Tufts University is more spectacular, but the inappropriate prods and maintenance banners are more easily dealt with, and draftification can easily turn into stealth deletion with fewer checks and balances. (One might hope that whoever reviews the speedy deletion six months later would notice the problem, but I don't trust that to happen in all cases.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d support a ban on draftification, PROD, and speedy deletion. — Jacona (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting for the record that I have just warned MrsSnoozyTurtle about edit warring with respect to WP:BLAR at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Élodie Chabrol. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That goes beyond drafts, PROD, and CSD. I noted earlier that there are also problems with ARS. It really might be best to ban from all deletion-related activities, broadly construed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm starting to lean towards an all deletion activity ban as well, since all of their editing seems to revolve around trying to delete articles and remove whatever content they can get away with, regardless of the appropriateness of such an action. Silverseren^C 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm mentioned by the OP here as one of the users that has been accused of stalking by MST. My first encounter with this user was on Sam Wasson, where I contested MST's prod (rationale: Promotional article) because the article was salvageable and the subject is notable. The article got draftified by another user, I cleaned it up and moved it back to the mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and MST and two other users edit-warred over draftification [122] [123] [124] [125]. Subsequently MST edit-warred to remove the bibliography, which included not only the books Wasson has written, but review citations that help establish the subject's notability [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]. So I concur that the issues go beyond draft and deletion activities. Jfire (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've re-added in the bibliography with some minor changes. The edits by MrsSnoozyTurtle there are a bit bizarre. It almost seems like they are purposefully mixing together proper removals of content with improper removals on purpose, in order for the former to obscure the latter. Stealth vandalism, if you will. Silverseren^C 21:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reluctant to attribute actual malicious intent. I think it's more likely an overzealous anti-WP:PROMO attitude combined with a miscalibration on what constitutes promotional content and how to best deal with it (e.g. reaching for TNT rather than cleanup as we see with Tufts). The edit-warring is of course not acceptable. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem I have with that -- and why I'm leaning to Cullen328's and Phil Bridger's side of things -- is that we're not dealing with a rookie here. These antics, coming from someone with a few hundred edits and three months' tenure, would be (hopefully) correctable by a trout slap and sitting the newbie down for some home truths. MST, by contrast, has been on Wikipedia for approaching twelve years, and she has over 31,000 edits. There is no bloody excuse in the world for "miscalibrations" and such a shaky grasp of the standards and practices regarding deletions and deletion policies. Sooner or later, editors need to demonstrate that they get it, and this is far past the sell-by date on that. Ravenswing 10:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW If one were to investigate into the articles acted upon by MST with draftification/deletion, I'm confident we will defo find one or more UPE rings — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that many of their draftifications are of UPE. I also believe that many of their draftifications WP:BITE good-faith new editors by falsely accusing them of UPE. Once they have guessed that something is promotional they are very tenacious at fighting to wipe it from the encyclopedia, rather than allowing our processes to play out according to their rules. That is the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just withdrawn the proposal below, but I want to express my personal opinion that we really do have a problem, and that the brief reply from MrsSnoozyTurtle in this discussion (followed by this: [132]) is not enough to put my concerns at rest. So I hope that no one will take my closing of the subsection as being a reason to close the discussion as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At minimum, I'm going to keep an eye on their editing when they get back from their vacation. If they continue the same draftification, PRODing, and edit warring activity they have been, then I suspect we'll be back here again soon enough. If they stop doing that sort of disruptive editing, then mission accomplished. Silverseren^C 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also just like to say that this user has been nuking huge amounts of content in various automobile articles, such as Transmission (mechanical device), glow plug, automatic transmission, and straight-eight engine. I haven't pored over the edits in the detail, however, at a quick glance they've removed the mention of a continuously variable transmission (which is an alternative to fixed-gear transmissions) for no good reason. They've also removed huge sections of unsourced text, which could be easily sourced but I do not wish to revert to a previous version on the basis of taking out good intermediate edits. They also moved Turbine-electric transmission on the basis that they "thinked" that powertrain was the more common term. Aren't moves without discussion supposed to be non-controversial? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 00:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for topic ban

User:User10281129 has been warned multiple times for 3RR over the past year including one 48 hour block for pushing content on pages related to Korea. Most recently the user has been pushing for a specific change at Joseon on two separate occasions, in August 2022 (rv by 3 separate users [140][141][142]) and January 2023.

In their rv edit summary they accused me of being a Chinese nationalist, an accusation they launched against another user in their unblock request in August 2022. After being warned for their behaviour, they blanked their talk page, and put me on their user page as part of an "important user list" ([143] [144]). After 20 minutes they added in parenthesis "conversation" [145] [146]. These were their immediate actions after I had given my input on their behaviour at their talk page. I'm not sure if this qualifies as WP:HARASS but it seems hostile considering they just accused me of being a Chinese nationalist, blanked all discussion about the topic at their talk, and now have me as the sole user link on their user page.

Behaviour at Talk:Joseon#Status shows lack of WP:COMPETENCE and possibly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Grammar mistakes are consistent and sentences are malformed while publishing multiple times consecutively, making it consistently difficult to understand or respond to. Their logical follow through is often so obtuse that it sometimes bares no relevance to the preceding argument, and is repeated after a response, perhaps indicating they may simply be IDIDNTHEARTHAT. When disagreement is apparent, their response is either belligerence (you can't tell me what to do) or to restate their viewpoint in negation to the other. It does not feel as though they are in a conversation but rather listing off bullet points that they had already prepared, indicating WP:TENDENTIOUS.

In one instance, their rv edit summary had no relation to the reason given for the change in the first place. An IP changed the link text in the language box of Joseon to show Classical Chinese instead of Hanmun based on MOS:EGG. User10281129 responded by reverting with an edit summary about how Hanmun is just letters and is not a language. Not only is that wrong because Classical Chinese is a language and not the same as Chinese characters, it is an argument completely divorced from the reason given for why it was changed in the first place. User10281129's argumentation is full of these logical fallacies such as "it cannot be spoken" (false) therefore "it cannot be a language" (false) that do not follow the original argument. Whether or not this is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:COMPETENCE issue I am not sure. Qiushufang (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When did i personal attack?? It meant you are not a nationalist.[147]User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't personal attack. I've always respected you. I was trying to humor you.[148]User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said there is no such articles in other pages, so you told me not to restore it. You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that. And u said u don't want a redundant. This can't be reason. What is wrong with u? I just wanted to write concisely and specifically for those who lack understanding of the system, but you continued to oppose it because the years overlapped. we need to include both tributary relations and the period of being independent. If such explanations are omitted, it's insufficient of explanations. Tributary state means it has no freedom and ruling by foreign powers. To be honest, if i was someome who dont know about the system, i would think that Joseon was just colony of China.User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "You can't tell me what to do" lolUser10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The diff associated has you claiming that You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that. To me, this reads like a blatant disrespect for Wikipedia's consensus building, and while it may not be verbatim what was stated, the point still stands Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of that comment is that User:User10281129 was simply re-stating Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#What_about_other_content?. That other articles of tributary states do not call them 'independent states' IS entirely irrelevant. JeffUK 07:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would be more likely if the user showed an understanding of how WP:CONSENSUS or WP:BOLD worked. The reason why other pages were brought up in the first place was because another user presented it as an argument in a previous talk discussion where three users (including myself) voiced their views. I have reiterated those same views which go beyond the precedence of other articles in the talk discussion with this user but they either do not understand or wilfully ignore this aspect of the discussion.
Calling it a discussion is an overstatement. See User_talk:Qiushufang#Hi where I mentioned the existence of the previous discussion, which they ignored while making multiple edits to illicit a response. At Joseon's talk page, User10281129 made seven consecutive replies within the span of 15 minutes before making another new section at my user talk page just to tell me to respond a mere 15 minutes after my last reply. None of the replies seem to engage with what the other side is saying. In their initial reply they mentioned Didn't Song dynasty already gone? and then repeated the same statement again] further on. As far as I am aware the Song dynasty did not exist during Joseon's existence, nobody in the talk discussion besides the user had ever mentioned it, it was not part of the edited material, and had never been mentioned in any edit summary of the article. They never expanded on what they meant. At another point they just replied okay three times in a row. I am not sure if there is a WP to describe this kind of behaviour (is badgering a thing?), but even given my full attention, it is inconceivable to expect any user to produce a coherent response beyond disengagement.
Not to mention the accusation of Chinese nationalism in August in an unban request yet I am supposed to believe that this time such an aspersion was made in good faith? Their response to comments about their behaviour was a page blanking without comment and in this incident report they also responded with a What is wrong with u?. The low quality replies, their frequency, insulting comments, and seemingly wilfull ignorance make productive exchanges with this user impossible. Qiushufang (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making personal attack on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a personal attack? Tails Wx 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt insulted, but on second thought, I think it was not a personal attack...User10281129 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to humor you. [149]User10281129 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned about Goryeo and Song dynasty. Because you wrote that Goryeo was a tributary state of Song dynasty even though Song was no exist at that time. Lying to accuse me, disregarding the context of what I said, is very insulting. It's unfairUser10281129 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When did i personal attack? It meant you are not a nationalist. I didn't personal attack to anyone. And you were the one who blocked the editing with a contradictory logic[150].

I consistently insisted that "We should write in a way that others can easily understand. Leaving it out can be misleading, especially to those who don't know the system.".User10281129 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this edit? Furthermore, It's just common sense that hanbok is Korean culture, but how can it be an edit warring? He is just a Chinese nationalist. Is this a case of WP:IDHT? Tails Wx 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with this? I didn't do anything wrong this time. I said he is not a nationalist. User10281129 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out about the personal attack and providing the diff. I strongly recommend you read WP:CIR. Tails Wx 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okUser10281129 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User10281129, what-the-what? I would also suggest reading WP:IDHT. I said he is not a nationalist... check again. Tails Wx 01:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

uh...im sorry?User10281129 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It meant he wasn't nationalist[151]User10281129 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had already explained more than once that the logic behind not including "independent state", the part the user wishes to include and had tried to push for back in May ([12][13][14]), was based on more than just not being included in other articles. I mentioned this here, here, and here. Another mention of a pre-existing discussion where more details are given. Their reply on me not being able to restrict what they can edit based on what other articles do is IDIDNTHEARTHAT because I clearly disagreed with the independent status in specific to the subject as well. At this point it would have just been a content dispute, but then they took it upon themselves to revert again without consensus while casting aspersions which in the context of their prior history would have clearly been seen as an insult (and even without prior history), plus listing my name on their user page after comments on their behaviour (ignored and blanked). Obviously they don't believe they need my permission because they went ahead to revert anyways despite portraying it as a matter of whether or not I would allow it, nor did they care about the points I brought up or consensus. Their most recent comments in talk were only after they were reverted again by someone else.

As for the discussion about Goryeo and Song, it would have made sense in the context of a discussion about those articles, but in a discussion about Joseon it makes no sense. Even in context, their replies and meaning are hard to discern due to lack of competence in English. Their first comment was to say they want to restore the content and that it is confusing because people might confuse Joseon or Goryeo as part of China because it is listed as a tributary member. Why then did they revert to a version where it says that it is both an independent state as well as a tributary member? I mentioned the amount of mental gymnastics required to confuse being a tributary of China with being a part of China. Here they say that being a tribute state means not being independent but here they say China had no control over its tributary states. Here they say that Song did not exist in x period of time. I have no idea what relevance this has but I'm guessing they meant that if it did not exist for a part of time during which Goryeo existed, then there were no tributary relations, and that would also apply Ming and Qing for Joseon. Obviously this is not the case and it's possible that I'm mistaken as to their meaning, but that is itself a problem. I don't know what they're saying half the time. Here they accuse me of saying they said Qing had control over Joseon prior to x year. I did not say this and have no idea where this assumption comes from. Regardless of their words, their goal is to diminish the existence of tributary relations, in any form, whether it existed or not, which they eventually did by putting it in notes.

All of their replies are a straight path to instate the change they wish to be made which reeks of tendentious. It could be "Song no exist" therefore "Goryeo not tributary of Song" or "this confusing nobody knows what tributary means" therefore "list as independent state" or "you have no right to tell me what to do" therefore "I can make the change". See my initial comment on their logic around Classical Chinese and Hanmun for another example where it didn't matter what the original argument was. They invent an argument where none existed in the first place. At Goryeo they reverted once based on one argument and then revert again based on another argument (what does Song and Liao didn't exist mean?).

They also don't compromise when they believe things are in their favour. For example I made the exact same compromise that they did back in May 2022 when he was being reverted. He reverted this just as he was reverted himself back in May. Qiushufang (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request you made declaring that Qiushufang is a "Chinese nationalist" still stands as a personal attack. Tails Wx 01:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am talking about today. I didn't say he is nationalist this timeUser10281129 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was not towards me but another user. Qiushufang (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Regardless, however, it stands as a personal attack. Tails Wx 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am talking about present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think, IMO, per the evidence/data collected above and WP:IDHT concerns, a WP:CIR or a WP:DE block is needed. Tails Wx 01:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I said i didn't make a personal attack this time, but You misunderstood.User10281129 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did I misunderstand? You not making a personal attack "this time" doesn't mean you didn't commit personal attacks. Please stop with the failure to get the point or else being at risk to be blocked. Tails Wx 02:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

u did misunderstand. then what is this? U replied "User10281129, what-the-what? I would also suggest reading WP:IDHT. "I said he is not a nationalist"... check again. You must have thought that I had claimed that I was not making personal attacks in the past.User10281129 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The initial unban request rationale is also in line with their current behaviour: Furthermore, It's just common sense that hanbok is Korean culture, but how can it be an edit warring? He is just a Chinese nationalist. With emphasis on the how. I take it to mean that he thought it was not edit warring either because Hanbok is Korean culture or because he believed the other side was a Chinese nationalist. Given that they put the Chinese nationalism part as part of their current edit summary, their logic seems consistent on what they consider to be edit warring vs. not. Qiushufang (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I dont think like that. Absolutely NOTUser10281129 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Do not bringing the past. Thats irrelevant with this.User10281129 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is just bringing past edits irrelevant with this discussion? Tails Wx 14:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didnt anything wrong this time.User10281129 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please i strongly recommend you to read this. [152] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he keep insisted that there is no such articles in other pages, so i cannot restore it. That is against to the Wikipedia policy[153]. And he said he don't want a redundant. This can't be reason. At first place, He was the one who making discussion impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I consistently insisted that "We should write in a way that others can easily understand. Leaving it out can be misleading, especially to those who don't know the system."User10281129 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please I do not think like that.User10281129 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Do you guys think i did something wrong this time?User10281129 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC) If I didn't do anything wrong this time, I have no reason to get blocked. If I did anything wrong this time, I will accept the punishment. Please don't bringing the past and assume me that i will think like a bad guy.User10281129 (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Pinging Bbb23 who imposed the previous block and Yamla, who declined the unblock request. IMO a WP:CIR block is needed at this point. Tails Wx 14:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]