Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Onel5969

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

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

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

But then :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back-Door Deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for participating. Two observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose all sanctions per Dlthewave above. Well said. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support doing something. Bad draftifications and unsubstantiated UPE allegations like this one can really drive away other editors. When a state legislator dies on October 10 and someone writes a bio of him on Oct 12, UPE is quite unlikely, don't you think? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Onel adjusted his behavior in response to this ANI. If you search his AFD log located at User:Onel5969/XfD_log for the term "contested redirect", you can see that he is now sending these to AFD. Onel is the bus factor at NPP, our highest volume reviewer, a huge net positive, and the reviewer that is willing to deal with reviewing the borderline articles that everyone else leaves sitting in the queue. Unfortunately this is bound to generate some friction, so any ANI opened against him gives a huge surface area of things to criticize about his reviewing. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that he is a massive net positive, and tens of thousands of his reviews are spot on. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Give them a Barnstar instead. And the accusations in this thread are full of problems that it would take a giant thread that I don't have time write to respond to all of them. But I'll point out a glaring one. The mere act of calling draftifications that somebody did "back door deletions" is a severe violation of wp:AGF, and then going on to say that such violates non-existent newly invented "offense" of draftifying an article which "should" go to AFD is a second problem on top of that. . North8000 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent claim by onel5969 that he can use AfD for cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BEFORE issues?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that CityUrbanism has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked user. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There a very simple total solution. Step 1 of building an article is finding 1 or 2 GNG sources and putting them in. Do that. Then every problem and invented "problem" in this thread would vanish. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 GNG as evaluated by new page patrollers, or by an AfD discussion? If we imagine deletionism-inclusionism as a continuum, I think we'd find new page patrollers somewhat to the "deletionist" side of the average Wikipedian. I can see why dealing with low-quality pages would engender that outlook. It does create a difficult situation wherein a new page patroller is draftifying a page that would easily (and does) survive AfD. That's not an outcome that makes sense to a lot of people. There are examples in this thread of articles with "GNG sources" (to use your phrase) that were treated that way. So long as there's a gap there is going to be tension, and it shouldn't just be hand-waved away as so much carping. The issue is a legitimate one. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: As defined by the GNG part of WP:GNG And I mean this as a structural answer, not a flippant one. And NPP and AFD should be doing their best to implement that. Even the creator just making a good attempt at understanding and doing that would pretty much solve all of the above. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: if's you'd like to point out an example where it was even argued that the article had GNG sources and you think that the disposition by One was handled improperly, I'd be happy to dive in on that. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected hoax content and LLM use by User:Gyan.Know

• Gyan.Know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While doing some WP:NPP reviewing I came across the article Yaakov Bentolila, created by Gyan.Know (and since deleted under G7). At first glance, this appeared to be a perfectly plausible article. However, when I looked a little closer I realized that none of the citations supported the content, and I could not verify that the subject even existed. I will repeat the text of my AfD nom here:

I can find no evidence that the person described in this article actually exists. The citations to the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post are dead (despite only having been added 5 days ago) and do not exist on the Internet Archive. The third citation to The Independent is about a totally different person with no mention of Yaakov Bentolila. There does seem to be an academic of the same name with articles on the Hebrew and Spanish wikis, but that's clearly a different person from the one described here. I can find no sources pertaining to a Moroccan musician by that name, which is quite strange considering that he was supposedly notable enough to earn obituaries in the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post. On another note, I felt that the writing style of the article was a little "off", so I ran it through an AI writing detector. It came up as 91% likely to be AI generated. I hope this is not a hoax, but all of the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.

Gyan.Know replied to the AfD, stating I am the creator of the page and I just want to say I thoroughly messed up on this one, and I too would like the page to be Deleted. I asked them how and why they came to create this hoax article. However, they have not responded to my ping, despite actively editing elsewhere. In the meantime, I took a look at their other article creations.

Gyan.Know is a prolific editor, with over 2.5k edits and 44 articles created. Many of their articles deal with highly sensitive subjects such as antisemitism and the Holocaust. Unfortunately, I believe that most if not all of their recent creations contain falsified citations and unreliable AI-generated content. For example, see their most recent article, Occult writers and antisemitism. At the time of creation, it looked like this. There are no inline citations, only general references (in my experience this is typical of ChatGPT output). There are zero results for the first reference, "Occultism, racism, and the ideology of the Thule Gesellschaft", on Google [8]. Likewise, the reference "The angle between two walls: Fiction, occultism and the question of history" appears to be fake, although there is a paper with a somewhat similar name about J.G. Ballard (who as far as I know was not a Nazi occultist). No results, either, for "The image of the Jew in German society and culture" or "Savitri Devi's mystical fascism: A religious perspective", and so on. Gyan.Know has since added inline references, but based on the history of the article I believe they are simply tacking these on to faulty AI-generated content. Likewise for the article Jewish economics - there are no results, for example, for the reference "Jewish Economists and the Making of the American Economic Association" outside of WP [9].

I'm posting this ANI thread to get feedback from others on whether or not my suspicions are correct and if so, what should be done about this editor and the articles they have created. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Unverifiable and suspicious articles in highly sensitive topic areas sounds like an urgent reason to TNT. It's not believeable that this user has special access to a trove of books that aren't listed by Google. small jars tc 17:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

+1, regrettably. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Everything they've created since the 25th appears to have false referencing apart from Legend of Exorcism, I not saying the referencing for that article is correct only that it doesn't share the hallmarks of the other articles. The rest should be TNT'd. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I noted below that that article is also falsely referenced. The subject is real, but the article is completely made up then falsely points to citations about the real subject, just like the biographies. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I just reviewed several of the references provided in United Kingdom and the Holocaust, none of which appeared to directly support the text in the article. This doesn't look good. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the first version of that article is AI generated [10] (it's even complete with a citation to a paper that I have been unable to show the existence of anywhere). Gyan.Know has then googled "United Kingdom and the Holocaust" and added in "citations" at random without looking at what they actually say [11] (try it, most of those "citations" show up in the first page of results). So what we're left with is AI generated content with the first page of google results sprinkled over the top to give it the appearance of being properly researched. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A very similar pattern is in evidence at Piracy in the Indian Ocean. All of their creations may need to be scrutinized. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not just their creations, earlier this month they did a bunch of edits where they "Expanded heavily" various articles, they also all appear to be AI generated (not to mention very unencyclopedic) [12] [13]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. All of their suspicious additions seem to be on or after 11 March 2023. Prior to that, they did mostly small edits, vandalism reverts and the like, at rather long intervals. Maybe they discovered ChatGPT on that date and it all spiraled out of control. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

First article before the "Expanded heavily" spree, and apparently the test bed, was Vadilal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). RAN1 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GPTZero says it's likely entirely written by AI EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I know this is off topic, but what's GPTZero? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A "detection" software similar to TurnItIn. https://gptzero.me/ EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm checking out some of the non-controversial articles. R&B and soul music at least has real books referenced, but since none of them are in-line it's impossible for me to verify if these are falsified citations. The article itself is an odd subject anyway as the intersection of two genres without any real assertion for why these are covered together, and a couple of AI-generated-content detectors is pinging it. Legend of Exorcism is a real subject—but the sources do not AT ALL match the content of the article.

Articles they created BEFORE 2023 seem to (at quick glance) be proper articles. Compare this robust Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gridiron football and NASCAR career of Kyle Busch from 2021. A lot of the ones through 2021 seem to be routine splits for WP:ARTICLESIZE.

I think the move would be to TNT anything created this year for sure. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I was the one who speedied the initially found hoax. I concur that this is a Charlie Foxtrot of the first order; everything this user has done recently needs to be WP:NUKEed from orbit. Nothing is trustworthy at all. I may be generous enough to let them respond to these problems here first, but if someone were to indef them right now, I wouldn't object... --Jayron32 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's also File:Digital unrealistic potrait.jpg on Commons, it looks like a blatant AI creation especially with a blurred signature in the lower left corner. I'm not familiar enough with Commons to go about getting it deleted there, or knowing what their policy is on AI art. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That looks a lot like the signature for DALL-E from what I know. However it's different in that it's not YCGRB and it's also vertical rather than horizontal. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's actually the signature of Bing Image Creator, which is indeed powered by DALL-E. PopoDameron ⁠talk 03:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Another apparent hoax: Jewish economics. See for example the citation to Baumol, William J. "Jewish Economics." Jewish Quarterly Review 63, no. 3 (1973): 160-174., an article that does not exist. I have not deleted the article yet so that it and other creations by the user can be more widely reviewed. I assume an indef is forthcoming but will wait for a while for response/explanation. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked Gyan.Know from article space and asked them to explain their conduct here. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Other recent hoaxes by Gyan.Know include Isaac Yaso and Akademia Nasionala del Ladino. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Cullen328 Khalil Hachimi Idrissi is another BLP full of entirely fabricated sources, for a person who does not seem to actually exist. All 6 sources are about a journalist who works for Maghreb Arabe Press. I cannot find any evidence that this supposed physicist actually exists, he doesn't seem to have a profile with the African Academy of Sciences, the university he claims to attend, or google scholar, and none of his selected publications seem to actually exist. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  They were going down a list of article requests, I think: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history/to do lists many of the articles they created just now. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @TenTonParasol You're probably right, Khalil Hachimi Idrissi is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Morocco/to do. Rather than actually writing an article about the person at Maghreb Arabe Press they've used AI to create a completely fictitious article on a non-existent physicist. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and a) tagged all of their problematic new article creations with {{hoax}} and {{unreliable sources}} and b) rolled back their "heavy expansions" of articles without references in order to minimize the disinformation we provide to readers. I wouldn't oppose mass-deletion of the new creations at this time, but perhaps some people wanted to investigate more. We could also consider some other cleanup routes (for example, most of the Jewish-history related pages could be converted into redirects to related pages), or even leave some of them standing with tags if the subjects are clearly real and notable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The template {{AI-generated}} may be a good fit for these articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I added it and condensed it with the disputed tags, but not with the hoax tags. —Alalch E. 22:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The article that was created for Yaakov Bentolila had all of the appearance of a real article, including very genuine appearing (but non-functional) references with links to The New York Times and The Jerusalem Post. Maybe we all need to raise our alert levels, but the verisimilitude that is achievable with today's AI is sufficient to fool many experienced editors, let alone readers. The fact that this (and other) hoax articles was created by an editor with a few thousand edits should really send a message that it's not enough to assume that experienced editors don't pull these kinds of stunts. Be ready for far worse in the near future. We will be taking the Turing Test on a regular basis going forward. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth looking into creating a bot a bit like EranBot but looking for AI generated articles/content? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please! I think there is open-source AI detection software out there. Maybe @User:The Earwig could weigh in? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

PageTraige developers discussed automatic detection a bit in phab:T330346. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is just a belated harbinger of a much greater doom which has already arrived behind our backs. I bet the real LLM spammers, whoever they are, laugh at cases like these for how badly they cover their tracks. /hj small jars tc 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• SPEEDY TNT! Incredibly dangerous to have AI created and fake content about these topics.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Hey @Gyan.Know:, I just want to say, if this is a case of you being very naive and not understanding what trouble these AI creations can be, don't be afraid to admit that, I have myself been in trouble at ANIs before and fellow editors are far more kind and understanding than what one fears when one has f*cked up.★Trekker (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with blanket deletion of any of the user's articles that have not been substantially reworked with references verified by other users. I also concur with the user having been blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• All of his recent new articles have now been deleted, many of them by me. All that's left is to wait for the editor to start explaining what is going on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have/want to say anything in my defence. Like recently I said to some user who informed me about some edit they made on a article created by me, i told them the same thing as this: I refuse to refute against any edit or action take by users who are far more superior than me (i know there isn't supposed to be a superior subordinate thing on WP).

  -

  Thus, if y'all thought it was appropriate to delete all the edits made by me this year, I am not going to complain. Moreover, I am thankful in part because I was feeling I was getting addicted to editing on WP. Checking my watchlist all the time, and if I don't have my phone in my hand ATM, I would just keep thinking about what edit should I do. I feel like this was not good for my health.

  -

  But I would still like to say sorry to everyone who was hurt and/or harmed by anything done by me. My deepest apologies. Now finally, I don't really wish to be unblocked, and you can keep me blocked for a indefinite period of time.

  -

  Also sorry for being a little late. GyanKnow _{contributions?} 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Gyan.Know. Thanks for posting here. Can you please let us know if you have ever used AI to write articles, and if so, when you started doing this? There is a lot of cleanup to do and this information would help. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to humbly apologize that I won't be of any help to you guys now. It's just that after getting blocked I have lost all spark for editing on WP and and I don't want to get myself further involved. Again, I would say sorry for my any potentially harmful actions. GyanKnow _{contributions?} 11:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading the rest of the discussion, and the oddly apologetic but vague and non-commital answers from the editor, I have upgraded the block by Cullen328 to site-wide. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Similar issues with User:BrownDan101?

I see somewhat similar issues with the creations of User:BrownDan101, whose articles have some facts and then mix in a lot of unverifiable or simply wrong statements. Whether this is deliberate or just the result of using AI is unclear, but the end result is similar disruption by posting fake information. I moved to draft Draft:Kaisertown because the intro claim "The neighborhood is named after the Kaisertown Roller Rink, which was built in 1922 and became a popular entertainment venue in the area." is complete bullshit. But I only got really worried after reading Draft:SS Chemnitz (was in the mainspace before I moved it): while there was a SS Chemnitz from 1901, it had different dimensions, different passenger numbers, a different builder, a different company, ... The sources are about other ships or give a 404 error, except for this suorce[14] which gives the story of the real Chemnitz, none of which matches our article. Fram (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GPTZero pretty much confirms that Draft:Kaisertown is AI generated. The lead describes it occupying an area that is absolute nonsense. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GPTZero seems to be pretty good at detecting if something is AI generated. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But we need to be wary of both kinds of error. small jars tc 15:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure we do, but checking it by hand (especially the initial version) shows similar mistakes to other AI articles I've seen. Fake references, emotive style, absurd factual errors that would be very odd for a human to make but easy for an AI that can make plausible sentences but can't evaluate truth. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Matma Rex posted over at VPT that GPTZero pinged basically every Wikipedia article I tried, so follow-up checking by a human is probably going to be necessary. NPP and AfC folks - I don't envy you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:St. Ann's Church (Buffalo, NY) is also at least partially AI generated. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed, fake references. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

...and it looks like it's owned by the Muslim community in Buffalo who bought it last year after it had lain empty for ten years. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

...as is Tino Mancabelli Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sonnenberger (surname) which you PRODded is also absolutely ChatGPT created along with falsified references that don't exist. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh. That account has the same pattern of relatively minor, intermittent activity before a sudden change in behavior, this time on 25 March 2023. Has everything they produced on or after that date been AI generated? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Per investigations above, the answer seems to be yes. What needs to be done about these drafts (if anything)? Tagged for deletion as hoaxes? Left to wither away in draftspace? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The drafts aren't causing too much of a problem at the moment as they're not in article space. I would like to see what the editor who created them has to say... it is possible that they're not aware of how problematic ChatGPT is and have made an honest mistake. Whether it is likely is another matter. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

So far, we've been letting them wither away in draftspace pending Wikipedia:Large language models being beaten into shape as a policy, from which a new CSD-G15 might be born. — Trey Maturin™ 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I've tagged the drafts that weren't already tagged, just so any poor unsuspecting soul who comes upon them will be aware of their perils. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There are currently 81 drafts that transclude {{ai-generated}}. — Trey Maturin™ 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin 84 now! Hmm - I wonder if it is worth going through the other contributions by the authors of those drafts and running them through a checker? Skimming the first dozen, I noted two or three cases where editors have produced other drafts or mainspace articles in the same period, and while I'm not wildly confident about my chatbot-spotting radar, they don't all look great. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh hell, yes, I never even thought of that. Yes, that would be a very good idea, please. There are several free AI detection services online if that would help, although I've never used any of them and can't vouch for their accuracy or usability. — Trey Maturin™ 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just ran the other draft created by the author of the first draft on that list through writer.com as a test. It came back as having a 1% chance of being human-generated. Yeah, checking the other creations (and large additions to 'live' articles) by those editors is something we're definitely gonna have to do. Bugger. — Trey Maturin™ 15:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin Gone through them all with the aid of GPTzero and tagged a few more (plus reverted one presumably well-meaning contribution in mainspace). What a waste of everyone's time these are... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

...and then I plugged in one of my own articles, to discover it also gets tagged as AI-generated by GPTzero. No substantial text added since 2020. And now I'm just completely lost (unless this is the bit at the end of Bladerunner, who knows). Andrew Gray (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of my worries with these detectors. The problem is that these AIs have been trained on Wikipedia articles. And why wouldn't they be? We've got millions of high-quality, useful pages of knowledge-filled text. Of course they'd use us for training! But that means the resulting generated articles look plausible whilst being bollocks, and our actual handwritten 100% organic artisanal articles look AI-generated to an AI-generator. This is huge bind and my relatively tiny brain can't think of a way around it. — Trey Maturin™ 16:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What are the odds that BrownDan101 and ConcreteJungleBM are the same user? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty similar, though hard to tell based on just three edits. But what would be the point? ConcreteJungleBM was created hours before anyone had mentioned BrownDan101 here or noticed that article, so it isn't like they were evading scrutiny. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As in the above case, I have indefinitely blocked BrownDan101 from article space, and asked that they provide an explanation here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I experimented with AI to create about 5 or 6 Wikipedia pages. I did not know this would be a problem. Reading all of the above comments it seems like it has been a problem and the AI was not as accurate as it seemed. Also me and ConcreteJungleBM aren’t the same person, as I saw that was also a question. My intention was definitely not vandalism or hoax articles. I apologize for any confusion and/or trouble and will refrain from making new articles with AI. BrownDan101 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the 11 months since you registered this account, BrownDan101, have you become familiar with Wikipedia’s core content policies? If not, would you please do so now? — Trey Maturin™ 19:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I just read them over and definitely understand how the AI articles could fall under original research and how the verifiability in the articles is lacking, even with the references the AI gave. BrownDan101 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I think the obvious remedy here, if we are to WP:AGF from BrownDan101 would be to WP:DRAFTIFY and and WP:PROD all of the articles he has created in the past few days. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, PROD only works in article space... nuke them WP:IAR? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: This general comment probably belongs in a different venue, but I'd think the obvious solution to AI-generated content is WP:TNT. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why I’ve advocated for a CSD-G13 “page created by an AI chatbot” or the like, but the push-back was huge: what if there was a useful paragraph that got deleted? what if a newbie felt bitten by having 20 articles about imaginary antelope-beavers deleted? what if an admin accidentally deleted a non-G13 article? and I gave up. Without that, TNT, IAR, ROUGE and dragging each article to ANI will have to suffice, alas. — Trey Maturin™ 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I'll take that approach. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been using G3 for the ones from users in this thread. It may not have been intentional in this case, but the fake references output in these articles seems like enough to make it justifiable as a hoax article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems appropriate--LLMs can be used to generate all sorts of content that in limited contexts could be useful (e.g. this comment was written in a browser that applies autocomplete), but the incorporation of fake references crosses a very clear line regardless of the editor's intent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s interesting (and, personally, I think right) but a discussion here a few months ago — apologies, finding a link to it when I’m on my phone is a hiding to nothing — came down against G3, since they’re not “blatant” hoaxes. Indeed, both of the editors in question here have fallen back on the defence that they fell for the hoaxes they themselves created because they were non-blatant. — Trey Maturin™ 20:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I think it comes down to how "blatant" is defined (which is admittedly vague in policy). You might see it as "obvious to the untrained eye", but I'm interpreting blatant to mean "might not be obvious at first glance, but after checking it becomes absolutely certain to be fake". At least, that's how I read it and how I will keep acting on it until I'm told otherwise. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you will (eventually) get loud pushback on that. I think the pushback will be wrong, wrongheaded and non-useful, but I can see it happening. Nevertheless, you have the angels on your side as far as I am concerned, so please carry on. — Trey Maturin™ 17:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Artificial-Info22 using AI to produce articles - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Should I start going thru the unblock process to get unblocked? BrownDan101 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It would probably benefit you more to wait a couple of days, because it’s a little bit disturbing that it’s taken you 11 months to learn that copy-and-pasting faked nonsense into an encyclopaedia is not ideal and those concerns are still pretty fresh. I’d wait until all your fake articles have been deleted and every other substantive edit you’ve made has been double checked by others, then ask for an unblock. But your mileage may vary and you may be able to convince an admin that you won’t try to fundamentally undermine everything we’re collectively trying to do here again. — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In his defense, based on what dan says here and elsewhere, he wasn't aware of how AI creates articles. He seems to have assumed it legitimately collates information from elsewhere on the internet the way google for example would. So at least he wasn't necessarily aware that he was copy pasting faked nonsense into Wikipedia. Fully agree with the rest of your comment though. It's best to wait until all the previous edits have been looked through and examined, because otherwise the new edits coming in (which we also have to check) will make the job of checking the old ones a lot more complicated. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

These are fake references, friend; every bit of the AI generation is a verifiability issue. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 20:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Given that the user has apologized, said they didn't realize the problems with factual errors and references, and promised not to do it again, do you have any objection to unblocking? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, there is no way under the sun that I am going to unblock this editor from article space without a formal unblock request and a much more detailed discussion of their creation (perhaps inadvertently) of hoax content. It is essential that every editor have a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of their work before adding new articles to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

AI-generated articles with fake references are an existential problem for Wikipedia which cannot be taken lightly. A hard line must be taken now, while things are still (I hope) relatively under control, meaning that editors who have been discovered adding such articles to the encyclopedia need to remain indef blocked until the community is absolutely certain that they understand what they did that was wrong, and why it was more damaging then simple vandalism can ever be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur. XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• On his talk page, BrownDan101 has helpfully pointed out that he also used AI in one other page, namely Alfred University Football, which has since moved around quite a bit, and is now seemingly located at Alfred Saxons.----Licks-rocks (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be the change(s) he made to the page; if he used AI for that, I don't know what the value was. The edit is fine. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I went into the page logs, and that is not entirely accurate. I was mistaken about the new location: He did indeed create the page at one point, but it was then moved and subsequently draftified for lack of verifiability. It's just that unlike with the above articles, nobody realised what they were looking at. Dan seems to have then gone to the new redirect target, where he performed the edit you described (which is why I assumed that it was still the same article). --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• BrownDan101 has made a formal unblock request. He seems to understand what he did wrong, explained that he didn't realize that the AI was making up fictional references, and promised never to do it again. I'm inclined to accept as his apology seems to be sincere, but I'd like to see some feedback here first. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd support an unblock. The unblock request (and their comments leading up to it) seem sincere and remorseful. They make me feel comfortable that this user would not use LLM on Wikipedia going forward. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Also support an unblock. Possible to assume this was a good faith error on his part, and he will not repeat his mistakes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading through his comments at his talk page, I support an unblock of BrownDan101. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I have unblocked BrownDan101. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Another Chat GPT penned article

I killed a draft that looked to have been written by Chat GPT yesterday... Draft:Scottish Mountain Bear This one was daft enough for me to spot it as a hoax from the title. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Is the (miscapitalised) Scottish Mountain Bear any relation to the Pacific Northwest tree octopus? Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pity the DNA study in Journal of Zoology doesn't exist... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I know we already have a discussion about possibly creating a bot to review new articles, but maybe it is time to discuss a CSD criterion similar to WP:X1WP:X2 that was used during the WP:CXT nightmare? The verifiability issues between AI-generated text and raw machine translations are similar in nature. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean WP:X2. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant, fixed now. Thanks IP199! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I suppose there's no way of installing some sort of a filter to screen these articles first? I can only see this problem growing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  There probably is but it would probably be quite complicated and also have lots of false negatives and false positive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Presently, there is no reliable machine test. If there is one that I'm not aware of, I'd love to know; it's in my industry, after all. I'm of the opinion that all offenders need to be blocked on sight; I'm with BMK above on the existential evaluation. This will flood Wikipedia soon, and not just in AfC; small changes across a variety of articles would have escaped notice. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If the technology isn't good enough yet, I can only see two responses:

• Spend an inhuman amount of time watching out for suspicious article-creation patterns and manually checking for signs of LLM-usage within articles.
• Change the rules about article creation for everybody in some way that will make the methods used more transparent (e.g., requiring editors to expose their writing process by writing articles in small, incremental edits in the draftspace, rather than uploading an article all at once).

small jars tc 08:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's precisely the opposite problem. The technology is too good. LLMs are aiming to deceive so that text appears to have been written by a human. Any reliable machine test that is made could be incorporated into LLMs (sort of like an oracle machine) to reject output that the test recognises as "machine-written" and regenerate until the text passes the test. — Bilorv (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but you can't integrate laborious human checking into the training loop, at least without click workers (hence my first bullet point), and these tools aren't currently being designed to produce realistic record of a writing process behind what they generate (hence bullet two). small jars tc 09:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems the obvious solution is not to attempt to detect the human or non-human origin of a given swath of text, but rather to make an efficient machine able to reliably verify that the cited sources (1) exist and (2) support the text content. How far is current technology from this point? (Assuming that all the sources are online or otherwise machine-accessible.)

Of course such a technology would also pose an existential threat to Wikipedia, but at least it would be a different kind of threat. Shells-shells (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A fully automated wiki is no better than a database of caches. When/if AI gets good at truth, it will have value as a client-side alternative to WP, not as part of it. Whether or not it will eventually become redundant, WP currently has unique value as a human-written encyclopedia, and we shouldn't let that be ruined with tools that are both inferior and available elsewhere. Information resources are like paints: WP is one colour, GPT is another, and if you mix them together without thought you'll probably end up with something that is less trustworthy than either were to begin with. small jars tc 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Putting asides the question of offline, unreadable, or paywalled sources, this would require tools to understand what the source says; we have policies against copyright violations, after all, and excessive quotations do not a good article make. We're not there. I'm not going to provide a timeline; that would be irresponsible. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It exists, and it's not very good (announcement, github). DFlhb (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting links, @DFlhb. They have a metawiki page too. Shells-shells (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Large language models

In case people were unaware, an attempt to create a policy about AI-generated articles is happening at WP:LLM and editors' thoughts would be very welcome (and perhaps more useful, dare I say it?) at the talk page. There's also links to other on-wiki AI-generation discussions and various article and talk page templates there. — Trey Maturin™ 14:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Chatbot banned in Italy due to date privacy concerns.[15]. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Not unique to AI; just a privacy thing that revolves around OpenAI not having servers in the EU/complying with privacy regs. There are concerns, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Any specific application of LLMs is only tolerated, not recommended. Why is it even tolerated?! It's inimical to building a trustworthy encyclopedia. There's no way we should ever say that an act which is an indeffable offense is "tolerated". XOR'easter (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's no good telling me! You need to be telling the people working on WP:LLM! :-) — Trey Maturin™ 14:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Watching a statement of principle get devolved into bikeshedding over terminology is an even less justifiable use of my time than visiting a drama board. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Painful indeed. What do you think of the trim? It was meant to sidestep the endless discussions on wording, and to be simple enough that it can easily be adjusted to be more discouraging towards LLM depending on emerging consensus. DFlhb (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that an RfC (or several) would be beneficial at this point. Right now we have a lot of back-and-forth based on the personal opinions of a few interested editors, and getting community consensus on a few big questions (Do we allow LLM use at all? If so, when must it be attributed?) would help immensely. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. Feel free to launch the first ("do we allow?") DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a one-to-two year policy-level moratorium (a policy with an expiration date) on any LLM use on Wikipedia, outside of responsible experimentation in userspace, could be met with consensus—as a compromise between editors who hold a view that a blanket ban is justified and useful, and those who have different views. At the end of this period, the time-limited blanket ban (1) could be converted to an indefinite blanket ban, (2) could be prolonged for a definite amount of time, (3) could be replaced with a policy governing LLMs that does something other than impose a blanket ban, (4) or it could be simply let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, (4') or it could be let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, but maybe some other, non-policy, PAG material is created, and/or some new organized activity/effort such as a project, tool, whatever, is introduced, and/or existing organized activities, such as processes, are modified to better deal with the problem of LLM misuse.—Alalch E. 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I can also understand a view that nothing like a policy or an organized effort by editors is useful, that the solution to the problem will have to be technological, and that we have to wait and see, and learn from future incidents like these. Another possible view is that the problem doesn't need any special attention, that LLM drafts can't break out of draftspace, that LLM-originated articles with fake references are easy to detect, that an incident like this where a seemingly average and reasonably trusted editor with 2.5k edits creates many such articles is rare (this is one and only such incident in several months) and essentially easy to deal with (they were all deleted and no one complained), that any ideas like those above are a waste of time, and that we should carry on as usual, and maybe talk as little of LLMs as possible so as not even to, inadvertently, make people aware, who would not have been aware, that using LLMs on Wikipedia is one possible way to spend your time (and cause disruption). —Alalch E. 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that, with a strict standard set at WP:LLM that is well-enforced and has teeth (e.g. indef block upon violation), every statement made, every sentence and clause written would be liable for checking. Every reference would need to support statements made. In that case, it's little different from writing an article from scratch, and the end result would be of decent quality. If someone used an LLM which was then not detected by specialists and editors, then wouldn't that meet wiki goals? But this might require a reworking of administrative practice around warnings and hoaxes. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If we can't trust Good Article reviewers to do anything more than check little green checkboxes instead of actually performing an in-depth review of the articles they are claiming to review, how can we trust users of LLMs to check every sentence, clause, and reference? The same people who are likely to use LLMs as a crutch in the first place are also likely to perform these checks perfunctorily, if at all. What teeth would you put into such a standard? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Heh, therein lies the rub. That, and proactively warning people against it is highly likely to backfire by giving people ideas. But the post facto cleanup, I think, will one day be unsustainable, hence my suggestion of a block-on-discovery thing as damage limitation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User warning templates

I've taken the liberty of creating {{uw-ai1}}, {{uw-ai2}} and {{uw-ai3}} to help in the clean-up that this thread has revealed as being required. They're a rewrite of uw-test, which seemed most appropriate. Assistance in creating the template docs and integrating them into our various systems would be very appreciated because I know my own limitations. — Trey Maturin™ 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So now this is going to be some ridiculous delete on sight thing regardless of content? Makes me tempted to make an LLM written article with completely accurate information and references. Silverseren^C 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Arguably, if you're willing to put in the effort to verify every statement made with references listed, copy-edit it, adjust for weighting concerns, you're putting in just as much effort as you would be writing it from scratch. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just saving on the writing part itself. Less of an effort for me, but I can understand those who aren't great at writing prose in encyclopedic style. Silverseren^C 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

That slippery-slope/strawman argument is beneath you, Silverseren. LLMs may in future be useful to us, but right now they're creating plausible hard-to-detect bollocks in mainspace and we don't have the tools to deal with it beyond dragging the editors in question to the dramaboards. Short-circuiting this with an escalating no-thanks user talk template seems much less work. — Trey Maturin™ 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This has still prompted me to set up a ChatGPT account just now. Gonna see how well it does with summarizing existing news articles. Avoids the whole made up references and information thing from the get-go. Silverseren^C 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I know this was written to provoke this reply, and loath as I am to say it to someone with your seniority here, but please don't post the results of your experiments to the 'pedia, not least because the potential copyright/plagiarism issues surrounding LLMs are a huge bomb under Wikipedia at the end of a very long fuse. — Trey Maturin™ 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the copyvio you're referring to inherent to the LLM being the one that wrote it? Or are you referring to copyvios of the source text I'm giving it? Since I'm checking with a copyvio checker to make sure the text is paraphrased enough to not be a problem like that, as I would for any other article (and any DYK submission too). As we already have systems in place to check for copyvios from basically anywhere on the internet. Silverseren^C 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. I fell into the trap you set for me by pointing out this huge future issue (which will end up at SCOTUS and Strasbourg in the end) out because it doesn't apply to your own personal processes right at this second. Well done, I guess. You got me. Thanks. — Trey Maturin™ 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about? There are ongoing cases, yes, with one question being whether the LLMs have their own inherent copyright or not for the original formulations of stuff they make. Kinda like how we as editors have a form of copyright for the articles we make here. Though there is the one art case that finished already that determined that the original art isn't copyrightable to the artbot, so outside of any potential copyright held by others, the art is in the public domain. (Which prevents commercialized usage of the art, so that's good at least). But is that what you're talking about? Potential inherent copyright held by the LLMs? Silverseren^C 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Silverseren, I don't think there's any point to this. As you can observe above, we're trying to deal with a serious issue here. It is deeply unproductive to suggest that we're making this a "ridiculous delete-on-sight issue" when there is two excellent use cases for this template provided right above your comment. Especially note the almost always in the template. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "is that what you're talking about": I can't speak for Trey but that's not my impression of the biggest problem. The "potential inherent copyright" is a potential problem, of course, but not the big copyvio problem. The big problem is that the LLMs cobble together text they pulled from who knows where, and some or all of that source material may be reused in a copyvio way, much like the human editors who copy text from sources but then hide their copying by using a thesaurus. We don't allow close paraphrasing by human editors, but with the LLMs it's much harder to tell what they're closely paraphrasing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ignoring the rant above for a moment, I think these templates look fine. Perhaps connecting the third template a bit more explicitly to already having been warned/doing it repeatedly would be helpful? E.G. in the third template "repeatedly adding AI generated content in defiance of warnings is considered vandalism" rather than just "Adding AI generated content is considered vandalism".----Licks-rocks (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and edited the phrasing in that direction. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Discussion about these templates is continuing at the dedicated central warning template talk: Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#New series: uw-ai —Alalch E. 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

LLM-generated information as a tool

Following up from the above discussions, I wanted to ask what everyone's thoughts are about using an LLM like ChatGPT as a tool for consolidating information in order to make research easier and more focused. For instance, I recently asked ChatGPT about Black September in Jordan, specifically about what sorts of military actions were undertaken by the Jordanian military and the manner in which Palestinian civilians were treated relative to members of the PLO. An excerpt from ChatGPT's response: "The Jordanian government distinguished between civilians and militants, and while innocent Palestinians did suffer during the conflict, they were not targeted in the same way as PLO fighters. In fact, some Palestinians who opposed the PLO were allowed to leave Jordan unharmed." Let's say I took this line, attempted to verify its accuracy, and if it turned out to be a correct assessment of the situation, searched for reliable sources to back it up. Should I mention the fact that I used ChatGPT for this purpose in editing a page on Wikipedia? Is it best that I avoid using LLMs in this manner?

For the record, in revisiting ChatGPT's response, I noticed the paragraph directly above saying that the Jordanian government "was supported by other Arab countries, including Syria, which sent troops to help suppress the PLO uprising." In fact, Syria sent troops into Jordan to help the PLO, not King Hussein's regime. This casts some doubt over the overall veracity of its other claims. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You might get some good answers and discussion if you repost this at WT:LLM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Even when summarizing ChatGPT often makes mistakes, as you mentioned. I honestly don't see where one could use LLMs responsibly because it's whole purpose is to create the most plausible looking text, i.e. it is designed to fool humans into thinking what it is saying is reasonable. Galobtter's sock (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Reddit Moderators Brace for a ChatGPT Spam Apocalypse. Cheery. XOR'easter (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT comments at AFD

Here's something that's just turned up in an SPI filing, ChatGPT generated AFD comments by spammers [16]. You can see that most of the text has been generated by a LLM, and it's been customised by tweaking it to fit the article. The ChatGPT stuff is capitalised properly, the customised bits have every word capitalised (e.g. Recently Dr Bhaskar Sharma Appointed All India Secretary Medical Wing Of People's Forum Of India). 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT being used to defend homeopathy? Merry fucking Christmas. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This was also likely happening with an LTA at AfDs and even GARs

This article is extensive in its coverage of such a rich topic as Ontario Highway 11. It addresses the main points of Ontario Highway 11 in a way that isn’t just understandable to a reader, but also relatable.
While Ontario Highway 11 is brimming with fascinating background trivia, the article does a great job staying focused on the topic of Ontario Highway 11 without going into unnecessary detail that isn’t directly related to Ontario Highway 11.
Neutral point of view without bias is maintained perfectly in this article, despite Ontario Highway 11 being such a contentious and controversial topic.
Images are truly beautiful and done with expert photographic skill. They definitely enhance the reader’s understanding of Ontario Highway 11. Without them, I wouldn’t have any idea what the highway looks like. But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That final flourish is just perfect. EEng 04:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"In conclusion, Ontario Highway 11 is a road of contrasts. Or, as the natives call it, maize." XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

125.235.238.149‎‎: possible CIR and meatbot issues

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

---

125.235.238.149‎‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP mass added auto-archiving to 59 talk pages, probably in violation of WP:MEATBOT since they do not appear to have consensus. Myself, @David notMD and Doniago: have asked them to stop. It is hard to tell from their replies because their English is not great, but I think they intend to continue.

The archiving settings they were using are not the standard archiving settings recommended at Help:Archiving a talk page#Sequentially numbered archives, and can potentially archive every section on a talk page because they are setting minthreadsleft=0. In recent edits they may have fixed this, I see a couple diffs where they stopped doing this.

They are also setting algo=old(365d).

Attempts to communicate with them are difficult because their English is not great. I cannot understand some of their replies.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse#Talk page archived
• User talk:125.235.238.149

Does this need admin intervention? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the archiving edits by this IP, many of its other edits have been to add "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." to years-old Talk page comments that were not signed at the time. This is a negligibly useful activity - albeit not as harmful as disrupting archiving - and represents more evidence that this IP is not here to improve the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding {{unsigned}} to unsigned comments seems useful to me, as long as it's accurate. That's not disruptive, unlike the issues with their archiving. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD Please don’t add "Preceding unsigned comment added by…" including new archive formatting in one more time, I just clear an consensus to wait an new edit with made going to new everything is done to stop archive formatting. That’s an not small case. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What is your native language? Are you using Google Translate? I honestly cannot understand most of what you write. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes, I using some words in discussion was closed in 7 minutes in Teahouse but actually, the languages is Vietnamese is an translation from English and now can be added to the English language and this is an encyclopedia not in Vietnamese, this is an English Wikipedia. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please write your own English-language text directly, without using translation software, if you can write English at all. A beginner's mistakes are easier for native speakers to understand than the mistakes made by something like Google Translate. You may want to return to editing the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia instead of the English-language one. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As it's been two days without further feedback from 125.235.238.149 (talk · contribs), and they are continuing to set up auto-archiving without getting a consensus first[17], and I and at least one other editor have acknowledged having trouble understanding their messages, I think we'd be content to see an unambiguous statement from them that they will refrain from setting up archiving on any additional pages without getting a consensus on the respective Talk page prior to doing so, as discussed in the third paragraph of Help:Archiving a talk page.

If the IP cannot or will not agree to this, then I would in turn propose that they be banned from archiving any Talk pages in the future. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, time to get another way edits not make archive formatting and I agree do this, I wouldn’t be banned archive in the near future and for some reason, I don’t get to be banned from editing Wikipedia and not making into trouble understanding their messages, I come to edits in Vietnamese Wikipedia first before returning to English Wikipedia since I not make archive again. @Doniago if IP address not install non-standard automatic archive, I want to edit some more and stop archive right now to turn off set up archive bot and if revive my IP address, not to make archive formatting, please do so if wanted to let you know. And one more thing, if edits another articles in the next time, I want to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia before returning to English Wikipedia to edit with some articles if I can. Thank you, I want to edit and understand an consensus policy. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t add archive formatting without getting consensus to make sure I apologize for any inconvenience in the one more time. I’m sure IP address will continue to add another article. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

After 2 days not make feedback, I added 1 article in Vietnamese Wikipedia and since bonus add minor content to get an consensus, I never made archive again and if edits in Vietnamese Wikipedia again, I want to make useful contributions instead of archive formatting in one more time. If want to edit another article to update the counter and score, this is a good way to keep IP continue and never made archive again. Lastly, tomorrow not sure want to make archive and keep get consensus first and if go home, I want to make another way to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia instead of English Wikipedia first. Thanks! 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, The IP geolocates to Vietnam. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

IP added archiving to a page while this ANI is in progress diff, and (for me at least) their responses are unintelligible so it is hard to assess if they plan to stop. Might be time for a sanction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Novem Linguae if working hard to stop add archive bot, I can do it with another article, if final results is here and today, if I not add archive to multiple pages. Sources said:"If can clear an consensus policy first, I making to added new articles instead of archive formatting and can be clear to changes IP address and if go home not makes archive after unblocked on 26 days ago, I won’t be able to do it again until clear an consensus policy first to added in the next articles." Postscript: If I continue to added and not violate in MEATBOT when set up archive bot, your IP address will continue right now. Might be in 1 more time. If can to be results if today not to make works in the next talk page archives. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, This IP address is geolocateds to Vietnam since I want to added some articles in Vietnamese language, if English is your second language, maybe returning to Vietnamese added first and some article can be added or fixed to comply this policy. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly inclined to agree. I can't tell from IP's responses whether they understand our concerns or whether they're agreeing to make any changes in their behavior. They don't appear to have understood what I thought was the pretty straightforward proposal I made earlier, and if we can't communicate with them clearly on Talk pages, I certainly don't feel I can trust them to be editing articles or making technical changes to other portions of this project. DonIago (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I haved 2 IP address not continue to be making archive, this is an big story to tell about not making archive bot and it takes to continue editing Wikipedia, I want to make another way in this time, if tomorrow not make archive formatting again and edits with another article, I agree this to make any changes with an another page, not in behavior in the archive bot, I think want to stop add another archive formatting and I don't feel my bad can told to you I want to be edits another articles or making technical changes to other portions in this website. 2402:800:63A5:803E:F560:870E:64C2:7817 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop. Just... stop. Your English skills are NOT good enough to be editing the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to agree this, and can add in Vietnamese Wikipedia with the some article and for some reasons, if English skills is not enough to editing in English Wikipedia, @HandThatFeeds. Just stop another time to archive bot and if can wait result by administrator to be sure add another minor content in Vietnamese Wikipedia and if returns to English Wikipedia, My English skills will continue but will come to Vietnamese Wikipedia and if administrator takes no violation when added another article in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I just stop adding another archive formatting in all talk pages. If not violated in policy, I'm sure added content in Vietnamese Wikipedia because your Vietnamese skills are enough to be done in Vietnamese Wikipedia. Postscript: If continue to editing in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I will takes an last chance to let administrator not being blocked me and go to List of Wikipedias and view in 332 languages is available in all Wikimedia project to make sure I choose another language if want to edit all the Wikimedia Foundation project in all more time. I agree this. 2402:800:63B0:8E69:7559:A0EB:A496:1B12 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Can administrator review and takes the chance to make sure not violated in MEATBOT? If today and tomorrow not work for all of the archive talk pages, I welcome to editing Wikipedia in your primary language. If Vietnamese Wikipedia is an target to edit minor content in this time, I want full enough to make sure after 5 days get messages about want need to do and total 6 users requests to stop adding another archive formatting. I want to result if return to Vietnamese Wikipedia and add in Vietnamese language and complete this time. If administrator review complete and takes final results, mission is currently complete and canceled added archive formatting in all talk pages. @HandThatFeeds, thank you for your help. If 100% sure not being blocked from editing, I can want to see again in Vietnamese Wikipedia and I agree to not banned in all articles in the future. 2402:800:63B0:8E69:7559:A0EB:A496:1B12 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't even tell what you're wanting to do. Just stop editing here, and edit the Vietnamese wiki if that's the language you speak. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see [[18]] because only administrator in Vietnamese Wikipedia can blocked everyone was violated in policies and guidelines with Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy and Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. If waiting after 19 days to unlocked to come back in Vietnamese Wikipedia and set to do want to clear something as want to not edit myself and make it in this time and show me what to do in Vietnamese language after unblocked in time. 2402:800:63B0:A3BE:6CBE:5105:1686:1883 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Because only administrator in Vietnamese Wikipedia can blocked with some users who violated in policies, guidelines, Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. I understand that confirms in all more, in the meantime, I want to editing in Vietnamese language after your blocked was expired to add some article sections to comply rule in wiki rules since they are not dead end in this my user. I want to get results and can find the score if return to added Vietnamese language before returning to English language later. And one more thing, I can tell you 4 things: 1) I not added another archive formatting in 4 days, 2) I want to understand this consensus policy and not violated in MEATBOT, 3) Waiting 19 days to unblocked your IP range address is 2402:800:6000:0:0:0:0:0/36 since that IP range address was blocked 9 times in a row, 4) The blocked was expired on 19:19, 1 May 2023 as well in 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC) to edit return in Vietnamese language instead of English language right now. 4 Things are very true, but some reasons because I want to keep result by administrators in English Wikipedia and see what happens if Nguyentrongphu want to editing in Vietnamese language and find out seriously about not to vandalism in particular this 2 language and all is general. Thank you! 2402:800:63B0:A3BE:6CBE:5105:1686:1883 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

So you got blocked on the Vietnamese Wikipedia? Sorry, we can't help you with that. And you don't get to keep bombarding us with poorly written English. Just move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that the IP has now responded from three different IP addresses, I'm starting to wonder whether an SPI may be in order at least to keep track of them, though they seem to have stopped editing...for now, at least. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but at least for three IP address and now get blocked since I want to keep an eye in 3 different IP address, so now I want to see what happens if administrator can want to get final score in this threads before closing shortly. Sorry for the IP blocked in Vietnamese Wikipedia, but I want to not ran out of moves in the next time. If want to wait to return in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I can want to wait if IP range address was blocked in 10 times in a row, I very too bad and just disappointed when can see [[19]] can blocked in 10th chance in a row, since this IP address was get to vandalism in Vietnamese Wikipedia and the next block will longer since this 9th block was expired in 18 days. Please see [[20]] because I haved 4 IP address in time because your block was expired in 2 months because vandalism and if your IP address continue to vandalism and the next block is longer. @HandThatFeeds and @Doniago I responded total 4 IP address and might be can waiting results by administrator to complete this question. And if User:WhitePhosphorus respond to me about not added archive formatting in 5 days in a row, I want to keep an eye in comply rule in wiki rules since all users says is stop immediately and not resume archive formatting again. I will need administrator can review this threads and take the last chance, if I not added archive again and not violated in MEATBOT issues, I will not being blocked again before your block in Vietnamese was expired in 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC), and your block in Meta-Wiki was expired on 10:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC). I can’t wait to see if I not resume archive again and sure 4 IP address can continue, 2 IP address was expired to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia first before returning to edit English language and 2 IP address can continue since @Drmies unblocked this IP address 2402:800:6000:0:0:0:0:0/38 because long term disruptive editing: edit warring, unexplained edits, unverified material, refusal to communicate and likely socking and IP address 2402:800:6300:0:0:0:0:0/40 was blocked by @Ponyo for rangeblock. And finally, if 2 administrators or another administrators review my threads since I not resume and never edits any archive again. If can to be continued in all general IP address to editing Vietnamese language instead of English language to make sure I want to not MEATBOT issues can continue to me or will be banned added archive bot in the near future if I can’t clear an consensus. Thanks you, @HandThatFeeds and @Doniago! I’m sure all IP address can continue. 2402:800:63B0:D805:440B:B3C2:6B10:3E7 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• After reading this thread, I have blocked 125.235.238.149 for one month and partially blocked the editor's IPv6 range from the Talk namespace. It is clear to me that this editor lacks the necessary communication skills to edit an English-language collaborative project. The block logs mentioned by the editor above are interesting. Spicy (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Spicy Thank you. I want to get something to edit another articles not for the namespace Talk to keep editing and also can waiting unblocked to edit Vietnamese instead of English language first. 2402:800:63B0:D805:440B:B3C2:6B10:3E7 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! DonIago (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Ban appeal of User:Shoot for the Stars

• Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following is the ban appeal request of Shoot for the Stars. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to request an appeal of my ban that was imposed in August of 2021. I was 18 years old and had been uploading low-quality photos. This behavior ultimately led to my ban from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. In addition, another incident that resulted in my ban involved something I did back in 2019, when I was only 16 years old. At that time, I frequently added fake Beatles covers to articles despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was banned, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the accounts user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In September 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also want to mentioned that I was diagnosed with OCD and have been struggling with urges related to staying away from certain websites, including Wikipedia. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site.

I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. Since my ban, I have gone to therapy since October 2022, which has helped me to better manage my OCD and behavior. And for over six months, I have been editing at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, making positive contributions like creating new articles, working with the community on stuff like article deletions, and uploading pictures with the right licenses. My vocabulary has also improved tremendously since starting college, and I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with my new interest in law and crime articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner.

• Comment having looked at UTRS 71442 and their semi badgering there and in parallel communications, I have some concerns about their urges to edit may still be an issue given the relatively slow pace in which the project can operate. Not enough to oppose, but definite hesitation. Star Mississippi 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• uploading low-quality photos was only a small part of the issue here, a much bigger and much more serious problem was their repeated uploads of mug shots and the insertion of those mugshots into articles on living people [21] [22] [23]. This is a BLP violation (WP:MUGSHOT). Rather than thinking about the harm that my actions may have caused to the community they should be seriously thinking about the effect those edits would have had on the subjects of the article - one of the first things you would have seen when searching the internet for these people would have been a police mugshot - hopefully they can see how this is inappropriate? I'm not completely opposed to unblocking, but I think a WP:BLP topic ban would be well worth considering as part of the unblock conditions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Carrying over replies from user talk.

  Star Mississippi sorry for the late reply. Was at school finishing up some homework. I have been going to counseling for over six months and it has helped me a lot. It proved to help me a lot as I was able to work on Simple Wiki without getting into any trouble. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to the IP address, I would totally agree with a topic ban on uploading any kind pictures to enwiki. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)"

  --- carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Accept unblock/unban with TBAN on images. Especially adding images to BLP's.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Adjust TBAN recommendation per S Marshall below. " (1) not to upload any images at all to Wikipedia and (2) not to add, change, or remove any images depicting living or recently deceased people from articles. Both restrictions should be appealable after six months." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  And TBAN for BLP's in general -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I feel that if unblocked this user should have two logged restrictions: (1) not to upload any images at all to Wikipedia and (2) not to add, change, or remove any images depicting living or recently deceased people from articles. Both restrictions should be appealable after six months.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  That seems like a good set of unblock conditions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Per the articles brought up by Abecedare I don't think this goes far enough - the issues appear to cover more than images. Maybe a full BLP ban would be appropriate. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Accept, with restrictions—per S Marshall /edit: and also with a full BLP tban/.—Alalch E. 12:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment After reviewing the editors recent editing history on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, I have doubts over whether Shoot for the Stars have truly stopped the conduct that got them into trouble on wikipedia, and concerns about their ability to edit in compliance with WP:BLP. They have continued to upload mugshots and low-quality images on Commons. And more seriously, see, simple:Stephen Buchanan, an article they created within the last month and are (so far) the sole editor of. Reading, for example, the Aftermath section of the article should make my BLP concerns obvious.

And the repeated appeals at UTRS (ten in total including on 3 Dec, 30 Jan, 9 Feb, 6 Mar, and 30 Mar) are not a good sign IMO that the off-wiki issues have been laid to rest. At a minimum, in addition to the above image-related conditions, I would like to see a topic-ban from BLPs, a disclosure of all past sock accounts, and restriction from using any alternate accounts on English wikipedia. Frankly, I am not sure I am comfortable with an unban even under those conditions, but I will let others weigh in on that. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC) (Updated the UTRS appeal count; had missed the most recent one. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC) )

I will be removing that section due to the BLP violation it presents. It can still be accessed in the above permalink. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose given the information brought up by Abecedare. This user would either need so many topic bans as to make it difficult for them to edit anywhere, or they will simply become a time sink as other editors have to follow behind them to deal with new violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any unblock without a topic ban from FAC space. See this discussion for a brief overview of the disruption caused there, which hasn't been addressed. There are also civility concerns. This user has repeatedly made up excuses about their personal life to get out of trouble in the past so them now citing an OCD diagnosis in their unblock request does not give me confidence this is going to stop. Their work mostly included extremely poor quality articles being passed as GAs because they did QPQs for the reviewer. I would suggest this user spend their energies elsewhere. The potential disruption that will come from unblocking them simply is not worth it.--NØ 20:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Abecedare. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Abecedare. Thank you for bringing these issues up in a clear manner. I also have issues with their statement, such as the issue brought up by 192.76.8.84, and I just do not see a clear path forward at the moment. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I do not see any clear evidence that this user will not repeat disruptive and/or problematic behavior in the future (as discussed above by other editors). Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose without prejudice against an appeal at a later date, provided SFTS can demonstrate that he understands the spirit of the BLP policy, not just the letter. The "aftermath" section of the Stephen Buchanan Simple English Wikipedia article linked to by Abecedare had only one citation—a collection of Reddit comments put together by BuzzFeed. Essentially, an entire subsection of a biographical article was based off of a single comment on an internet forum left by an anonymous poster. There's no way of verifying whether that poster was telling the truth or not, and the subsection serves only to further defame the subject of the article. Even if SFTS didn't technically post that material on this website, it still shows what I consider to be a misunderstanding of the principles behind why we have BLP in the first place. Amplifying anecdotes about someone's life by adding them to a Wikipedia article without reliable third-party sources, especially if it's negative coverage, can have serious real-life consequences for them, and that is something we should do everything in our power to avoid, even for not-so-good people.

  Having said that, I believe SFTS is a good-faith editor, not someone with intent to do harm to others. I think what they should do is continue editing on both Commons and Simple English WP, maybe without contributing to anything biographical for a little while, and then submit a subsequent appeal in 6-12 months outlining the specifics of exactly how their contributions were below the standards of what we expect of our editors, as well as what they intend to do going forward to avoid repeating the same mistakes as the ones they made in the past. If they do this, I would support their eventual return. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think you've nailed it there, Kurtis. They've got the wording of a great unban request nailed. If what they had said was true and verifiable, then it'd be a slam dunk (probably). But what they've said is not true and is verifiably wrong. This is a shame.

  But perhaps, just perhaps, they're on the brink of an epiphany and, given time and some better focus on other projects, they'll get there. Until then, no, certainly not. But I join you in looking forward to the day that they succeed. Try again in six months or so, SftS, please? — Trey Maturin™ 18:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  And just to add onto my original statement, I don't even think SFTS is necessarily "lying" about reading up on BLP, but more misunderstanding what it entails in practice. The point is that words are powerful things, and putting out the wrong information—inadvertently or otherwise—can have unforseen consequences. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Changing to support, with some hesitation, per Panini. Everything I said above still stands, and I'd like for SFTS to continue growing as an editor, as a member of our community, and as a person regardless of whether or not he is unblocked. However, Panini has swayed me into supporting an unban on a probationary basis, with topic bans in place on editing BLPs and uploading images (subject to appeal within six months' time). Reblocks are cheap, and if SFTS demonstrates a continuation of previous behavioral patterns, we can reinstate the community ban at any time. But let's unban him with the aforementioned restrictions in place and see what happens. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Accept unblock/unban with Tban on images and BLPs. A lot of evidence here is old; years old at this point, and shouldn't be recognized as a valid demonstration of his current behavior. Years can change a person's behavior and way of thinking, especially in a teenager (now a young adult). From the reading and research I've done (which has been relatively minimal) other cases of BLP mistakes are all in good faith. The user is merely struggling to understand incorrect editing patterns on BLPs, such as due weight. This could be from refusing to listen, but from what I see it's more likely from the fact that what they were doing wrong is never fully clarified; a link to a generic jargony policy on something as complicated as image copyright is overwhelming and confusing, and if a 17 year old were told they were doing something wrong without explanation, a sailor-swearing fit should be expected.
  

My argument lacks linkable evidence, much like how a religious' person core beliefs lack "scientific" verification, but hopefully that doesn't mean it's ignored. Just look at his behavior. The first block was from mere nasty behavior and refusal to listen. Nowadays it's mere policy mistakes and misunderstanding them. Repeated bad behavior comes from trying to fix mistakes, only for them to do something different incorectly and therefore having all mistakes bunched together. I also see very noticeable improvement in his behavior. Calling his impact on Wikipedia "bad" and "malicious" is completely disregarding their many edits to Simple English Wikipedia (only 2% reverted) and their many GAs prior to being blocked. What will Shoot for the Stars get out of continuing bad behavior on purpose? Why would he continue working on Simple English Wikipedia? What Shoot for the Stars could use is a mentor, or an adopter. Someone who is willing to spend the time laying out everything there is to know about what he is trying to accomplish and what he is doing wrong, not just slap down a template or link a random policy.

I understand some people aren't open to giving people more than one (or two) chances, or not assuming good faith with extreme scrutiny, but I do. But for the sake of making things easier, a topic ban on images and BLPs should suffice. Shoot for the Stars, dealing with images isn't even worth the hassle it seems like, at least for me. Besides, your best work comes from articles about songs and albums anyhow. Panini! • 🥪 08:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I was going to stay with my comment, but per these edits, they don't understand why their edits to a BLP were a problem, which brings me to HandThatFeeds' need so many topic bans as to make it difficult for them to edit anywhere. Standard Offer isn't a get out of jail free card, they need to show that their editing has improved, and the problems raised here show that it hasn't yet. Star Mississippi 01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this is an example of them not understanding BLPs, but rather them feeling like their good work is discredited. Their bad mistakes are heavily overshadowing the good ones. Panini! • 🥪 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  That they're continuing to have the same issues makes me think this is less a mistake and more a "does not understand the issue". An established editor using reddit and Buzzfeed on a BLP when they're in essence auditioning for another shot? Not an editor whose contributions in this area will be helpful. Star Mississippi 18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  A lack of understanding by definition precludes it from being intentional, yes? To me it seems then that that makes it a CIR issue...? casualdejekyll 18:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. To counter the comment above, the bad mistakes are the reason they are blocked. The "good work" doesn't change the fact that the issues that led to the block are still there. It's not forever mind you, but just not at this time. Maybe this time next year, showing that they really do understand the issues at hand. Right now however, I have the feeling if we did unblock, they would be re-blocked soon after. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• As I'm not a regular at ANI (which is probably for the best...) I won't make a !vote to support or oppose this unban request but I would probably say I agree with Panini!'s thoughts on this. While I have noticed recently on simplewiki that a few of the articles SFTS created did not meet WP:BLP1E (enwiki policies apply to simple), he did make plenty of other helpful edits outside of that area: simple:WRRV, as an example. This definitely appears to more be a case now where SFTS doesn't understand policy instead of willfully editing disruptively – he did stop making those bad pages on simplewiki once one was nominated for deletion and BLP1E was explained to him. I'd also like to add that I've blocked SFTS on simplewiki, per his own request, and Taivo has done the same on commons. Considering he has requested to be blocked on two other projects, I don't think he is interested in continuing to edit Wikimedia projects unfortunately. --Ferien (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think we can treat this request as Withdrawn then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  They did try to withdraw once and was talked out of it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Long term disruption, edit warring and general incompetence by Eni.Sukthi.Durres

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

---

Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs). See recent history at [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]. That's just the last week of edit warring and complete comfort allowing others to mop up their poor writing. No indication of accountability. As an example of their issues editing English Wikipedia, see Stiven Shpendi, where the text has enjoyed little or no correction from others. That's just one article. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

are you the king's servant which I mentioned at "that edit summary" which you asked why? Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Eni.Sukthi.Durres' contributions don't look that great.

more or less a random sample (Shpendi twins)

Stiven Shpendi: Stiven was born in Ancona, Italy along with his twin Cristian from Albanian parents originally from Pukë who were immigrants since 1997 and thus they hold dual citizenship. Their first team was Real Metauro from where they moved at Delfino Fano, then to San Marino academy until they went to Cesena. Twins in life twins also in the field of play, playing their first competitive season for Cesena under-17 squad coached by Filippo Masolini in Allievi Nazionali U17, where the attacking duo made each 16 appearances with Stiven scoring 11 goals and Cristian 14. Then playing for Cesena Primavera under coach Giovanni Ceccarelli in Campionato Primavera 3 2020–21 with "twin" appearances and goals 15 and 13 each, the duo helpes the side to reach the final losing only to Arezzo Primavera. For the next season 2021–22, promoted already at Primavera 2 Stiven scored 23 goals in just 20 matches becoming league top-scorer and helped by 15 goals of Cristian in 17 matches, Cesena won the Championship gaining promotion now to Primavera 1 and also won the Primavera Supercup against Udinese Primavera beating them 4–1 with 2 goals from each twin. Meanwhile they were promoted also with in the first team in the 2021–22 Serie C where Stiven made his professional debut under coach William Viali on 10 October 2021 against Ancona-Matelica coming on as a substitue in the 86th minute in place of Mattia Bortolussi. He played a second game on 23 February 2022 against Imolese in the last 6 minutes of a goaless draw. Two days later the twins extended their contract with Cesena until 2025. — Special:PermanentLink/1138950251 Cristian Shpendi: Stiven was born in Ancona, Italy along with his twin Stiven from Albanian parents originally from Pukë who were immigrants since 1997 and thus they hold dual citizenship. Their first team was Real Metauro from where they moved at Delfino Fano, then to San Marino academy until they went to Cesena. Twins in life twins also in the field of play, playing their first competitive season for Cesena under-17 squad coached by Filippo Masolini in Allievi Nazionali U17, where the attacking duo made each 16 appearances with Cristian scoring 14 goals and Stiven 11. Then playing for Cesena Primavera under coach Giovanni Ceccarelli in Campionato Primavera 3 2020–21 with "twin" appearances and goals 15 and 13 each, the duo helped the side to reach the final losing only to Arezzo Primavera. For the next season 2021–22, promoted already at Primavera 2 Cristian scored 15 goals in 17 matches and helped by 23 goals of Stiven in just 20 matches which became league top-scorer, Cesena won the Championship gaining promotion now to Primavera 1 and also won the Primavera Supercup against Udinese Primavera beating them 4–1 with 2 goals from each twin. Meanwhile they were promoted also in the first team in the 2021–22 Serie C where Cristian made his professional debut under coach William Viali on 25 September 2021 against Olbia starting and playing for 57 minutes before being replaced by Salvatore Caturano which managed to score the winning goal in the 90+4' minute with Cesena taking an away 0–1 win. On 25 February 2022 the twins extended their contract with Cesena until 2025. — Special:PermanentLink/1132025758 reftalk References

—Alalch E. 22:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See also Cristian Shpendi and numerous edits to Myrto Uzuni, Arbnor Muçolli and [30] at Agon Muçolli. These, too, are small samplings. Also the determination to restore this [31] right after another editor began tidying up. The first question is how someone with these linguistic challenges has been entrusted to write at English Wikipedia for nearly ten years, and then why they haven't been blocked, given their responses by way of interaction. At any rate, there's a decade-long trail of edits like this [32] left in their wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted Eni.Sukthi.Durres's readdition of the content mentioned above at Stiven Shpendi. (I agree that Cristian Shpendi is just as bad.) After looking through their other contributions and reading their comments at Drmies talk page here, I'm concerned about their ability to edit collaboratively and with a level of writing that is expected. This edit summary doesn't inspire confidence. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• I knew we were going to end up at ANI sooner or later--unless an indef block would have come first. And such a block wouldn't be unwarranted, considering the level of incompetence, disruption, harassment, and childish namecalling coming from this editor. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I saw your interaction, and took a quick look at their edit history. Bringing it here was not a difficult call. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Kinu @Drmies "you were blocked thrice, you can be blocked, you must be blocked unwarranted" ¿Qué te pasa amigo? you talking only for block, you have to be so arsh in wiki? You guys bear in mind that I'm not from an English-speaker country, I'm from Albania a small and not very developed country and i just want to work here with additions and updates information for anything related with my country's national team, you don't like my long content, it's excessive you shorten it, you couldn't ok remove it, but DO NOT revert all edit including useful correct part, because I feel offended then. What you pretend to do here on wiki, you will expell anyone who isn't professional in this work and what you win, we are few persons here not millions so instead of throwing away our work, you improve it, thank you both. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
      • It's the English Wikipedia, so it's kind of obvious that you need to be able to write English if you're going to write here. I don't think we're arsh, whatever that is. If you come here and your writing is not up to snuff, and you're wanting other people to help you, you could ask nicely instead of acting like ... well I think everyone knows what I mean. I'm not L1 either and if someone corrects my English, I swallow my pride and thank them. But in the meantime I will make sure that my edits are explained properly in edit summaries, and verified by links to reliable secondary sources. If you can't do that, then there is no net benefit to your contributions. If you actually can do that, if you provide properly verified and relevant content, and you are humble enough to realize that you can't be a dick when someone corrects your English, and you actually try to improve your written English, then we would love having you. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Based on this screed, I have to say that your level of English is not sufficient to constructively edit this encyclopedia. (This confirms that.) Given this, I'm partially blocking from the article namespace. If anyone disagrees or feels that additional sanctions are reasonable, they are welcome to implement them. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
        • @Kinu if you partially blocked me for however not vandalising articles only exaggerating with information, then what you gonna do to someone who mention d*ck as the king @Drmies did it above, as you can see. I've been for almost a decade here and I never offended someone like this way, but this kids doesn't know how to face problems but instead use their own "accent", how about to meet face to face like adults you little princ, but without knifes or swords since. So you admin. what you gonna do with that, I'm waiting for your answer, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
          • When you're in a hole, you should stop digging. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

            Maybe an arsh hole? EEng 12:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

          • Nice threat. Now blocked indefinitely sitewide. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To answer my own question, they hadn't edited much in the course of a decade, until this year, when the issues of language and behavior became obvious. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Rock Stone Gold Castle

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

---

A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article (see this [33]) and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary. I told him you should not do this but I don't think he'll listen this. If ther some problem in writing he should tag it for CE, its not ok to remove properly sourced material. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle's writing is borderline incoherent. Some recent examples: Also by Vimal pan masala product 'Vimal' allegedly advertise its lots of products those have harmful things such as tobacco. 1, umpire, match referee suppose to panalise teams which bowl overtime but only one time the umpire gave panalty to a team following this rule in 12 happened so far 2, but they not use to tell audience through ads that you could lose money, suffere financial losses 3. All their contributions look like this. I think a WP:CIR boomerang might be appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say we're well over the borderline here. EEng 14:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've just moved Draft:Vimal Gutkha to draft because not only is it of a poor standard of writing, but there actually is zero information about the actual product apart from a controversy about their advertising. And as for this, whether it's notable or not, it's not understandable. I think Rock Stone Gold Castle should probably consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language in which they are fluent. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you found any grammatical mistakes, you should tag it by 'clean up', ce tag. There are lots of editors, they can edit it. Sometimes mistakes happen but you should understand that, not everyone's 1st language is US English. You should not discourage other editors. You moved I written article to draft space, but you should ping me about it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: Sorry, no. It is not reasonable for you to create unintelligible gibberish and to then expect others to try to figure out what you meant and make it intelligible. It would be far better for you to edit a Wikipedia written in a language in which you are proficient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Further, it is not hijacking to remove unintelligible text and otherwise bring the article in line with the expectation of the English Wikipedia. I think you owe the other editors (such as MrOllie) editors apologies for your accusation and thanks for the improvements they have made. The question of your continuing on Wikipedia hinges on your net effect on it and the time of other volunteers. And that hinges in part on your ability to collaborate with those users. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it was not hijacked, my bad. Did you noticed that i also wrote ? in title of the discussion because I also wasn't sure. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: No, that's not how it works. I see that you've submitted Draft:Vimal Gutkha again despite the fact that it's got at least ten spelling and grammar errors in the first section alone. You cannot keep introducing errors into the encyclopedia and expect others to tidy up behind the fact that your language skills are not adequate to do this. Also, this appears to be a removal of sourced material for no good reason; the fact that the material is historical is irrelevant - we document the history of competitions. What's going on there? Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please use civil language, don't accuse others for errors. We are humans, errors can happen, no one is perfect in this world. If you found some grammatical mistakes, you can help WP to fix them, otherwise no one is forcing you to do it. You are removing properly sourced material just because of 3,4 errors? You should tag it for ce, should give a chance to me to do its clean-up. Your talking like your perfect and never done any mistake ever. I am also editing in good faith. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No-one is saying you're not editing in good faith, but there is a difference between a few minor errors and an article which is very difficult to comprehend because of the level of errors in it (we're not just talking 3 or 4 errors here - as I said, there are ten or more in just the first section of that draft article). In the second case, you should be correcting the majority of those problems before introducing that material into Wikipedia. Meanwhile you appear to be removing properly sourced material from articles like the IPL example I pointed out above... Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not hijacking to remove bad content and clear violations of WP:NOTADVERTISING. And that's before we get to the fact that this user also ignored my polite request to revert their nomination of 2023 Indian Premier League for a GA when it met almost 0 of the GA criteria (Talk:2023 Indian Premier League#GA nominated), and they did the same for the 2019 IPL article. And I've had to fix spellings at least 5 times in the last few days after they edited. And they're trying to keep lots of unencylopedic fandom on the 2023 IPL page. It's getting frustrating, as this user appears to be a case of WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If the edit I did not worthy to keep, you can remove them or open a discussion in concerned article's talk page and wp is a free space anyone can edit it.

About GA nomination, I did it in a good faith. I was never nominated articles for GA review before, I did in last weeks. I did not know how to take back GA review, so I didn't and i did not read your message to take back it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I was trying to add some missing piece of the puzzle, in Good faith. If someone think it's not should be there then okay. I know WP work this way. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary is just incorrect. There is a clear and correct edit summary given: Broken english and inappopriate listing of brands, both of which are correct, valid reasons. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for advice sir. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Sidebar I find what I see here incongruous with an an editor with accepted GA notification's on their talk page and more than eight thousand edits. Is something amiss?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see several failed GA nominations, apparently due to repeated failure to understand the criteria. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  vielen dank -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  You got it right, I didn't awarene about the guidelines for GA nomination. Now I understand it, we can't nominate article for GA which have tags for CE etc. We can't nominate a stub or small article. See I know now guidlines. Don't worry I'll read rest of the rules for GA. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• As an example, this is what I had to do to a short section added by RSGC to make it into intelligible English. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Rock Stone Gold Castle: No one doubts your good intentions. The question is whether your grasp of English is sufficient. I have a basic level of understanding German, and I am well aware that my knowledge of German is not sufficient to edit the German encyclopedia. Practicing to learn a second language is great, but I'm not sure that editing an encyclopedia is the best method. (And thanks @Black Kite: for taking the lead in this.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've stumbled upon some of Rock Stone Gold Castle's edits and have reverted them due to being written poorly, almost to the point of incomprehensibility. While good intentions are nice, I agree with some of the assessments above that their ability to write at a level of English needed to contribute constructively to articles is lacking. In another thread below, Beyond My Ken suggests that they should probably be partially blocked from mainspace at the very least, and I am inclined to agree. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Due to yours and other so called experienced, native English speaker editors pressure, I am feeling stressed. So I'm taking a long wikibreak. At the end I'll tell you just one thing, please don't bully good faith editors. Be more tolerant and inclusive. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  As indicated numerous times, we have no doubt of your good faith. However, as other editors have opined, your English skills do not appear to be a sufficient level for building encyclopedia articles. I am sorry if you feel stressed or bullied by these statements, but it is simply an observation based on your edits to date. Given your desire to contribute, my advice is that you instead edit a Wikipedia project in a language in which you are more comfortable communicating at a more formal and technical level. Kinu ^t/_c 15:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Obvious WP:CIR issues. However, I'm currently of the opinion it's mostly due to English comprehension and not an inherent inability to understand policy. Having seen many others with similar grasp of English, I do think it's possible to mitigate with the right experienced editor to interact with them and teach them the ropes. Some of the articles I saw were definitely of the salvagable quality, so I might try and interact with them and see if I can convince them to try WP:ADOPT or similar. They seem to be good faith enough an editor that I think limiting to a subset of editing could be the right solution Soni (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle again (was: Abuse)

• Previous ANI discussion above Sections now merged - this is the section above this
• ...and note this as well

A IP editor here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1119932337?diffmode=source vandalised a sports person page by writing abuses in it. The IP should be banned from editing to prevent future disruption to the wp project. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You should report incidents like to to WP:AIV, you'll get faster action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That edit happened in November of last year. Furthermore the IP hasn't edited since then. Why are you reporting it now? Didn't you make a report above that turned out to be about appropriate reversions of your additions using badly mangled English? Are you trolling us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at your most recent article creation Book My Show. As was indicated in the previous discussion above, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. I don't have the patience or the time to correct everything, but assuming that all your other 12 article creation are as badly written, it'll take editors a fair number of hours to clean them all up. Personally, if I were an admin, I'd be more inclined to block you indefinitely and nuke all your articles, but I'm sure more reasonable heads will prevail. In any event, you should probably be partially blocked from mainspace at the very least. After all, WP:Competence is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Beacuse, I found it yesterday. I saw a tweet in which a man was complaining that, couple of crickters article have abuses. So I immediately gone that article, so who did it and reported him here on AN/I. Tell me did I done any mistake. Its an example that I'm an editor with honesty and good faith. Do you understand that language, who dirty abuses that IP written on Joshua Little article. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I replied you, why I reported him so late, please read. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for serious problems, especially long-term and ongoing ones, not for reporting 2 bad edits made 5 months ago which were immediately reverted, and then the vandal never edited again. Reporting a problem that has already been fixed and hasn't continued wastes everyone's time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Let It Be InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Some ambitious soul should merge these as the first is still open. I'm afraid this is yet another WP:CIR episode related edit by OP It may go beyond English comprehension.

  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

   Done Sections merged. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• So they just posted this talk page message in response to a perfectly valid edit (that was missing an edit summary) that's relatively easy to figure out. Yes there's definitely a competency issue here and now they're harassing other editors unnecessarily with incoherent talk page complaints. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• The irony of RSGC berating another editor for wasting their time is rather splendid... Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Why I'll bother anyone, what I'll get from it? I am volunteering in WP project. Why you reached on such a extreme point. WP guidlines also say that experienced editor should consider Good faith of others. If you found any mistakes you can fixed them, if you don't want, then just tag them. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, editor, you alligations are baseless. My intention wasn't to bother anyone. I'm contribute wp in Good faith, you all the guy should be more tolerant towards non English speakers. WP is a global projects, Anyone can edit. My language is not that bad. Mistakes sometimes happens, but I'm honest and I'll avoid them in future. I myself report many editors at AN/I, who vandalised or broke WP rules. WP don't say that when we open an account that, we'll prohibit you from contributing if you did an error. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You have already been assured that no one doubts your good faith, and we are quite tolerant here of editors at many levels of English competence, but it is simply the case that your English skills are not sufficient for you to be creating articles here. You demonstrate that in your articles, and you demonstrate that in every comment you post. It is not true that, as you write, your "language is not that bad": it is bad. Not to put too fine a point on it You cannot write English well enough to write for an English language encyclopedia. This is not a blog, or a personal website in which simply getting the gist of what you want to say across to the reader is sufficient. You must be able to write in English with encyclopedic quality, at least as well as a student in secondary school, and preferably better than that.

As several people have pointed out, there are Wikipedias in other languages, and probably one in your native tongue. Please take the advice that has been offered to you, and create articles for that encyclopedia, and keep your activities here to those things that don't require you to write in proper and coherent English. We're happy that you want to volunteer to help, but you're not helping here, you are hurting English Wikipedia. Your native language Wikipedia will almost certainly welcome you with open arms, so please transfer your desire to create articles there.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but you clearly are not catching on to what you're being told. If you don't stop creating articles, or even expanding existing articles, it is inevitable that the choice will be taken out of your hands, and some administrator will block you in some manner. It would be so much better for you to simply accept the advice that numerous long-time editors have given you, and leave of your own accord. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting :Rock Stone Gold Castle| is taking a wikibreak.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Noting that Rock Stone Gold Castle has been editing heavily, with no slow down, since they put that Wikibreak notice on their userpage. So it means nothing and appears to be more of a tactic to avoid scrutiny than anything we should pay attention to. Canterbury Tail talk 00:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Welp. I guess I can be the bad guy and ask if we want to block them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've only done a spot-check of their non-creation edits, but I do think that their article creations are bad enough to justify a block from creating articles in mainspace, or moving them from draftspace, if that is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I done any vandalism? No. WP himself say in Copyediting that you should help do ce to new, and less experienced editors in writing 'What they ment and what they mean'. I am taking long wp break beacuse, its editing affecting my studies, health and social life. I am a busy boy, I have lots of stuff to do in real life. I know lots of editors of WP are obsessed and Wikiholic, I don't want to be like that, Best of luck for your further with WP. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, I want to tell you very politely, that harsh word like you recently used caused me stress, I previously said, I'm saying again, WP is a global project and you should encourage people from every walks of life to contribute. Be inclusive, be friendly and polite, try to understand others, give them chance to improve, you should guide less experienced editors like me. Nowadays WP is becoming very toxic place, I don't want conversation with toxic people. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Given this editor's continued poor edits (e.g., this, despite their alleged wikibreak), I have blocked them indefinitely from editing the Article namespace. Enough is enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I definitely going to take a long wiki break, beacuse WP editing affecting my other daily jobs, I am a student, I know Wikipedia editing cause a addiction and I want to go away from wp, I want to be a outsider, I'll just read like a normal guy, will don't try to interfere in it. I know there are lots of people are doing editing here, if I didn't edit, WP will run absolutely fine. I just came to check messages. I read your history, you are experienced editor and experienced bad things during 2010, but that doesn't mean now, you harras timid boys like me. I hope you'll edit WP for your entire remaining life, just like you did since 2007. Do whatever you want to do man but don't trouble others. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Block request

• Charlie Chan 1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block Charlie Chan 1974,  sock puppet of AXXXXK, already blocked in commons, another sock Allocato has been already global locked, this user is created in this wiki 14.0.168.216 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Something something, you're required to notify users of AN/I discussion on their talk page. I've done it for you this time, please be aware in the future. Something Something Burma Shave. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

GabberFlasted, understood, thanks 😊, I provide all the source of this user why he is a sock of AXXXXK 14.0.225.78 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

GabberFlasted, Ping Yann 14.0.225.78 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing

PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user has been engaging in WP:RGW editing changing all text from British India to Indian Empire stating British India didn't include the agencies or princely states. And nation should point only to the country. The disruption went as far as September 2022. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia rather for a POV push — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

All right then, give any one source stating the princely states were a part of British India. I've provided enough sources. You need sources to build encyclopedias. Not anti-India bias. A User Vif12vf has been reverting all my edits without having stated any sources to prove his claims, which I request he do. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

PadFoot2008, you haven't provided any source, what you have provided are WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. —  Salvio ^giuliano 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

All right, maybe that's true for the agencies. But my edit on Dir (princely state) had a reliable source clearly stating princely states were a part of India and Dir is a princely state. Do I also need to provide a source for Dir being a princely state? And do I need to provide a source explicitly stating agencies were a part of India? Will it be considered non disruptive editing then? What should my source state?PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler Padfoot has been promoting anachronistic POV on a broad swath of British India-related articles. It has gone on for much too long. I, as an editor who has contributed to the articles Presidencies and provinces of British India, Company rule in India, Indian rebellion of 1857, British Raj, Partition of India, and Dominion of India for 16 years, feel that Padfoot has become highly disruptive. Other competent editors and I should not be held hostage to relentless regression and puerile back and forth. Some admin needs to step in and award a punitive block of at least a few weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  You had failed to provide any sources to support your claim that "British Raj" also referred to territorial expanse of the country between 1858 and 1947. The Interpretation Act 1889 clearly mentions the difference between "India" to fulfil that criteria and the Imperial Gazetteer of India mentions "Indian Empire". Your maps itself which have been sourced from the Gazetteer mention "Indian Empire" in the title (also which you have miscaptioned as "British Raj".) You need to provide sources in Wikipedia. Your assumptions do not matter.

  I greatly value your enormous contributions to Wikipedia and consider myself to be absolutely nothing compared to you but I just want to correct in a small spot with reliable sources. I don't have anything against you and I just want you to understand. I also understand that I've made some edits without providing sources, which might be viewed as disruptive and apologize for that. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by HistoryofIran A lot of PadFoot's edits since summer (if not the majority), have been reverted. Click here [34] and Ctrl + F "reverted". Their arguments to change the name of "British India/British Raj" were already rejected in at least two discussions, going back to June [35] and November [36]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing so this doesn't get archived, as it's quite concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits from IP editor

• 185.24.188.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For about three to four months now, this IP editor has removed content from articles without explanation (mostly alternative names in the lead and infobox). Despite warnings in the past, their behaviour has not changed. I have just given them a warning about removing Sámi names, but upon a deeper examination of their editing history, this seems to be a recurring issue. They haven't engaged with any of the comments on their talk page thus far, so it seems unlikely that they'll change their editing in the future. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP has made about 50 edits since the beginning of 2023 and has never left a talk message or an edit summary. A block may be needed to get them to communicate. Other editors have left messages on their talk four times since 1 January. Their anti-Sámi campaign is their most distinctive behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It seems they have continued removing alternate names without consensus. I've also noticed that they keep changing German IPA transcriptions to unattested pronunciations, chiefly the diphthong ei [aɪ] to [æɪ], which they have done at least five times by this point (including one today). All but three of their edits have been undone in some way, and they have yet to reply to any of their talk page messages, so I agree that they should be blocked until they learn to cooperate with other editors. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Other editors have reverted just about everything this IP has ever done. Getting consensus is not optional, and being constantly reverted ought to be powerful feedback. The IP has continued to edit without responding here, so I've blocked them for two weeks. Any admin can lift this block if they become persuaded that the editor will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Beauty pageant SPAs needs help understanding verifiability

• Mauriziok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hitsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.145.40.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:4454:1f2:dd00:9d9b:b8df:5e5c:e6d1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Mauriziok has edited virtually exclusively in beauty pageant related articles, a topic covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. Plus hundreds of related pages in userspace, I don't know what that's about.

The complaint is this: They recently added back large sections of unreferenced content at Miss World 2017. The edit summary seems to state that they think that I should be adding references. They have been discussing on their talkpage with another pageant SPA, Hitsme, how to preserve the unreferenced content as well, in this and other pageant articles. I think they both need help understanding WP:V and WP:BURDEN. One of the editors has been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and the other has a recent warning from an admin on their talkpage. I'm out of patience and don't want to get into 3RR territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm just trying to ensure that the information that has been placed with so much effort is not suddenly deleted. Placing an improvement template like <nowiki>{{refimprove|date=April 2023}}</nowiki> seems the most appropriate thing to do, in fact I just placed it in the article Miss World 2017. Obviously, as always, the information must be duly referenced. The issue here is that they are being deleted from the '''final results''' of a Big 4 competition, removing them completely seems like an outburst. Like the preliminary competitions that in Miss World have considerable importance. Other details such as the order in which the contestants are named are characteristic of beauty contests.

In any case, if you consider and persist that the information should be removed without any consideration, I will not oppose it or enter into any pitched battle.

I understand the good and logical intentions but the actions taken seem hostile and do not invite responsible and friendly participation from the Wikipedia editing community.

No more to refer to.

Says goodbye Mauriziok (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mauriziok. Here is some friendly advice. If you want to add substantive new content to this encyclopedia, provide a reference to a reliable published source. If you want to restore content that another editor has removed as unreferenced, then provide a reference to a reliable published source. There is nothing at all unfriendly about any of this. It is how we maintain a high quality encyclopedia. Can you agree to that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I already mentioned it before. The background of the action is reasonable but not the way in which it is done. If you want to revert the edits. Do it no problem. Mauriziok (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite: in which way do you believe that unreferenced information should be removed, except for, well, removing it? You've been editing on Wikipedia for five years now, and you should have learned long since that unreferenced information is liable to be removed at any time, in any quantity. You should also have learned -- long since -- that your edits are liable to be changed, edited further or removed outright at any time, without prior warning to you or to any other editor.

The purported "importance" of the information is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it should not have been put in in the first place if you were unprepared to properly reference it at the time. If there's any "hostile" action at work here, it's in adding information and expecting that some other editor is going to do the work of properly sourcing it. That's not what I'd call "responsible" OR "friendly." Ravenswing 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there may be a bit more of a fundamental problem here. Just scanning their contribs I haven't been able to find any where they add any refs, despite being quite prolific on adding tables of info. I've checked about a dozen of their larger edits where they add material and I haven't been able to find one where it's supported by a citation. if there are 6k of edits specifically to beauty pageeant pages on that basis... DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Even worse, they've been adding large amounts of data to articles like Miss Venezuela 1957, Miss Venezuela 1958 and Miss Venezuela 1960 where not only are they adding no sources, there actually aren't any in the article apart from the pageant's website. Not sure how these articles have existed for 16 years; any of them could be AfDd with no issues. Like many pageant SPAs, both accounts have poor English (that's not saying one is a sock of the other, but they're equally poor) and are adding material that isn't particularly good. In the end, if editors are adding no value to our articles, they should probably be restricted from doing so IMO. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an issue across hundreds if not thousands of pageant articles. Unfortunately I have been placed in a position where even bundling the AfDs was met with resistance. Unless something changes, AfD is a no-go at scale. So I'm kinda out of steam on that front. Now just PRODing onesies and twoesies, and trying to identify and deal with some of the prolific poor-content contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Mauriziok, you said, I'm just trying to ensure that the information that has been placed with so much effort is not suddenly deleted. With all due respect, that's absurd. It's sources first and content second, not the other way around. And the content, of course, must be worthy of inclusion in the article. Since you've been actively editing for over five years, I assume you know all this. If you would put "so much effort" into finding reliable sources as you have for placing information, you wouldn't have these problems. This ongoing pattern of improper editing is disruptive. Stoarm (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Same situation is recurring at Miss Earth 2023 [37] with apparently coordinated anon editors (2 minute time delta [38]), edit summary when they restored unsourced content is "Please conduct research before removing a confirmed contestants". ☆ Bri (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again with a group of pageant article editors not only telling other editors not to remove their unsourced content or outright OR, but also having the audacity to tell them to do their work for them by finding sources. This highly disruptive, coordinated effort needs to be stopped. It's time for restrictions to be handed out. I know almost nothing about pageants, but I'm curious to know, generally, who's causing the problems in these articles. Is it some pageant contestants or organizers? Or just superfans? Thank you, Bri, for all your time and effort to protect and improve this project. Stoarm (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Numerous small, at best pointless, edits to many articles

Ngăn chặn kiến (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous small, at best pointless, edits to many articles. Adding or removing a comma here or an apostrophe there, putting a full-stop after "see also", that sort of thing. No edit summaries. Does the behaviour ring any bells? THanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I checked out the user's most recent three edits and didn't see anything of concern. If you have a specific example I'm confident several of us would check it out. Have you noticed any harm or policy violation, or just editing preference?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Paulmcdonald Nearly all of their edits are simply incorrect and have had to be reverted. I have left them a final warning per WP:CIR. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I trust you. I only looked at three and gave up when I didn't see a specific example.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

user:Northheavensky's Reluntact to Communicate and Unwillingness to Accept Agreed Consensus

user:Northheavensky is reluctant to communicate and accept the agreed consensus on the talk page.

Talk:Songket#Bias User:Ckfasdf and I had actively discussed on the talk page for days and we had agreed on NPOV for the page Songket

user:Northheavensky is reluctant to communicate or accept the agreed consensus by making the below edits:

[39] - no reason for reverting was provided

[40] - the user wrote "Stable version, radical changes without consensus, the source is still in doubt". This is a baseless accusation and has been discussed. We literally cite the same existing source, in the same book and had already reached a consensus on the talk page.

[41] - no reason for reverting was provided

[42] - no reason for reverting was provided, except "restore". MrCattttt (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion on the talk page doesn't cover all the edits that the OP has made, though. Meanwhile, some of the edits by the OP (some of whose previous edits have been revdeleted by User:Diannaa for COPYVIO issues) appear to be in some cases poorly sourced and many of them remove sourced material. Therefore, I have fully protected the article in its current state (which appears to be pretty close to the long-standing version before the OP started editing it) so that an actual consensus can arise. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Taishonambu spreading classified info?

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

---

Taishonambu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I gotta admit, this is a new one: Taishonambu has seemingly shared classified info to United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I can't really link diffs in case my suspicions are right, and I'm completely baffled as to what should be done here. Should it be suppressed/revdelled, or am I overreacting? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever classification level this info is, it's now on my flash drive/srs, and I'm driving to GRU HQ./j a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 07:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And Masebrock (talk · contribs) tried to put it back. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but aren't they posting what secondary sources are gleaning from these "leaked" documents, and not straight from them? And don't we kinda do that all the time? //Edit To be clear, I completely understand the caution on your part, though. Ostalgia (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents seems to be the only guidance I can find on the matter; and that 12-year-old discussion seemed to arrive at no consensus on what Wikipedia's policy should be on the publishing of information ultimately gleaned from classified documents. It basically kicked the can down the road to WMF's legal team to handle. I don't know that they ever did. If anyone else finds more information on what Wikipedia policy is on the matter, that may help here. I have no opinion otherwise, since without guidance, we don't even know if what Taishonambu did merits any response from us, so long as they didn't break any other Wikipedia policies (such as edit warring, etc.) --Jayron32 11:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, yeah, I don't see anything else that can be done. As I said, I came here out of an abundance of caution, so to know it isn't explicitly forbidden is relieving. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be strange if WMF's legal team considered reporting on leaked classified information as illegal, considering New York Times Co. v. United States is still the law of the land. Masebrock (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated than that. That was about a civil action to attempt enforce an executive order to stop them from publishing.North8000 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a similar situation a decade ago involving Wikimedia France: classified documents related to fr:Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute were leaked, covered in secondary sources, and these sources were added to the article. It culminated in a Wikipedia admin being arrested to threaten him into deleting the article, but unsurprisingly Wikimedia France stood by him. (The article was then translated into Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station).

So I'd be very, very skeptical if this was actionable, and I really don't see any reason to exclude material just because it's classified. Since it's covered in reliable sources, and it's due, we should cover it. DFlhb (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: Anyone know what the copyright status of classified documents is in the US? Are they PD as government documents? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

All works of the US government are de facto public domain, classification plays no part. A bonehead FBI official filed for a copyright on a torture manual in 2013, under his own name, resulting in a fully-redacted version available to anyone with a library card. While the FBI was simultaneously fighting the ACLU on its release. Bit of a tangent, but the relevance is in that MJ article, there are several quotes by experts on copyright status of secret documents. Zaathras (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. We have plenty of articles on classified leaks that contain the leaked materials themselves, for example Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Legoktm (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

They would not be copyright, but I would only include them as sourced through a reliable third-party source reporting on them as to avoid any interpretation or claims that a WP editor brought the information on their own to WP. NYTimes will routinely cover this stuff, for example, so speaking to the classified contents through the NYTimes filter is good. Masem (t) 02:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I see no reason to remove/hide/suppress leaked classified materials, as long as it meets our criteria for inclusion (mentioned in reliable sources, etc.). We have plenty of articles that discuss classified leaks and their contents (in fact, we need more). Given that major publications are discussing their contents, security through obscurity arguments regarding their inclusion on Wikipedia have very little ground to stand on. Legoktm (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unless I missed the memo, this is not a project dedicated to upholding the United States' interests. This material is widely reported on, and pretending otherwise just makes Wikipedia a less useful resource. nableezy - 20:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Provided that the information is reported on in reliable sources, then I don't see a reason to exclude unless there is like a legal order from the US government or something. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oversight needed on United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Per WP:BEANS and WP:DENY, oversight is need on United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is useful information the Russians can use on there. Per WP:IAR, it should be oversighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.241.136.104 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for the correct place for such a request. --Jayron32 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is supposed to help and support the U.S. government in regards to its foreign policies? 121.136.51.26 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not helping the US government, that's the law. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, are you claiming that it is U.S. law that Wikipedia must oversight leaked classified information? Because that's not correct at all. Legoktm (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

But the sources that are mentioned published that information, and they have not been shut down because they are legitimate institutions. How is this different for Wikipedia, since it is journalistic in nature in terms of being a place to document basically everything? Should the information on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) be removed too since they were obtained illegally?

Your argument is a bit confusing because Wikipedia itself did not obtain the information and is just reporting. From your user profile, it says you are Canadian, so how does this "law" apply directly to you? Wikipedia is not violating any laws here, the people who illegally obtained it are. 85.156.70.128 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Added information was from secondary sources reporting on leaks, if I got it right. So it's already on the Internet for everyone to see. Oversighting it serves no purpose. Also, at least one of those scary Russians (me) already got their hands on the info. It's too late now. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) I usually appreciate tongue-in-cheek snark and sarcasm, but let's not make light of what's happening. Your country is currently committing genocide. So, yeah, Russia is pretty scary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Assigning collective guilt to entire country for actions of some shitty prez and his cronies is pretty scary too. You scared the shit out of me, so I'm off to drink vodka with the lads, have a nice day. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Your comments here are in exceptionally poor taste. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) I find the comments being responded to be of even poorer taste. Oversight is now responsible for denying Russia access to information on widely reported intelligence leaks? Making a comment like your country is currently committing genocide is ok now? Should we start saying that to any Chinese editor? What about immigrants from China that retain their citizenship? How is that not a personal attack? nableezy - 20:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC) The request for oversight is dumb and will be handled appropriately by the people responsible for that. There is no personal attack in the above, just a reasonable bristling at someone making light of an awful situation in a way that is both crude and unconstructive. If a Chinese editor were to make dumb jokes about the situation in Xinjiang with no constructive purpose, I would not be surprised to see people bristle. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) I dont see anywhere anybody made any joke about the situation in Ukraine, rather a joke about how important it is to scrub any evidence of leaks that are widely reported on to stop the Russians. nableezy - 21:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC) I am happy to agree to disagree on this point; however unambiguously the person who decided to make the discussion about Arado was Arado themself. --JBL (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Nick Bizer

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

Nick Bizer has been persistently adding unsourced content on various pages. I have given the user multiple warnings about this issue but they continue to add content without a reliable source. This has been going on for months now. It should be noted that the user is currently blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia due to not following etiquette.

• 13:39, 9 June 2022
• 13:13, 9 January 2023
• 16:29, 17 February 2023
• 14:59, 18 February 2023
• 10:45, 19 March 2023
• 14:42, 11 April 2023

Telenovelafan215 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Per This the user seems to be acting in good faith but doesn't know how to add citations correctly. Maybe if you helped them instead of trying to get them blocked, it may go better for everyone involved. --Jayron32 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to help the user and even looked online for a reliable source and never find anything. The user's sources are either forums or social media accounts. Here I explained why these are usually not reliable sources but the user continues to use these type of pages as his sources. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that diff is that one of the sources they say they are using is facebook. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's clear from Nick Bizer's very cordial replies to warnings on his talk page that he means no harm. But his good faith is obviously not enough to stop this ongoing pattern of adding content without reliable sources. The problem began almost a year ago. It is not another editor's responsibility to teach him proper editing or to find sources for him, which Telenovelafan215 kindly attempted to do anyway.

The core of this problem is stated very clearly in Nick Bizer's reply to the first warning he received in June 2022: I really hope I haven't been causing any trouble... I mainly do those changes based on the facts that I remember from that time, when I still used to watch those kind of programs (I don't really watch them anymore, but let's say that I have too much free time and few things to do for the moment which is bad thing, frankly, ha-ha!). The editor effectively admitted, without realizing it, that a lot of the content he added was purely OR and that he had a feeling his edits could cause problems. But he then makes an offer which substantiates my belief that he's very nice and doesn't want to be disruptive: If you wish, I can just stop editing, there's absolutely no problem for me.

In this warning from February 2023, he was warned again about adding unsourced content. He replied with a link to a source for the information, and when he was told it wasn't reliable, he said, Had no idea... Anyway, nothing's wrong if you delete it... I mean, I found that site while browsing and thought it would be fine to include the information, althought it's far from important, really...

Unless Nick Bizer learns what reliable sources are, and how to correctly add them, I think we should take him up on his kind offer to stop editing, and thank him for his efforts. Stoarm (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User Sirhewlett: Frequent insertion of unsourced material despite multiple recent warnings to stop this

Would like to bring to the attention of Admins the user Sirhewlett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As per title they have received repeated warnings on their talk page to stop disruptive insertion of large amounts of unsourced information yet have continued to do so despite these warnings. Believe this has gone beyond the point of simple warnings and stronger action therefore necessary.

Talk page as current

Recent repeated disruptive unsourced edits to Smosh [43] [44]

Apache287 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Actions are continuing ([45] [46]), also their general behaviour appears to be just inserting whatever they want into articles despite content ranging from minor ([47]) to straight up political vandalism ([48]). This is despite notification of referral to this noticeboard.

Please could this be looked into as a matter of urgency. Apache287 (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

For further information, this user appears to be the IP address editor [49], who already has a final vandalism warning on their IP address and a similar pattern of behaviour. Apache287 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

non adequately explained revert, baseless accusations from M.Bitton

I added [50] properly cited content from a reliable source to the Western Sahara article. However, my edit was reverted by the editor M.Bitton, who commented "UNDUE even if that's what the source says" [51] . When I attempted to seek clarification by initiating a discussion on the talk page, M.Bitton accused my edit of being "POV serving a political agenda".[52] ("Unexplained revert" section), and apparently M.Bitton is refusing to continue the discussion. [53] SimoooIX (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Here's the link to the discussion (to highlight the out of context cherry picked words). M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  We are waiting for "better things" (as you mentioned in your comment) SimoooIX (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Simooonix, per the warning at the top of this page when you start a new section you are required to notify MB on their talk page of a discussion opened here. I have done that for you this time, but please in future read the instructions, they're often quite important. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I did. but M.Bitton reverted it. Thank you.SimoooIX (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, Simoooix, my bad! Valereee (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearing up one issue, yes, SimoooIX properly notified M.Bitton (as demonstrated by M.Bitton's prompt appearance here). Valereee; always check the page history before handing out chastisements. Anyway, main idea. SimoooIX and M.Bitton don't appear to be on speaking terms, and apparently there's a history beyond this exchange. @M.Bitton: can I interest you in explaining more fully, either here or (better) on the talk page, why the edit is undue? I can guess, but many editors won't have have the historical context. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I have, though most of one needs to know about the contentious subject is already covered in the article in question. M.Bitton (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's your POV. SimoooIX (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Western Sahara is claimed by Morocco. This territory is also claimed by the SADR, a partially recognized state which is backed by Algeria. SimooolX mostly edits about Morocco/Algeria, across a range of articles. Many of their edits to various articles have met with opposition, particularly from M.Bitton. I ran across this at Talk:Pastilla. It is worth mentioning that SimooolX is currently blocked from the French Wikipedia for vandalizing their page on the President of Algeria. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a small precision: they have been blocked indefinitely on fr.wp for insulting the Algerian president. On this project: when their first edit was reverted by someone else, they left a comment on the talk page and this unjustified personal attack on my talk page (third third ever edit, despite having never interacted with them). All this, within 15 minutes of joining the project. M.Bitton (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It's funny how you're attempting to avoid addressing the actual topic and instead reiterating points that have already been discussed with administrators. SimoooIX (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie I appreciate your response, although it may be slightly out of context. The statement "Western Sahara is claimed by Morocco. This territory is also claimed by the SADR, a partially recognized state which is backed by Algeria" could be misleading and not entirely accurate. I would advise everyone to read the article for a more comprehensive understanding. "SimooolX mostly edits about Morocco/Algeria"As I have previously mentioned, I usually focus on editing about North Africa, including its history, politics, and culture, and that's my area of interest.

"It is worth mentioning that SimooolX is currently blocked from the French Wikipedia for vandalizing their page on the President of Algeria". Probably you missed it, but we've already discussed that. So you're just repeating things. Thank you for returning to our actual subject. I'm not going to discuss any thing out of subject. SimoooIX (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't discussed here in this ANI section, and when the reporting party has a history of disruptive editing in the topic area at issue that is extremely important context that reviewing editors should be aware of. MrOllie (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You could have opened a new section and discuss your issues. Since it's not related to our current discussion, it's causing disruptions. SimoooIX (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That isn't how ANI works. See WP:BOOMERANG, which is very relevant here. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not the case. It's entirely appropriate for the behavior of a reporting editor to be examined in a report brought to ANI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. It's alright. Actually M.Bitton personally atacked me here [54] and here [55] SimoooIX (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Simoooix.haddi & M.Bitton were off to a bad start (Simoooix.haddi's 3rd edit was an unacceptable aspersion), and have recently been edit warring elsewhere in a way that appears like they were both at fault.

In a 12 January 2023 ANEW report filed by M.Bitton against an IP the conclusion also was that both were edit-warring. On 16 January 2023 M.Bitton was blocked 31 hrs for edit warring. Another January 2023 ANI report filed against M.Bitton turned out to be a content dispute, though one that could have been handled better (although I tend to agree with M.Bitton here on the content I think the other editor deserved a much better and friendlier explanation of why their very high-tier RS are not followed in this case; the other editor has not edited since).

In the current dispute between Simoooix.haddi & M.Bitton, I am seeing again a refusal by M.Bitton to properly engage and explain why they oppose the addition of the reliably sourced content (again I suspect that they are right on the content issue, but they are not showing why they are right in a respectful and engaging manner). Both editors here are failing to assume good faith, though both do seem to be editing in good faith. With regard to M.Bitton there appears to be a longer-term pattern of ineffective or lacking communication that may need addressing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You're spot on that SH's 3rd edit is absolutely unacceptable, and seems like a bright-as-day declaration of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and intended to intimidate a perceived POV opponent. I don't blame M.Bitton for not assuming good faith after that point, and together with the vandalism on fr.wiki and attempts to railroad this discussion makes me think that an indef WP:NOTHERE block is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes my 3rd edit was a mistake which i apologized for. Wikipedia was totally a new world for me back then. However i'm not the only one who had issues with this editor. SimoooIX (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was clearly off topic. SimoooIX (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, You may be right. Though this edit a week later by M.Bitton is of a similar nature, Simoooix.haddi's response asking about the meaning of 'nationalist edit' while they used the very term themselves first seems indistinguishable from trolling. This all happened before the block and unblock of Simoooix.haddi, but given that working out a consensus with M.Bitton was a condition for their unblock [56][57][58] just two days ago, and that they are already at ANI again essentially for failing to properly seek consensus with M.Bitton, Simoooix.haddi is clearly not learning. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Although ANI was not my preferred option, M. Bitton's refusal to continue the discussion (and that wasn't the first time) has left it as the only remaining choice. SimoooIX (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Now, I'm really looking forward to see people discussing the original topic. I left M.Bitton a question in the original discussion (i asked for a clarification of what they said) but they haven't answered yet. I'm not opposing if anyone wanted to join the discussion there. SimoooIX (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Simoooix.haddi, I strongly advise you to withdraw this report, to get to the point at Talk:Western Sahara (why is your addition relevant in the context, and not simply –as alleged by M.Bitton– a Moroccan irredentist talking point?), and when the positions of both editors are sufficiently clear, seek dispute resolution (WP:NPOVN or WP:3O are appropriate here). Focus on clarity: what precisely do you want and why. Be honest about your own motivations and try to understand the reasoning of other editors: see their point even if you don't agree. Be aware that the situation you are in now is at the very least 50% your own fault, and that if you continue to lay blame with others while not thoroughly fixing your own mistakes a WP:BOOMERANG indefinite block will soon be in order. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Mastergerwe97 against a fellow editor.

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

---

Per the diff at Special:Diff/1149540808.

- L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Another personal attack at Special:Diff/1149541405. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Mastergerwe97 for 48 hours for violations of the no personal attacks policy. I note this is his second block for violations of that policy, the first being in May of 2021 by HickoryOughtShirt?4. Both blocks seem to involve a dispute with the same editor, Deadman137. I would like to see some community discussion of the possibility of an WP:IBAN between these two users. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn I'd also suggest revoking their TPA, they literally told be to "Be a fag". - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: I might recommend IP blocking as this person made the same edit. Conyo14 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

IP edits from the same IP they were using should already be autoblocked. I will note that in one of the edits containing a personal attack, they did try to cite this source, which was published today (though they did so in the edit summary instead of in the body of the article). If the date was announced today and is being reported, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the IP is someone else who just happened to see the announcement and is trying to update the article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim to be the same person using a VPN to change IP in this edit summary. Article needs protection. - MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The article has only had one true disruptive editor. Although his actions may be in good faith, his persistence did require a block. That being said, there aren't too many IP's or other users making constant edits that we can't handle. If this editor comes back with a vengeance to continue his disruption, only then would I recommend protection. Conyo14 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Conyo14 yes, fortunately they seem to have ceased. I agree that a protection is in order if they return. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 22:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

On their talk page, they say Be a fag then. Be a faggot. Fuck this website and fuck you cunts. This is a standard default to homophobia and bigotry upon being censured up with which Wikipedia should not put. Can we extend their block to indef in general principles of basic human dignity, please? — Trey Maturin™ 22:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin, chiming in. Just for clarity to this discussion, I'd like to say that I'm heterosexual, but even with that, it's still an egregious personal attack. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Those comments are never acceptable anywhere. Auto indef with talk pages access removal. And done. I will always indef for any transphobic, homophobic, sexist or racist attack comments. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. — Trey Maturin™ 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much also, and I'm aware that those words should not be used that way even with heterosexuals. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree with indeffing and removing talk page access. Until they can learn to not attack other users (let alone, based on race/gender/sexual orientation/etc), they should not be allowed to edit. Not just because it's disruptive, but also because hate shouldn't be allowed a platform. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m not heterosexual, but either way that shouldn’t matter: white people should be offended by use of the n-word, cis-males should be offended by the use of misogynistic words and straight people should be offended by the use of the f-slur. — Trey Maturin™ 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with you there. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 22:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. Wikipedia has no room for that kind of hatred. Conyo14 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by IP 2603:9001:7500:3242:fccf:e04f:c45c:73d9 (and similar) at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Adding NATO support for Ukraine

Please see following diffs:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [[61]
4. [62]

ANI notice posted here. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

1. [63] Using this address (2603:9001:7500:3242:706b:3a36:c7d6:eb67) the IP would asset that their comments are acceptable. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

IP editor disrupting Egypt-related articles

• 45.101.73.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 45.99.56.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 45.98.167.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 45.101.17.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP editor rapidly making disruptive edits across a range of Egypt-related articles. Coming from multiple IPs over the last couple of days, clearly the same person, but 45.101.73.81 (the first one above) seems to be the long-running one at the moment. The IPs above are those I've seen so far.

Types of disruption: Often changing the names of people, cities, and lakes to what they claim is the "Egyptian" pronunciation while disregarding the current article names or even the cited source (e.g. [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]). Inserting personal commentary (e.g. [69] and see some of their edit summaries at Ras El Bar's revision history). Various arbitrary deletions throughout, sometimes on a large scale and sometimes edit-warring about it after they've already been reverted (see Ras El Bar's revision history again in particular, compare e.g. [70] and [71]).

Warnings given on previous IP talk page here and multiple warnings on 45.101.73.81's talk page here. Disruptive edits have continued since the latest warning. R Prazeres (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP range 96.143.180.xx; rangeblock needed

See recent history here; IP range is 96.143.180.xx. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 04:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like actual IP range is 96.143.160.0/19. —  AP 499D25  (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

More long-term disruption at Flow (brand): link to page history. —  AP 499D25  (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MickTravisBickle

MickTravisBickle (talk · contribs) has been belligerent in violating BLP, by giving unsourced/badly-sourced claims, on certain articles related to trans people, particularly Dana Rivers. They have been repeatedly been warned of being blocked, and have just continued, and kept up pointless arguments against policies. --Rob (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s false. I have not made bad claims about “trans people”. Rob et al have exhibited unfairness around both Dana Rivers and Camp Trans articles. Murderer Dana Rivers was associated with camp trans. It’s documented, and it was on Rivers’ main article page until *yesterday*, when I wanted to also include it in the camp trans page. When I move to do any editing on the pages, everything was reverted, including verified facts. Rivers appeared as a speaker, an advocate for camp trans. All I wanted to do was include in both the rivers articles and the camp trans article and my edits keep being reverted. This is clearly a case of protectionism and ownership and attempted ownership of articles

http://eminism.org/michigan/20000812-camptrans.txt MickTravisBickle (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A topic ban on gensex is required at a minimum here. A brief review of MTBs edit history shows that they have trouble with NPOV in this area, Very Average Editor (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(Not) sockpuppetry

I got notified by a local WikiEDU course instructor that their students got slapped with a permaban with socking with their groupmates. Contacted original blocking admin but a bit slow in responding. Am writing here as they are having the assignment submission deadline in 10 hours. (My role: I manage and process these enquiries for a local affiliate) One of them had tried appealing but their assignment deadline is coming

Am requesting some help to either unblock or some advice from fellow admins.

Accounts:

IloveDPPH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pharmacystudent000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Education dashboard (the concerned course):

https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/The_University_of_Hong_Kong/CAES9720_Academic_Communication_for_Pharmacy_Students_(2022-23)/students/overview

1233 ( T / C） 07:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it's wrong that they got banned for sharing an ID? Deb (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Deb if I am correct it's two students in a group having two different accounts but editing the same sandbox to submit one article as assignment 1233 ( T / C） 07:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It would probably have been wiser to create a draft article rather than use a sandbox. Deb (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, will relay that to the course instructors. 1233 ( T / C） 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be discouraging sandbox edits or drafts in user space, however, a simple notice on their user pages would have probably gone a long way to prevent any misunderstandings. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Have requested them to add it to their future handouts when I found that out 1233 ( T / C） 10:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@1233, Pharmacystudent000, IloveDPPH, and Bbb23: I've undeleted User:Pharmacystudent000/sandbox, User:IloveDPPH/Topical hydrocortisone and User:IloveDPPH/sandbox while we get this sorted. For the record I see no reason for these blocks to stand. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Pharmacystudent000, who has appealed in the correct way. I advised the other student to do likewise. Deb (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I have unblocked the remaining student. I'm not sure an unblock request was necessary, per WP:NOTBURO, but that's academic at this point. —  Salvio ^giuliano 08:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether the block is good or not, that's a medical article written by someone who has apparently never heard of WP:MEDRS and should not enter the article mainspace. MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Tekrmn

Tekrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account on 2023-02-10, they made one edit, then went dormant until 2023 Covenant School shooting occurred. At this point they began editing significantly on the subject, as well as other transgender subjects. They were given the standard contentious topics alert (notice). Since then they've repeatedly misrepresented sources, our policies and guidelines, edit warred (AN/EW report), and engaged in personal attacks (accusing an editor of "vandalizing", "your opinion doesn't matter" and another "vandalism" claim, casting aspersions about other editors), finally culminating in this edit they made that's a combination of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS: this template does not belong on this page, and locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars, and now marking the whole page as not being neutral because they don't like that we aren't consistently deadnaming the shooter. why haven't we removed this template and why haven't we removed locke cole from this article? (as regards the end of their rant, the reason the NPOV tag is still there is because a number of other editors agree there is an issue). Their edits show signs of being a WP:SPA, seemingly here to WP:RGW. Behavior like this is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

While I have edited multiple pages that involve transgender people or topics, I have also edited a number of pages on other topics and am working on a draft that is on another unrelated topic. Many wikipedia editors have specific areas of interest. The edit warring report was dismissed for good reason. I think if you take a look at Locke Cole's own history and the context of the quotes they've given above you will see what is actually going on. Tekrmn (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you deny saying locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars? You shouldn't because I literally linked to the diff of you saying that. So since you made those multiple claims of misbehavior, do you have any evidence of that to back those claims up? Because if you don't, that's exactly what WP:ASPERSIONS warns against. The edit warring report was dismissed for good reason. You did four reverts in less than 24 hours, after being warned about WP:3RR. Nobody forced you to do those reverts. The only reason you weren't blocked was because you ended up self-reverting. I don't know that I'd call that a "good reason" when you had all the reason in the world not to revert the 4th time already. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, do you have diffs to support repeatedly misrepresented sources? Schazjmd (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Was debating another editor over someone being characterized as a "friend", the linked source is even titled "Friend says she contacted authorities after messaging with Nashville shooter Audrey Hale on morning of attack". (As an aside, Derekeaaron1 and Tekrmn are the same editor, they changed their name in the middle of this, which ended up with editors restating arguments repeatedly because it seemed like another editor was engaging the topic.
• Claimed all social media accounts had changed their name, but this was demonstrably not true (specifically, their LinkedIn profile still used the "deadname").

Pretty sure there were more, but that was all I could type out in five minutes.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Support boomerang - all I've seen from Locke Cole thus far is assuming bad faith towards editors in the GENSEX topic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Xenophobic trolling: User: Slovakheroaugustus

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

---

This user is clearly not here to participate for the creation of an useful encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Slovakheroaugustus He admits on his userpage that he is Magyarophobe=Hungarophobe: 1 He had only some edits, but according to his admitting, he is making only xenophobic trolling against Hungarians in Hungarian relation articles: 1 2 3 4 5 I think it is waste of time to revert the vandalism instead of focusing to create good contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Of all the things that are not here, this is at the top of the list. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Issues with a user attempting OR and refusing to engage through appropriate channels: MatthewS.

This user has been "sitting" on Egyptian pound for some years attempting to impose an abbreviation the sources do not use and appears unable to recognise the validity of any point of view to the contrary despite reliable sources being cited. He is intent on using "E£" as the primary abbreviation, when no reliable sources do and it feels like arguing with a brick wall. This article was the subject of an edit war last year resulting in the blocking of both participants, one of whom is MatthewS. Valethske (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User pushing information not linked to the article

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

---

user:Khirurg on the Article Vurg is pushing an information which is not related to the article but to one individual (personal achievments, deeds and personal information such as background and ethnicity). The article Vurg is about a region not an individual. We discussed in the TP and seems that the user has difficulties understanding basic sentences (the point that i was saying) so i would like to get help from a third person to judge the situation. Talk:Vurg, Special:History/Vurg RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki spam / SPA

We seem to have a cross-wiki spam campaign, promoting an otherwise little-known musical artist: see https://www.google.com/search?q=Bui+Quoc+Huy+site%3Awikipedia.org

One of their MOs is to simply blast their edit on top of existing articles; see their edit to Sam, for example. They are also busy shoving stuff into Wikidata.

The point of origin appears to be https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Thebuiquochuy , but they are now engaged in sockpuppetry and IP editing. See for example Siumate2832, and this and this. They also seem to have uploaded (now-deleted) photos into Commons: see here. There may well be more, but I haven't got the time to investigate further at the moment.

Given the cross-wiki nature of this problem, what is the appropriate venue for discussing this, and how can this be stopped? — The Anome (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a global block (or several) is in order, considering the accounts you mentioned are both globally locked. Admittedly I'm not that familiar with the process, but m:SRG is the place to go. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• The cross-wiki side of things has mostly been handled as I've deleted the article of the subject in small wikis (after stumbling upon this thread by coincidence). The sources seem your typical paid-for sham publications that we encounter daily. A few admins are already looking at it on afwiki and they will make their own decision accordingly. Also, please do not nominate this for deletion on eowiki. They have a different system that requires more explanation than just "x-wiki spam". They decided to keep it in their own AfD back in early March per the sources. An admin who wanted to keep the article is active on the talk and you can start a normal discussion there explaining your point—that is if you want to. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

'Adem Sopaj from the Republic of Kosova' and his edits on the Visa Requirement pages

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

---

Adem Sopaj from the Republic of Kosova has been editing the "Visa requirements for [Country] citizens" pages to move or add Kosovo to the 'Visa requirements' section. This section only lists member states of the United Nations. Kosovo tends to be listed on the 'Dependent, disputed, or restricted territories' section, although not every "Visa requirements for [Country] citizens" page has that section.

He was warned in January 2023 about editing Visa requirements for Montenegrin citizens and Visa requirements for Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens without citing a reliable source.

He has commented on the talk page of users who revert his edits. On mine, he used personal attacks as part of his response to the edits I reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyTu25 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, TommyTu25! You didn't notify the reporting editor of this ANI discussion, I've done so for you. In the future, please keep this in mind for future ANI reports! Thanks! Tails Wx 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Adem indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Alpinegora

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

Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples [72] [73] [74] [75] [76], notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc [77]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

IP making personal attacks

At an argument over at an RfC on whether to ban joke BLP AfDs, 163.1.15.238 (talk · contribs) said that they "know [I] have WP:CIR issues" and told me to "come on" after I argued that tasteless AfDs can be made for non-BLP subjects. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

And Ad Orientem already told the IP to tone it down, in that thread. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, since you've brought my comment here let's have a discussion about why I said what I said, because I have had some serious concerns about your editing for a long time.

Let's start with your ongoing harassment and gravedancing campaign targeting TheCurrencyGuy. That account was blocked 6 months ago, and since then you have been embarked on a crusade to completely remove every single one of TheCurrencyGuy's contributions and preferred spellings from articles, not on the basis of policy or guideline or consensus, but seemingly so you can spite them. You are making poorly thought out, completely unjustified reverts of their edits for no good reason at all. One example is trying to remove every instance of their preferred spelling of Rouble. You have reverted months old edits they made while not blocked on the basis that they are "disruptive" or that they were later blocked, which is not how sock clean-up works e.g. [78] reverting [79], [80] reverting a ton of edits [81]. You have left articles in a broken state, because you were more focused on reverting TheCurrencyGuy than looking at what you were doing [82]. You have made ridiculous edits like swapping the spelling Rubel to Ruble, on the disambiguation page for Rubel because you are focused on removing every instance of TheCurrencyGuy's preferred spelling [83]. You are currently trying to get an RFC overturned despite an overwhelming consensus against you, because you view it as an obstacle to continue reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits [84] [85]. You have a similar, completely unjustifiable obsession with removing every single instance of "stg" in favour of "sterling", not based in policy, but seemingly because TheCurrencyGuy liked using stg [86] [87] [88] [89] [90].

I could continue by pointing out that your disruption related TheCurrencyGuy is just the latest example of a long list of you making disruptive, WP:POINTY edits in response to disagreements. Another example would be the time that you requested an admin block you if the result of a deletion discussion wasn't to your liking [91].

We could discuss your history of disruption with regard to the arbitration committee? let's start with the time you tried to file an arbitration case for a routine matter which didn't involve you and which did not require arbcom involvement at all [92]? How about the time you falsely accused Thryduulf of disruptive editing because they made some redirects you didn't like [93] then threatened to drag them to arbcom because they are a functionary [94]. How about the time you decided that you wanted arbcom to rule that no-one was allowed to make pages you don't like and enshrine your opinions in policy [95]. Shall we finish this off with a review of your recent, useless comments in cases that have nothing to do with you? Let's start with your involvement in the deletion discussions case, where you decided that arbcom needed to clarify if an AFD topic ban applied to other deletion venues, and felt it needed an explanation of how it applied to April fools jokes [96]. How about your comments in the Lugnuts case, where you felt "I had to ask Lugnuts for clarification once" was evidence of "misconduct" worthy of arbcom [97].

We could talk about the fact that you cannot accept criticism and have "retired" from the project, only to come back once the heat dies down? How about your ridiculous dramatic WP:PRAM "I demand release to elsewhere" messages when asking for self requested blocks [98] and dramatic, ridiculous leaving messages [99].

Shall we discuss the massive amount of disruption and time wasting you have caused with regards to April fools day? Let's start with this edit, where you simultaneously acknowledge that an editors' behaviour was "disruptive" and "strongly inappropriate" while insulting the admin that refused to unblock them with accusations of bias and calling them "the fun police" [100]. Does it really require 4 admins to explain to you why AFDing Donald Trump is a terrible, terrible idea [101]? How about this egregious waste of community time, where you opened a deletion review over an April fools joke page you G7'd, waited for a bunch of people to comment, then decided to keep the page deleted anyway to make a WP:POINT when someone criticised your timewasting [102]. How about the Bobby Witt Jr. AFD [103], which you created, decided was too offensive to keep and blanked, spent two weeks messing around with the humour template, added a disclaimer, started an MFD discussion to delete it [104] decided you wanted to keep it, unblanked, and proceeded to spend months continuing to mess around with. You were still messing around with this page in July!

We could discuss your attempts to write your own essays and policies (e.g. WP:FRIED, WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE) which were unanimously rejected by the community [105] [106] [107] and the follow up tantrum where you deleted everything when you didn't get your way?

What about the fact you accused a 10 year old, 30k edit account of being a sockpuppet of a user who joined last year with absolutely no sensible evidence whatsoever [108] in a sockpuppet investigations filing you described yourself as "contrived".

Shall we discuss your disruptive, often downright nasty comments at RFA where you find flimsy reasons to oppose everyone you've ever had any kind of minor grudge adainst? Lets start with your oppose on Spicy's RfA on the basis that they weren't sufficiently polite when telling you your baseless SPI was without merit [109] [110]. How about Extraordinary Writ, who you opposed because they declined a WP:RM/TR you filed once [111]. How about DatGuy, who you accused of UPE because they made a mistake filling out the nom statement [112].

So yes, I said you have CIR issues, because you have CIR issues, and I had the diffs to prove it. I acknowledge that I was rude in that discussion for which I apologise, I should have voiced my concerns in appropriate venue and just posted here, but a review of the last 2 years of your editing shows an endless pattern of disruption, pointiness/revenge editing and screwing around. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have re-opened this discussion as one of the parties apparently feels there are unresolved issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The only outstanding issues of mine from your wall of text is the Witt AfD (that I am willing to let go if consensus so mandates) and the TCG situation. Yes, I admit that I favour "ruble", but if you think about it, it has been "ruble" for quite the time before TCG started to mass-change them into "rouble". And over at Talk:Pound sterling, I did hold an RfC on "stg", and consensus favoured its removal in favour of "GBP". Therefore, the TCG situation, though controversial, is a non-point in your argument.

If you really think I am that problematic, you should hold a discussion here regarding sanctions against me - after all, you do have a superficially strong case to do so. And if you think the Witt MfD is unfunny, please go MfD it (again); I pledge that I will not unpromptedly repeat the acrimoniousness that was my DRV. Just try not to dig up my rookie mistakes like WP:FRIED that has long been the water under the bridge, and present them as evidence as if I have been an LTA all along.

After all, if I really were an LTA all along, why didn't the admins block me in my early days when I made WP:FRIED? How about the fact that I was never warned (let alone blocked) when I reverted TCG or made the Witt AfD? Not that any of those were meritorious actions, of course, but why have no-one noticed my apparent lack of competence until today (or yesterday, depending on time zones)?

Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• I noticed this after the mess on my talk page about the Trump AfD which they didn't even start: I agree with the IP editor's comments after reviewing all the diffs. NotReallySoroka, you're bordering on a WP:NOTHERE/CIR block because you treat Wikipedia like a social network and not like an encyclopedia, while making things harder for the people who are here to contribute to its building or maintenance. I don't think this should be closed with any sanctions at this time, but a firm warning that continued disruption will likely result in you being indefinitely blocked, either by an individual administrator or by the community at a noticeboard, is in order. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP at Battle of Adwa

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

---

Please see:

1. [113] and edits immediately preceding that first add material. Subsequent edits reinstate material.
2. [114]
3. [115]
4. [116]
5. [117]

Edit summaries reverting the IP have requested the IP discuss the subject edit. A section to discuss the disputed edits was opened at the article TP here. IP has not engaged in discussion. An edit warring notice was placed at User talk:2A00:23C4:6214:FA01:D1AA:8DF1:5B3C:6C9A.

Most recent IP address notified here.

This page is regularly protected for relatively short periods but IPs that disruptively edit return as soon as pp is lifted. PP is one solution though a range block might alo be considered in this case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Page protected x 1 year. IP 2A00:23C4:6214:FA01:0:0:0:0/64 rangeblocked x 2 weeks for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry by IP on 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs

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

---

The indefinitely blocked user, Mastergerwe97, has opened a sockpuppet account on his mobile device through this IP, 2601:193:8201:7140:85B9:E841:6F30:A19B, and is continuing to disrupt the article. He was previously blocked for using a homophobic slur. IP will need to be blocked, page protection could be needed.

His edits include:

1. [118]
2. [119]

Conyo14 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Further evidence:

1. [120]
2. [121]

This is a common pattern with this editor and they won't let go until they are forced to move on. Article protection until late June would stop them until next year. Deadman137 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

More evidence:

1. [122] Deadman137 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

   Wouldn't this be more appropriate for WP:SPI or WP:AIV? Aintabli (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

   Given that the the editor is engaged in the same behaviour that they were blocked for yesterday I would say that this is the right place at the moment. The supporting evidence is just to show that it is the same person. Deadman137 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, I've semiprotected 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs for 3 months per a request at RFPP. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

User: FortUser actively gaming EC

See the history at Wikipedia:Sandbox, several warnings on his talk page. Think a block only thing get it to stop and get them to understand the rules and the point of extended-confirmed to begin with. And by actively I mean literally right now. nableezy - 02:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I will no longer seek extended-confirmed protection by gaming the system. Please don't block me. FortUser (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Have left them an edit-conflicted note. If they stop with the sandbox games and go back to regular editing then hopefully there's nothing more to do. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. Only came as it continued for a while after the talk page messages. nableezy - 02:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely shouldn't be getting EC without requesting at WP:RFPP. To prevent someone being automatically assigned EC, do we usually grant and then immediately revoke EC? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Or wouldn't that really be necessary now since they've well and truly attracted everyones attention? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just leave it, we'll see what happens from here. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Long-term partial block needed for this IPv6 range

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

---

This IP range:

• 2601:1C0:4C80:C4F0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has quite a history of disruptive editing and BLP violations, on the following article:

• James Cassidy (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A look at the editing history from the IP range shows this editor made many BLP policy violating edits on 1 December and 6 December 2022, all of which have been revdel'd under RD2, and resulted in them being blocked twice in the past.

Since then, they have went on to make a certain kind of unconstructive edit over and over again at an irregular pace: 20 Feb 2023, 8 Apr 2023, 14 Apr 2023.

Looks like we could make use of a long-term (at least 6 months?) partial block from that article here.

—  AP 499D25  (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and  done. I've pblocked the /64 from that article for six months. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Arjuna Wikipedia page includes a Bhagavad Gita spoiler in the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph.

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

---

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

---

Hello, thank you for consideration.

I am reading Bhagavad Gita. I did a google search for the character Arjuna. I clicked the Wikipedia page for Arjuna. I was immediately exposed to a story spoiler of Bhagavad Gita.

I am not making the case that story spoilers should not be included on Wikipedia, I understand that this is allowed. But, putting this information in the third sentence of the first paragraph seems like a disservice to a curious reader of Bhagavad Gita, who decides to do an internet search of a main character. I'm making a case that is reasonable. This information about Arjuna placed in the third sentence of the first paragraph goes beyond encyclopedia purposes. Because it forces a spoiler upon the reader as soon as they start reading the page. This information might be appropriate if it was somewhere in the middle of the page or had some type of chronological order, but the third sentence of the first paragraph seems inappropriate.

Perhaps this is not intentionally malicious, but it's hard to imagine how the location of this information on the Arjuna page does more good than harm.

Would it be appropriate for me to go across Wikipedia, and insert story spoilers into the third sentence of the first paragraph of various pages? I think this would not be appropriate. This would be acting in bad faith and would do more harm than good. So, why is this acceptable on the Wikipedia page for Arjuna? I have checked other encyclopedia websites. No other encyclopedia website seems to include spoilers like this in the third sentence of the first paragraph.

So please, consider that specific details of who Arjuna killed in the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia page, are not super necessary for encyclopedia purposes. Whether intentional or not, having this information in the third sentence of the first paragraph is discourteous to readers of Bhagavad Gita. It robs readers of a piece of the story, by exposing them to this information prematurely.

If this information is removed from the first paragraph, it harms no one. If this information stays in the first paragraph, it might negatively affect other readers like me, by exposing them to a spoiler in the first paragraph of the page.

It would be reasonable if this information was in the middle of the page, or had some type of chronological order. But it's current location seems inappropriate and unnecessary.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJHans (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of an article's contents should be discussed on that article's talkpage. You should be aware, though, that Wikipedia does not avoid spoilers, even if the concept of a spoiler makes sense is the case of a 2000+ year old text. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MichaelJHans , I think you may have come to the wrong place. The appropriate place to address your issue would be the talk page of the concerned article. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that the concept of a spoiler makes sense for a piece of literature that is over 2,000 years old, the article's talk page would be a better venue to discuss this, as there appears to be no administrative action to be taken here. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The recent creation of MichaelJHans and the recent blocking of Nestofbirdnests suggests that this might be a sockpuppet situation. See the discussion at User_talk:C.Fred [123]. Pinging the involved editors @Abecedare, C.Fred, and Fdom5997:--Jahaza (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a "sock puppet" situation. There is 1 IP address that made the same edits as me. So 1 IP address is me before I made this account.

"Nestofbirdnests" is not me, but I did defend them, because I thought maybe they were just a rational person who understood my perspective. MichaelJHans (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Arjun doesn't kill anyone in the Geeta. It's a philosophical work presented in the form of a dialogue between characters who are in the middle of a battlefield, but the battle has not yet begun. The sentence you speak of would be a spoiler for the Mahabharata but you've already spoilt it by reading the Geeta first which is select chapters from the middle of the book. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler is a content guideline. So-called "spoilers" are permitted on Wikipedia, but trying to remove spoilers is not permitted. We do not cater to the superstitions or tender sentiments of stage actors and magicians, or various religions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Lol. I guess that does make me feel better if it's not included in Bhagavad Gita.

It's likely I would have spoiled what happened one way or another before reading Mahabharata, by looking up information or videos online related to the topics. Thanks. MichaelJHans (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, not really sure if "likely", maybe possible. Either way, the info is in my memory now so I'll never know. Valid consolation. Thanks again. MichaelJHans (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, Frodo and Sam destroy the One Ring, but then pass over the Sea, Winston Smith is broken and loves Big Brother, and Yossarian learns that Orr has escaped to Sweden and follows after him. Oh, and Jesus is crucified, buried and and then disappears, presumably having risen to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God, and Soylent Green is people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  You forgot Vader is Luke's father and Bruce Willis's character is dead all along. Canterbury Tail talk 09:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Canterbury Tail Bruce Willis is dead while he's driving that air taxi? That's impressive. David10244 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then why was Hans Gruber so worried? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Air taxi? I thought he was driving a sled. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken AAAAArgh! Why did you spoil the ending of the four New Testament gospels? I haven't finished reading them yet. David10244 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  <puts down Soylent Green wafer, discreetly pushes it to one side> — Trey Maturin™ 10:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait on... I'm planning to re-read my absolute favourite book a third time in the hope that this time round, Lata will marry Kabir. Does this mean she still gets married to Haresh? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(Reopened) After reviewing this a bit more I have opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nestofbirdnests Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: the SPI has no been closed as no action. Jahaza (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

trolling my talk page

.Raven is trolling my talk page. I've asked them several times to stop, but they continue. I don't know if this is some sort of game, or if they think they're somehow scoring points, but it's getting tiresome. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

.Raven left 4 different warnings on Kwamikagami's talk page, with Kwamikagami reverting the warning each time with an edit summary of "rv. troll". Diffs of the warnings: 1, 2, 3, 4

It looks like these warnings were in retaliation to an edit warring warning that Kwamikagami left on .Raven's talk page here. .Raven did reply to the warning on their talk page, indicating that there has been disagreements across multiple pages in this dispute. So there's history here which I, frankly, don't want to take the time to dig into.

Your report is very vague and expects others to do the leg work of looking into the situation. Please try to explain a situation better when making reports at ANI and include diffs to evidence when you can. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After Kwamikagami told Raven to stay off their talk page twice, .Raven posted additional template warnings to User talk:Kwamikagami, which might be considered harassment. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Very simply, I did not see his edits on my talkpage because I was still posting on his. – .Raven  ^.talk 16:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may offer background? kwami and I first encountered (as far as I know) in late March^* when he was changing numerous China-related articles – Cheng Man-ch'ing was the first I noticed – to change the ordinary apostrophe (') to an ʻokina (ʻ), a Hawaiian character. I did not revert him there or even edit that article at all; I objected on its talkpage, and as one outcome @Peaceray reverted, and took the larger issue to WT:MOS#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles, still open as I write. With that unresolved, I've tried helping restore the pages to their stable status quo ante, the default or neutral position... with kwami reverting my reverts, a move war. More recently he moved a page I'd been working on, from its clear WP:COMMONNAME of Theban alphabet (~32,900 Ghits) to the less specific Theban script (~74 Ghits, including Wikipedia)... which I reverted under WP:RMUM, and again he reverted – so that when *I* opened Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023 it was a case of BRRD. It turns out he's done the same to a number of other "alphabet" pages that (per WP:NCWS#Alphabets and the consensus on WT:NCWS) should be titled "alphabet"s. Oddly enough, he claims WP:NCWS justifies this. So now there's discussion on WT:NCWS#RFC on alphabet definition (opened by me), as well as more page move requests on some of those articles' talkpages. And discussion on his talkpage and mine. He's repeatedly accused me of "playing stupid" for not agreeing with him, and also repeatedly of "bad faith" (for instance, because I posted those page move requests.) Today he put a user warning on my page in which (with his own added text0 he told me that since those page move requests were open, I shouldn't edit the text of any of the articles. This is not only not the rule as I understand it, he himself has continued to edit those articles, so it's a "rule" he doesn't obey himself. I've responded with the same 3RR warning for the sake of the record (since he's far more active, despite being "semi-retired from Wikipedia", and engaging in both edit- & move-warring); as well as warning him about his violations of WP:AGF, WP:BRD, and WP:NPA, etc. As you saw, he's "rv. troll"'d them, and come here. I've just learned today from this page's archives that edit-warring is not recent behavior on his part. Apparently he lost at least one user-rights bit over it. That might be useful context. – .Raven  ^.talk 16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Whoops! Date is about right, but I forgot an encounter before the China-related articles, in which he insisted it was "racist" of me to refer to indigenous peoples as either a "tribe" (even if they have a "tribal government") or "ancient" (even the ones with continuous cultures since before the cut-off date in the definition of "ancient"). See User talk:.Raven#Racist use of "tribe" to mean "primitive". – .Raven  ^.talk 17:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think .Raven leaves some important context for the greater issue, and it does look like they are doing the right things with regards to dispute resolution. That being said, .Raven: if you haven't seen it before, please read WP:DTTR, and especially in light of the sequence of edits here from 13:33-14:10 today, I'm not sure how to read that as anything but low-level harassment. If kwami is reverting your warnings with "rv troll" (and yes, they should absolutely not be calling you a troll), the message is plain that they aren't interested in getting warning templates from you. If you've got a problem, explain the problem in plain English. If they ask you directly (or make it clear through their actions) that your messages aren't welcome on their user page, don't keep hammering at them. Instead, bring the matter up for dispute resolution. If they don't want to interact with you, fine. Find someone else to review the matter and give a neutral assessment. At no time should you be spamming a user's talk page with warning templates, especially not when they are currently in an active dispute with you. It comes off as rather rude. So yea, if your summary is accurate with regard to starting discussions on the talk pages, you did that part fine. That doesn't excuse hammering Kwami's user talk page with pointless templates. Start a real conversation next time, at the minimum, and if that isn't received well, then just don't. --Jayron32 16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine, OK. In my own defense, once kwami started communicating on my talkpage with a template – to which he'd added a nonexistent rule even he wasn't following – that seemed an invitation to communicate with him likewise (but with better justification, since he'd *actually* violated more policies than he alleged I had) on his webpage. Or is one-way communication a thing on WP?

And as I told Schazjmd above, I was still on his talkpage while he posted on mine; so I didn't see his messages until I got out (the alerts don't show up on my screen when I'm at the bottom of a page). – .Raven  ^.talk 16:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Someone was rude to me, so I thought it was license to be equally as rude to them" is not a defense. Next time, let other people be the wrong ones, instead of joining them in being wrong. --Jayron32 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I've had time to check, I see kwami has once again reverted me on N'Ko script (as he has renamed it from N'Ko alphabet), to delete citation of an RS which contradicts him – commenting "rv: this is an ongoing discussion -- wait for the result". But the "ongoing discussion" is Talk:N'Ko script#Requested move 10 April 2023, a page move request, which is not (that I ever heard) reason to stop editing the article text. He's deleting valid info I added, using a bogus reason.

No wonder he posted that bogus message on my talkpage. – .Raven  ^.talk 17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

... and he has continued to edit that page since then, which of course there's no rule against – except for the one he declared when reverting me. – .Raven  ^.talk 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request - Eni.Sukthi.Durres

On 10 April 2023 Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs) was blocked by @Kinu: following an ANI discussion (currently at #Long term disruption, edit warring and general incompetence by Eni.Sukthi.Durres, likely to be archived soon). I did not take part in that discussion.

Yesterday, ESD emailed me to state:

Hello old mate, hope you have been fine. I'm very glad to see that you're still active on wikipedia as I always appreciated your major contribution here.

Ok firstly I have to say that 5 years ago I declared an retirement from wikipedia as I had many engagements and I didn't had time, but due to my old passion for wiki last year I decided to return back to work even in part time and that you can see on my user page history where you also intervened against edits by unauthorized users https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres&action=history I also appreciate that. I must admit that I feel ashamed on you but I'm forced to bother you since you've been very nice to me, since here on my talk page *(I don't know if it will work as a link, sorry) but despite you blocked me in the beginning but that however served me as a lesson as we had very good collaboration then.

My friend I would be honest with you, I had very harsh disputes with experienced users including admins. here because happened to me things which I never seen before, such as reverts of my whole edits in few pages with reason of containing exaggerated text addition and not correct english but instead having also useful edits such as stats. table for example, but they reverted anything like never happened to me before with anyone of you. Believe me I asked only my rights but for wikipedia to not delete all useful edits but also to improve exaggerated text, and what did they do, attacked me, offended me also especially with pervert word d**k, etc. In the end they blocked me step by step by anything for speaking in favor of the truth. If you see my recent contributions in 2 or 3 pages you'll understand anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eni.Sukthi.Durres I would thank you if you do something even minimal for my rights as I know you're a fair admin, cheers.

I am bringing this here for community discussion. I have no opinion on the matter, and I fact I am away most of the weekend and then away on holiday for most of the next 3 weeks with limited internet access. GiantSnowman 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A cursory look at the talk page suggests to me that there is a competence issue here. If someone says they have been away so long that they have forgotten how to speak English and how to use Wikipedia, then they shouldn't be creating or amending articles until their memory is jogged. Deb (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I strongly oppose any unblock. Unfortunately, they do not have the ability to contribute at a reasonable level of English. (For what it's worth, their grievance of "offended me also especially with pervert word d**k" is clearly a misinterpretation of the statement "you can't be a dick when someone corrects your English" in the original ANI thread here; perhaps linking to WP:DICK might have helped, but that's moot now.) All of that aside, were they willing to drop their battleground mentality, there might have been areas to which they could have contributed outside of the Article namespace, and it might have resulted in a better outcome for them (e.g., only a partial block from the Article namespace). However, their threat here is grossly inappropriate. There are two possibilities: (a) that statement is not intended to be a threat, but their lack of command of English is such that it had the syntax of one; or (b) they knew exactly what was being said, and it was intended to be a threat. Whichever is the case, at least one of the two rationales for blocking applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a reason WP:DICK is marked historical. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A valid point. Not the idiom I would have used, especially given that it could be grossly interpreted by a non-native speaker. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Decline unblock Looks like the problems persist. Recommend editing on a different Wikipedia for at least six months and at least 500 edits, and then request reconsideration. Rights? Face to face? No clue as to why they are blocked.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Decline - It seems to me that the CIR block was appropriate, that it was de facto endorsed in the discussion which provoked it, and that it is much too soon for any kind of appeal of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncited edits from Young Chove 15

• Young Chove 15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Young Chove 15 has been adding an uncited cover song to Say My Name, and on the talk page, they demanded that this cover version not be removed in all caps. Looking at their talk page, they have been warned multiple times to stop their disruptive editing, but it looks like all pleas fall on deaf ears. I have reverted Young Chove 15 multiple times for adding uncited information across multiple articles and have explained to them that they are responsible for citing the content they add, as per WP:BURDEN, but they are not listening to reason. This user has been doing more harm than good over the fast few years, and I believe something needs to be done about their behavior. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle

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

Greetings! I think we have to discuss User:MrsSnoozyTurtle editing once more. I understand MrsSnoozyTurtle are passionate about fighting WP:COI, but their recents edits are unfortunately not helpful. There was a discussion about them, where many editors shown their concerns and there was some sort of consensus to topic ban them, but due to broad proposal a consensus was not reached and the discussion was archived prematurely. Hence, they received WP:ROPE (again) from the community.

I just checked their recent edits on Douglas Cumming, Berry Campbell Gallery, Ignition system and found them disturbing. They are continously failing to assume WP:GOODFAITH and are deleting useful contributions even after being reverted by by an editor who is a professor and gave a proper summary. It is clear now that they are not well-versed with WP:AFD/WP:DRAFTIFY guidelines, or even aware but don't care to follow. They nominated this page, without WP:BEFORE and without even going through the references, just because it was drafted by a "disclosed paid editor" - good way to punish them - first nominate and if that doesn't work then delete the page to bare minimum. Similarly, in the case of Berry Campbell Gallery where there is no apparent WP:COI and they are just assuming and based on that assumption, converted from a well-sourced version like this to something like this. This is what vandalism guideline says: "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" which I belive applies to them nicely.

We have to find a solution to this behavior as this is driving new potential editors away from Wikipedia which is a big loss. Thanks. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please notify the editor. See When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Also, I find it suspicious you know so much about this editor's activities given your first edit was made earlier today. Did you forget to log on? Ppt91^talk 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP notified the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And who exactly are you? An IP whose only edits are to post here with a rather expansive knowledge of policy pages, diffs, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just an IP. I travel widely, somewhat nomad lifestyle, so this happens with me. I like being an IP: we can't delete sourced information like MrsSnoozyTurtle can because somebody would revert us, can't nominate page for deletion, AfD rationale holds little value, so we just contribute and build encyclopedia. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As for Berry Campbell Gallery, WP:OVERCITE is not well-sourced. @MrsSnoozyTurtle had every reason to made these edits and to question the subject's notability given that these sources were only passing mentions rather than significant coverage. And a commercial announcement published on Artsy about the gallery's expansion does not pass WP:RS. Your remaining examples of alleged wrongdoing are similarly flawed (that being a "professor" is somehow synonymous with editorial authority and so on), but I see no point in dissecting these just to waste more time. Ppt91^talk 23:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the bandwidth to list all of their edits here. The editors who participated in the previous discussion know it is a long-term issue. They deliberately avoid scruitny by deleting all the warnings on their talkpage. I don't want to go through their talkpage again. Regarding edits, even their summaries are wrong: they removed this saying "Removing unreliable sources". Is Sangbad Pratidin unreliable? How about this: [124], remove references and then label it as "Removing unsourced text, article structure". Wow. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Having read the previous discussion it was not "archived prematurely", it fizzled out with the now indef blocked OP barely missing a WP:BOOMERANG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"indef blocked" how? 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that could be ambiguous, I meant the OP of the previous post not this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I should be sorry - I linked up wrong discussion. I was talking about the discussion in which you participated. Sorry for messing it up - somehow linked wrongly while searching. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That thread had a lot of diffs showing a specific problem, particularly edit warring. It wasn't enough to get a consensus. If those issues have returned (I hope they haven't) you'll need to show with diffs, not waving at the edit histories of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to post a similar comment. Between the misrepresentation of the old discussion and the nothingburger complaints about specific articles, there's no cause for sanctions on MrsSnoozyTurtle here. IP seems to be either deliberately misrepresenting or just reading with grudge-colored glasses. MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Corrected the previous discussion. Apologies again. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Found another comment regarding their grasp of AfD: Hello Jeppiz. Notability is not the basis for this AFD, please see the nomination statement. If notability is not an issue then why nominate? 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Grudge complaint with no merit, clearly arising from AfD disputes. This [125] exceeds my threshold for AGF. This is clearly an editor with a grudge that is trying the "everything and the kitchen sink" tactic hoping something sticks.  // Timothy :: talk  00:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)