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

NJZombie

I am moving this section from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, where it was posted in error. JBW (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This guy is tiring me. He spends his entire life reversing my edits just to make my life miserable. He meddles even in what he doesn't know for that sole purpose; annoy me. It does not differentiate a soap opera from a TV series; serials are inspired by real events, soap operas are not. I'm really losing patience and I'm making a superhuman effort to control myself and avoid a major incident. Please stop this guy. JeanCastì (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe that NJZombie is acting with the purpose of making JeanCastì's life miserable; I see no reason to doubt that NJZombie is acting in a sincere belief that they are improving the encyclopaedia.
• JeanCastì has a history of belligerence and aggression against other editors with whom they disagree.
• JeanCastì has some mistaken ideas about use of English words. An example occurs above, where they indicate that they think that to be called a "serial" something must be "inspired by real events". This may be an attempt to apply the usage of a word in JeanCastì's native language to a related word in English. However, whatever the reason may be, JeanCastì has repeatedly reverted edits indicating in edit summaries or talk pages that they are doing so because of convictions about meanings of English words which are not shared by other editors.
• JeanCastì's objections to NJZombie's attempts to correct or improve text previously edited by JeanCastì have at times been expressed in terms which are simply untrue. For example, JeanCastì wrote on their talk page "NJZombie makes my life impossible by reversing what I did claiming he has no sources. You must look at NJZombie's edits; he reverses what I did whether or not they are sourced." I have checked every article which both of these editors had ever edited before JeanCastì posted that message, and JeanCastì had never put any kind of reference to any source in any of those articles. There are other examples.
• Having said all that, both editors have been edit-warring. JeanCastì was warned about edit-warring, and although I haven't checked NJZomUse's talk page history to see whether a warning has ever been posted their, they have enough experience of editing to be aware that edit-warring is unacceptable.
• If any administrator chooses to makes blocks now, I won't quarrel with them. Failing that, however, I suggest the following:

1. Both editors should stop edit-warring, and should take note that they are likely to be blocked without further notice if they continue.
2. NJZombie is advised to avoid excessive concentration on trying to correct JeanCastì's mistakes. Although, as I have said above, I believe JeanCastì is mistaken in attributing malicious motives to NJZombie, persistently reverting one editor's contributions is likely to be seen as harassment, whether intended as such or not. This is especially so when all that is disputed is rather minor details of wording.
3. JeanCastì seems to me to be making a genuine attempt to be less combative in dealing with other editors than they were earlier. However, they need to put more work into doing so. In particular, they must avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You are exaggerating and calling me a liar telling my objections are untrue. There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar. Nobody, absolutely nobody called that guy to mess with my editions. What's more, no one, no one should reverse what anyone else does on a whim. I decided to stay away from the Bane article in other media because people don't collaborate here but try to pull the rug out from under anyone who wants to edit here. You can't judge me either, because I don't speak English well. I hope that when you use other languages in Wikipedia you will also be judged for not handling a language well. And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble. I only hope from now on that others will do their best as I will from this moment on. JeanCastì (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So much for "making a genuine attempt to be less combative". Barry Wom (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your objections ARE untrue. I asked you to provide any evidence of me reverting sourced information that you had provided. You couldn't and didn't. In fact, your lack of sourcing was the reason for your first block on January 9. Nobody needs to be called in order to address your edits. If any editor sees something they feel needs to be addressed, they can do so, including reverting. Multiple editors, including myself, attempted to explain this to you but your responses were, as they continue to be now, hostile. That was the reason for your second block on January 10. Need I say more? NJZombie (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NJZombie stop lying. My blocking was due to my hostility and therefore because I replied in a bad way to Mike. Your intentions here are bad. Don't hide the fact that you want to make my life miserable by appearing to ask me for sources. If someone needs correction that is no reason to rage against another. Stop lying because I did not receive any block on Jan 10, simply my unblock request was rejected. JeanCastì (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. Yes, you WERE only blocked once. However, it was for “Persistent disruptive and uncooperative editing”, after FIVE warnings for both hostility AND unsourced edits. In fact, the exact reasoning for the block was due to “your persistent unsourced editing, because of the fact that instead of accepting advice and information from more experienced editors and learning from it, you respond with belligerent defiance, incivility and childish attacks, and refuse to comply with Wikipedia policies.” You have some delusional misconception that I’m here to make your life miserable because I dared to revert your edits which I knew to be incorrect and not in line with Wikipedia policy. I even offered you advice about how to approach editing as a new contributor. You thought you were going to bully your edits in and when that failed, you played the victim and filed this bogus report that also hasn’t worked in your favor. I have zero interest in making your life miserable but if I find an edit of yours that I see doesn’t work, it’s going to get corrected and sometimes that means reverting. Nobody has to get your approval to do so. The hostility and false accusations are not going to fly either. Do as you will concerning your edits. I’m not here to stop you. However, if and when our paths do cross again, and I see that your edits are a problem, they will be addressed, just as they would be for any other editor, including myself.NJZombie (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As neither the original author of the complaint or the person who moved it here notified User:NJZombie of this complaint, I have done so [1].Nigel Ish (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: NJZombie was aware of the original post; in fact it was because NJZombie had told me about it that I knew of it. I intended to inform NJZombie that I had moved it, but I took other steps first, such as informing JeanCastì, and you came in before I got round to "inform NJZombie" on my list of things to do. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just one more comment. Reading the above, one might get the impression that this is just a dispute between two editors, but it isn't. JeanCastì's edit-warring and belligerence have also been directed against other editors. For example, in the article Bane in other media they have edit-warred against another editor too. There are various other examples. JBW (talk)•

  I'll be that other editor who warned JeanCastì about edit warring on the Bane in other media article. I think there's a competency problem here that goes beyond mere "minor details of wording". Here's the text they were trying to insert: [2]. It makes no sense whatsoever and even with the accompanying edit summary I still haven't a clue what they were trying to say. Barry Wom (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  JBW and Barry Wom: Can't or won't you understand that I decided not to make an edition war in order to avoid problems? You Barry judge me because I don't handle my English well. I cannot be the villain here. Besides, what I'm getting at with that edit I tried to make was to say that Bane, in the climax of the movie, temporarily becomes Mr. Freeze's assistant, since he's the one planting the bombs as Freeze places his freezer in the telescope, plus Bane fights Robin and Batgirl but defeated in an absurd way by both heroes. Best to leave it at that and I'll deal with other issues here in Wikipedia.--JeanCastì (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Simply put, if you cannot communicate well in English, this isn't the project for you. And as for your earlier retort: I hope that when you use other languages in Wikipedia you will also be judged for not handling a language well.

  I don't edit other language Wikis because I know my grasp on those languages is not good enough to properly convey meaning. You might want to consider the same. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. JeanCastì: I'm guessing your native language is Spanish? If so, wouldn't your time and effort be better spent improving the Spanish wiki?

  However, if you do insist on continuing to edit this project...

  Can't or won't you understand that I decided not to make an edition war in order to avoid problems?

  What you need to understand is that you did "make an edition war" (it's "edit war" by the way). You attempted to make the same incomprehensible edit four times [3] [4] [5] [6]. You didn't stop because you wanted to avoid problems, you stopped because you were issued with a 3RR warning. Your response to being informed that your edit was badly worded was to reinsert the edit with an edit summary of "then correct instead of reversing" and your response to the edit war warning was "And what is it difficult for you to correct what I do instead of reverting?"[7].

  It's not the job of other editors to correct your poor English. In future, if an edit you make is reverted for this reason don't attempt to reinsert it in the expectation that someone else will clean it up for you. You might want to consider trying to explain on the article talk page what you are attempting to put across. Barry Wom (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  In that edit, they are trying to extend the phrase who serves as the bodyguard/henchman of Poison Ivy to include the idea that Bane then later also works for or with Mr. Freeze, and the edit summary is about what part of the movie (?) they’re basing that on. (I am not defending this edit - obviously the sentence cannot bear the weight of the additional aside - just explaining the intent.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@JeanCastì: In a post above, timed at 17:33, 15 January 2023, you wrote "And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble." You may like to read through your posts since then, and consider whether or not any of them may look hostile to other readers. In the same post you claimed that I had called you a liar (although I hadn't) and you went on to say "There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar." Subsequently, at 18:26, 18 January 2023, you wrote "NJZombie stop lying". Thus you were saying something to another editor which in your own opinion was as offensive as anything could be. If you don't drop your habit of attacking other editors with whom you disagree now then don't be surprised if you are indefinitely blocked from editing without further notice. JBW (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to close

Considering this complaint never fit the requirements of being filed here to begin with (not an urgent, chronic, or intractable incident), and that consensus seems to indicate that the person filing it against me appears to be causing more of a problem and hasn’t been bothered to respond to anybody here in days now, can this be closed? NJZombie (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

User:WikiEditor0567

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

---

User talk:WikiEditor0567 contains a long list of files that have been deleted for failing to adhere to the Wikipedia policy on non-free content and our guidelines on the use of non-free content. The user's upload log for the English Wikipedia shows that the user has uploaded just under forty files to the English Wikipedia since June, and over twenty-five of them have been deleted for various reasons. The deleted files are listed in the collapsed table below:

After seeing this, I noticed that the and I [8] the {{end of copyvios}} template on their user talk page. Not more than three hours later, the user uploaded a non-free photograph of a living person under a claim of fair use, which is something that WP:NFC explicitly notes is something we should not do (non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people). The user is certainly aware that this sort of upload is going to get deleted, given that this has happened over a good number of times. They're not changing their behavior and they haven't seem to have found their talk page, but the user appears to have a chronic problem with their uploads of non-free content. The user has also appears to have been wholly unresponsive to concerns about potential confilict-of-interest editing that were posted on their talk page by VickKiang after the user appears to have repeatedly tried to remove deletion notices from an article that they created.

Overall, the user's behavior has continued to have been quite disruptive and talk page messages asking the user to change their behavior have not been acknowledged, so I'm bringing the user's behavior here for community discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I share RTH's concerns and issued a warning about ignoring copyright a couple of weeks ago [9]. WP:HEAR or WP:CIR issues appear pretty apparent. I believe action is required to stop this behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Would a topic ban/partial block from the file namespace work? If their mainspace editing is fine and it's just files that are causing issues, then this would enable them to edit constructively whilst avoiding files where they clearly don't understand Wikipedia's licencing rules. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from uploading non-free files. There is clear precedent for this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#Topic_ban from 2011, where Tyw7 (talk · contribs) was banned on similar grounds. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and there is a lot of clean-up to do, deleting the myriad files this editor has strewn about. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• It's not just files that are causing issues (indeed, there were conflict-of-interest editing claims that the user has not responded to, and the greater issue is that they seem to be totally ignoring their talk page). It feels a bit odd to only give somebody a topic ban from non-free images if the issue is that they aren't reading their talk page (or, in some instances, deliberately deleting AfD notices from articles they have created). I agree with and support the topic ban in principle, but I think we're addressing obvious symptoms of ignoring one's talk page in this approach rather than getting at the underlying issue of how Wikipedia:Communication is required but this editor is not communicating. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  If we think the issue is WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, it might be better (partially) block in the first place, since the only way that they would hear about their topic ban is through the talk page that they would not be able to hear. I suspect this is not an issue with being unaware of the talk page existing—there are no mobile editing tags on their edits—so I'm a bit more inclined to proceed as if they're just ignoring their talk page on purpose. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the editor has continued to make edits elsewhere instead of addressing concerns here. If there were some way to entice them to actually participate here to provide explanations for their behavior, I would welcome it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per LaundryPizza03 and Red-tailed hawk (thanks for the ping). The user's previous removal of AfD templates as commented above, lack of communication, previous copyvios in mainspace (e.g., Saibaan was deleted under G12 2 months ago), adding puffery in mainspace articles (e.g., in Draft:Saibaan, Sindhyar Memon), and the fact that 5 out of their 6 articles have been deleted are also potentially questionable. The user appear to have refrained from removing AfD templates or edits being copyvios in mainspace, which is laudable, but if some of these other issues are still current. If they continue, escalating warnings might also be necessary. Thanks, please ping me if I got anythings wrong. VickKiang (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as described above. Fixes the problem, and still allows the user to contribute in other ways. --Jayron32 15:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that it's been over 72 hours since the TBAN was proposed, and it looks like there's a unanimous consensus for it, would closing this thread and implementing the community-imposed topic ban be warranted? I'd rather this not get archived without action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 1 days. Per the statement by Red-tailed hawk above. Feel free to remove this bump if desired. Linguist111 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Mehrdad Biazarikari

Mehrdad Biazarikari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello! While they haven't reached the amount of reversions needed for AIV, User:Mehrdad Biazarikari has made many disruptive and nonsensical edits in the past (see contribs). In addition, they have created two articles directly about themselves (Draft:Mehrdad Biazarikari and Draft:Flight 176), and show no willingness to learn about how to make articles and edit constructively. Seems like WP:CIR applies in my opinion. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this does seem like a case of WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. They also don't seem to know to make edits based on the Manual of Style (i.e. [10] [11][12]), which was brought up by @Eejit43 here. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ok

i will delet all of them, Mehrdad Biazarikari (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits do show lack of competence. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and wikihounding by Dawit S Gondaria

Dear Wikipedia Admin,

I am writing to bring to your attention a serious issue regarding the actions of user Dawit S Gondaria on the Wikipedia page for Hadiya People. I have noticed that this user has been making edits that include defamation of notable individuals of the Hadiya People, falsification, and manipulation of information, as well as inserting misleading content that is not supported by any published sources. This behavior seriously undermines the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia as a source of information.

Furthermore, the user is abusing me and other users who do not take his deliberate effort to falsify history to fit his own ill-intentioned agenda for truth. He even threatened to get me blocked if I take out any of his unsubstantiated information. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies, which require that all information must be verifiable and that sources must be reliable and secondary.

In light of the above, I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by Dawit S Gondaria. I kindly request that you take immediate action to investigate the actions of this user and take corrective measures to address the inaccuracies and violations of policy that have occurred. I have provided evidence of the false and manipulated information, as well as credible sources to support the correct information in my previous comments. I also request that you review all actions and conversations of this user and take appropriate action.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Cushite Please check all his actions and the conversation and all the sources I provided in response to his previous comment below. Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hadiya people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

After militarily occupying Hadiya, many kings of Ethiopia and high-ranking members forcefully married Hadiya women; Queen Eleni of Hadiya is one example. This would result in wars with neighboring Adal Sultanate, who did not take kindly to the atrocities committed by Ethiopia against its fellow Muslim state Hadiya. Your quote is not supported (Hassen) by the source and highly misleading. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We take all concerns regarding accuracy and neutrality of our articles seriously. The quote in question is based on published article in per-review academic journal. We have also attached a list of references to our article to support the information provided. 1. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART II) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731322 2. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART 1) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731359 3. A Muslim State in Southern Ethiopia - Geschichte der Hadiya Süd-Äthiopiens. By Ulrich Braukämper. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980. Pp. xv + 463. DM. 87. (The Journal of African History , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 558 – 559 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700019952) Cushite (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and wikihounding  by Dawit S Gondaria Cushite (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Another editor reverting your edits in good faith is not vandalism or wikihounding. You might want to read WP:NOTVANDALISM. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite: I have seen this ANI and will be responding to it later today. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite: Here is one edit where you put back content that wasn't supported by the Hassen source, misleading to begin with, and a fabrication of ties with Adal.[[13]] that was further emphasized with lies by this quote Ethiopian and Adal relations continued to sour after the Hadiya incident and reached its peak at the Ethiopian–Adal war This is not a quote backed by the Jstor journal, which i read. So we have a content dispute, i take issue with all these fabrications.

Secondly after removing the fabrications in the article, you removed my properly sourced and verified content [[14]] with a working link of the pages in google book. sidenote: I also have the physical book in possesion. You then spoke in we terms (speaking in group terms is odd, but not the core issue) in the edit summary [[15]] and claimed i added information that was not supported by credible sources. I challenge that strongly, here or any other forum you like.

Third, provide proof for your serious accusations of wikihounding? I just saw manufactured rubbish at Hadiya people article and decided to improve it, noticed you reverting rubbish back, and warned you for it on your talkpage, that's not hounding or is it?

Fourth, you chose the wrong avenue. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious offense. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, arguments without credible evidence sourced from peer-reviewed academic journals are not acceptable in these debates. It is imperative to note that the credibility of sources used must be supported by secondary sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals. In this specific case, the information I have included is backed by two journal articles by Ulrich Braukamper in 1977, as well as a secondary journal article published by Roland Oliver in 2009.

The source used by the other user, "The Ethiopian Borderlands" by Richard Pankhurst, is a book that is often written for a general audience and does not have the level of detail or fact-checking as journal articles. It appears that the other user may not be well-versed in the historical context of events in the medieval period in the Horn of Africa. The history of the relationship between the Adal Sultanate and the seven Islamic principalities (Yifat, Dawaro, Arababni, Hadiya, Sharkha, Bale, and Dara) under the Zayla federation is well-documented. The Hadiya Sultanate was known to be the wealthiest and militarily strongest among these principalities. These principalities existed during the medieval period in the Horn of Africa and were significant for their political and economic power in the region. Cushite (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're not going to provide evidence for your accusations of wikihouding? Yet you're going to throw more accusations? You just said The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious. Please show us the diffs where i did that? Deliberately and defamatory at that?

The problem is not the Jstor journal, the problem is you reverting back to a synthesised version with a totally fabricated genesis which was not supported by the Hassen, Trimingham and Jstor Journal sources [[16]] (Hassen source didn't back this qoute After militarily occupying Hadiya, many kings of Ethiopia and high-ranking members forcefully married Hadiya women; Queen Eleni of Hadiya is one example. This would result in wars with neighboring Adal Sultanate, who did not take kindly to the atrocities committed by Ethiopia against its fellow Muslim state Hadiya very misleading, no mention of Eleni, no mention of many kings and high-ranking members, and the main issue, no mention of this being a factor leading to wars with Adal sultanate, a fabricated alliance/genesis. Which is followed by another unrelated quote from Spencer Trimingham Adal Sultanate attempted to invade Ethiopia in response however the campaign was a disaster and led to the death of Sultan Badlay ibn Sa'ad ad-Din at Battle of Gomit, no mention of this being a response of what supposedly happend to Hadiya, another event falsly associated with Hadiya. Thirdly the Braukamper journal quote Ethiopian and Adal relations continued to sour after the Hadiya incident and reached its peak at the Ethiopian–Adal war, Hadiya would join the Adal armies in its invasion of Ethiopia during the sixteenth century. The first part of this quote is fake and refers to a false genesis with a so-called Hadiya incident and a fabricated tale that it played any role between the animosity between Ethiopian Empire and Adal.

Third Richard Pankhurst (Ethiopianist) is one of the most well known scholars on Ethiopian studies, his books are highly regarded including The Ethiopian Borderlands. You didn't seem to have an issue with Pankhurst over the many months you have been editing the article, since an entire piece is still in the article. Cherry picking which content or version of history you like from Pankhurst? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Cushite, please note: using terms like "defamation" could imply that you are invoking legal terms to have a chilling effect. I'd advise not using those terms in this discussion, stick to the facts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:That Article Editing Guy

Report by User:Mvcg66b3r

Re-report: Re-adding unneeded non-free files (see [17] and [18]). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment This should be an WP:SPI report for SPWTulsaOK1213. Please file one; ANI isn't a catch-all noticeboard when we have procedures for it. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The files in question were WP:BOLDly removed, thus making them "orphaned non-free use" eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5. The uploader was notified and they re-added the files to de-orphan them. There's really nothing disruptive about such a thing and it's something that's happens quite a lot. Opinions as to whether a non-free file is needed often differ depending upon who you ask, and often further discussion is needed to sort things out. Trying to have a non-free file deleted per F5 for WP:NFCCP reasons other than WP:NFCC#7 is perhaps OK once, but once the file has been re-added by someone another process should be followed. There are things like {{rfu}}, {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}}, WP:PROD and WP:FFD where files can be tagged or nominated for deletion for more specific reasons that F5. Removing the files for a second time risks edit warring and wouldn't be considered an exception to 3RR per item 5 of WP:3RRNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment I will agree that some of the pictures are definitely PD (certainly the all-text and minimally-illustrated newspaper ads excerpted from Newspapers.com-acquired microfilm cannot possibly be copyrighted) and should not have been removed (this editorial in the National Archives has had its copyright released just by its being archived by a U.S. government employee), and I should expect them to be re-reviewed and classed as such (some pictures of course violate F-U, but certainly not all of them). Nate • (chatter) 04:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the archiving of a work by a government employee does not erase the copyright of the underlying work. Any additions made by the archivist are, yes, in the public domain. Even the National Archive admits this when they say "The vast majority of the digital images in the National Archives Catalog are in the public domain." The "vast majority" is not all; the reason most of the materials in the Archive are in the public domain is because they were works of the US government. (That's not to say that an editorial from 1962 might not be in the PD for other reasons.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair, which is why I was happy to have the second opinion determine that. Thank you, Nat. Nate • (chatter) 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Report by Sammi Brie

In the last three weeks, this new editor has been causing some havoc with TV stations and other pages and has been adding a lot of low-quality non-free images that arguably aren't covered under NFURs and aren't terribly useful in their respective pages (e.g. newspaper clippings of advertisements, such as File:WGRZ call letter announcement.jpg). ANI is, of course, a last resort, but the user so far has not engaged any criticism of their work, mostly reverting removals and "de-orphaning" images. I'm trying to get their attention and get them to engage. I left a user talk message a week ago but never really got a reply. The number of automated talk page notices suggests continued activity at a high volume, as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There already is a discussion about this user above at #User:That Article Editing Guy reported by User:Mvcg66b3r; so, maybe it would be best to combine the two threads to avoid any possible confusion and redundancy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 11:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

JRRobinson

JRRobinson (talk · contribs) - a user with a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, with warnings about this on their talk page from 2007, 2012, 2015...I blocked them in September 2022, their response was just 'I forget to add sources', but they have continued to add unsourced content to BLPs. Posting here for wider review. GiantSnowman 20:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• General Comment if the editor just "forgot" to add sources, it would also track that most of the time the editor would "remember" to add sources. But if it happens a lot (which seems to be the case here), it doesn't really matter -- "forgot" or "did it on purpose" -- the end result is the same. The sources are not in the articles and could easily violate WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Where's the evidence of an ongoing problem or discussion about it? I see one example of a good-faith edit lacking sources, and a rather precipitous warning "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material" from an admin that blocked him in the past, but not much else except long ago at multi-year intervals. He bugged me a bit by reverting my case fixes, but I don't see this or the other as a big deal; particularly, a previously involved admin should not be threatening a block where others haven't even tried to talk to the editor. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, this editor has warnings from numerous editors going back to 2007, 16 years for the same behaviour. It is not a one-off and it is not me solely highlighting this issue. As for ongoing issue, other than the diff above, other recent unsourced edits include this (height not in the source provided) and this. GiantSnowman 16:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• How about back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing..., and I'd rather try and find sources other than Twitter feeds, like my one with Connor Shanks that I just had to redo. Common sense is also missing from loads of other people on here, with regards to silly "guidelines". If anything, ItsKesha and Lee Vilenski should be held to account for making silly edits which ruin great darts articles.JRRobinson (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose you mean to include me among those ruining darts articles by making edits based on silly guidelines. If you're not going to even give a try to be a better collaborator, which means at least somewhat respecting policies and guidelines, then I retract my defense of you above. Dicklyon (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Bizarre to me that you think following policy and following consensus should make people have to be "held to account". My impression is you have an ownership issue with certain items, especially reverting against policies outlined by Dicklyon above and also things like this. You don't get to simply choose which policies effect certain articles. I would have left it as is without a warning until I was pinged here, but those "silly guidelines" are the consensus of many users. Back to the original topic, you need to provide a source when making changes, especially when on a WP:BLP. Suggesting that "you clearly don't read Twitter much, do you...??" when asked for a source is crazy for such an experienced editor. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Um. "Back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing?" Sorry, I started on WP before you did, and there hasn't been a time since I arrived when articles did not need to be sourced. I also echo the other editors in reiterating that those same "silly" guidelines are the rules of the road here, ones that all WP editors are bidden to follow. It is a very poor look for an editor with your longevity and edit count not to have wrapped your head around that. Ravenswing 01:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say anyone who is so blasé about adding unsourced content to BLPs should have a topic ban from BLPs. That "silly guideline" is how we prevent making false claims about a living person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is my point - he just doesn't care, and his edits are disruptive as a result. GiantSnowman 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Lauriswift911

A frank admission of violation Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Kazman322 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kazman322 This is WP:Compromised, when you meet this next time, you'd better report them to a sysop (if possible, to a steward) Lemonaka (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects created by recently discovered HughD sockpuppet

A few days ago, Lettler was indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet of HughD following an WP:SPI investigation opened by me regarding another sockpuppet account. Since the ban, I've been nominating articles and redirects created by the Lettler sockpuppet for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Unfortunately, that account was active since March 2020 and has clearly done a lot between that time and the ban. @Shirt58: noticed my speedy deletion requests and suggested that I raise the issue here as well. I agreed given HughD's prolific activity under the Lettler name, so here we are. Love of Corey (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

List of redirects created by Lettler. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, a list! That's useful. Now I can go through and re-make every single one. Since there was no reason to delete them in the first place except our dumb vengeance pact against sockpuppets. Silverseren^C 05:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Per wp:EVADE I think you can just revert those changes with no other justification. From EVADE, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Springee (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of not being a suicide pact, though, please don't delete any that happen to be useful redirects. Most of these seem rather obscure, but if other editors have linked through the redirect after its creation, it should be tagged and kept. BD2412 T 05:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• On a separate note, what was HughD originally banned for? Were there any article-specific issues such as copyvio problems, hoaxes, other things like that? Or were their articles perfectly fine and they were banned for other reasons? Silverseren^C 05:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reading through their talk page, it looks like it was an Arbcom topic ban being violated frequently over editing conservative political topics, yes? So I'll just need to do a read-through for bias. Silverseren^C 05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Original suggester here. " I think this should possibly be mentioned at WP:ANI - which, whether we like or not, is the default en.wp community noticeboard - if only to get more eyes on this..." is what I wrote. If any or all of this suggestion was a bad idea on my part, I take full responsibility. On reflection, I should probably have suggested WP:AN instead of WP:AN/I, as I guess WP:AN is the more correct noticeboard for people with the delete buttons. But it's here now. --User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  No need for apologies: getting more eyes on an issue is no crime. Ravenswing 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Actively harming Wikipedia

Okay, this is beyond extreme. Love of Corey is going through literally all of HughD's edits anywhere and reverting them, no matter the content. How are reversions like this or this beneficial in the slightest? You're just actively making Wikipedia worse on purpose. At this point, I feel like we need a bot to revert all of your edits over the past few days to fix things. But I suppose I'll have to go through and do it myself. Silverseren^C 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that the point, though? To undo all the edits that were done by a sockpuppet in evasion of a ban? Love of Corey (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh, no. There is absolutely no "point" of that being required. Why do you think it's beneficial to remove actually good additions for this purpose? How does that help anything? Silverseren^C 19:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Springee already described it perfectly from WP:EVADE as seen above. Love of Corey (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone is free to, not that anyone is required to. Why are you purposefully choosing to make harmful reversions to articles when that isn't required? Silverseren^C 19:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You're accusing me of intentionally committing vandalism and I really, really, REALLY don't appreciate that. Now, I'm sorry for not being as well-informed with my decisions as I thought I was. I'm going to focus on nominating some of the sockpuppets' categories for deletion now; that was the plan for today, anyway. Love of Corey (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe's comment below is correct. If the edits are constructive then it's generally best not to revert. If they are marginal, or if we aren't sure if the content is really DUE etc then you can revert. Do keep in mind that if others are pushing back then it makes sense to slow down. HughD was certainly a very problematic editor but I didn't see anything that looked obviously wrong unlike some of their EVADE edits in the past. Springee (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As another example here, Love of Corey removed a public domain photo of the article subject from the article merely because HughD was the one who added it to the infobox. I can think of no explanation of how that is a beneficial edit. Silverseren^C 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see your response until now, Springee. I guess I'm going to hit the "stop" button on this until I see where exactly this goes. Love of Corey (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's always going to be a balance. Revert on site, and many of HughD's edits have been reverted on site, is meant to not reward socks. The hope is if their efforts are wasted perhaps they won't continue to sock. I think that works well in cases where the edits or talk page comments are relatively neutral overall. Of course a bad edit will be reverted anyway. However, a truly good edit should be left. Part of why EVADE and similar exist is for cases like the following, HughD_sock makes an edit to the article and to the talk page. Normally I shouldn't be allowed to delete someone else's talk page comment. However, because this is an EVADE case I can. Also, if someone wonders why I reverted what might look like an otherwise valid edit with no justification, EVADE is that justification. But, if people, as we are seeing here, are objecting then a pause or a more careful review of the evading edits is in order. Springee (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The relevant text is WP:BANREVERT, which pretty clearly states that while anyone can revert all edits of a banned editor, they do not have to revert all edits. Edits that are clearly helpful can and arguably should be allowed to remain.

In other words, revert the bad edits of a banned user, but you can leave the good ones be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the much-rarer-than-tends-to-be-the-case instances where WP:IAR applies. Like Silverseren, I've never understood the point behind blanket reverts of sockpuppet edits where those edits are clearly productive and accurate. We do not allow admins to issue purely punitive blocks; what makes purely punitive reverts acceptable? I see that Love of Corey is at the all-caps, bolded level of snarling regarding charges of vandalism, but frankly, reverting otherwise-sound edits of a sock for no other apparent reason than "Take THAT, you bastard! Hahaha!" ... what else would you call that? Ravenswing 21:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user and not the good ones... that's the same thing we are supposed to do with a not-banned user. And thus, there is no actual such thing as "banning". This seems a bad idea in the larger picture. It just encourages "banned" users to continue as they were, and puts additional weight on other editors to sort out their good and bad edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone was banned for something that had nothing to do with making bad edits, but instead for problems with other editors or such things, why would their edits be presumed bad at all? Silverseren^C 22:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they are bad edits even if they are factually accurate -- the banned user is stealing from the Wikipedia community our ability to control things here. The person who breaks into my house to wash my dishes is still breaking into my house. I realize that this might not matter to you, given your announced intention to harass another, non-banned user by pointily undoing their every edit, but we do ban people for reasons and it should mean something. If you wish to see an end to banning n Wikipedia, that is a more involved process that should not be started with you targeting an editor who is making permitted edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, "stealing", got it. So this is getting into the whole United States penal system sort of thing where it's about punishing bad people no matter the cost. Even if we burn down the house in the process, so long as the Bad(TM) person is punished, then the goal is accomplished. Because the goal here isn't to make an encyclopedia, it's to make sure people get what they deserve, especially when they defy The Rules(TM).

Also, it was my announced intention to revert the removal of positive content. Because I'm here to actually make an encyclopedia. Unless you see the purpose in things like removing an image from a biography merely because the banned user was the one that added it to the infobox? Silverseren^C 23:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's not like a permanent block on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is grounds for life imprisonment in an actual prison. We're not taking away or violating any actual rights here. HughD is still free to live their life however they please.

Now, I'm not intimately familiar with the situation that led to HughD's permanent block, but a cursory look at their talk page shows me that they were topic-banned for their edits on modern-day U.S. political topics and warned a few times for edit-warring. HughD did not seem to appreciate why they were topic-banned and continued making edits in violation of the topic bans, which led to several temporary blocks, at least one AE discussion, and eventually, a permanent block for sockpuppetry to circumvent the topic bans. I'm also seeing a few talk page discussions about wikihounding and other harassment of users. (If anyone who is more familiar with the HughD situation is seeing this, please feel free to jump in if I'm missing anything or misinterpreting/misrepresenting any of the facts.)

From my observations and understanding, HughD's actions and history leading up to the permanent block shows that they do not get along well with others, they do not appreciate the rules and the warnings and consequences that are handed down for any rule violations, and they are uninterested in working with others to help build this encyclopedia. Their behavior, which is constantly being revisited as evidenced by the recent SPI investigation, has compromised their ability to be a positive contributor. Sockpuppetry itself aside, HughD's sockpuppets have edited articles that center around topics they were topic-banned from, e.g. mass shootings, which is obviously a central topic in the U.S. gun politics debate, a modern-day U.S. political topic. So it doesn't matter how positive or beneficial these newer edits are. These are edits regarding topics that they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. By permanently leaving these edits up, we are essentially rewarding HughD for skirting a block over a topic they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. If that's the case, then what's the point of permanent blocks, then? Or overall blocks, for that matter? Surely WP:BLOCKPOL was instituted for a reason, right?

Now, I apologize for the wildly indiscriminate, widespread reversions, especially regarding articles and topics that I don't normally dabble in and therefore don't have an actual understanding of. I obviously did not understand that there's no urgency in addressing all of those edits, and the difference between "can" and "have to". However, it sounds to me that you don't support any sort of reversion happening here in the near-future or in the long term (especially judging by the reversions you're doing for categories that I intend to have deleted), which is why I'm making this argument. Love of Corey (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ANY editor who watches a page is sorting out good edits vs bad edits, and that's the point of those who make new page or anti-vandalism patrolling their WP work, so gussying that up as some uniquely onerous imposition is garbage. The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. The actual wording of WP:BANREVERT -- had you cared to read it -- starts with "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand) ..." You will find nothing in there requiring such reversions.

Beyond that, are you seriously suggesting that failure to revert every edit posted in violation of a socking ban constitutes an incentive to sock? Seriously? That's ... a fairly breathtaking leap of illogic. And irrelevant in any event. Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia, and eliminating otherwise sound edits out of nothing more than a sense of revenge is senseless. Ravenswing 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia..." But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? If we want to get more specific, would a sockpuppet's edits still be good even if they concern the same kind of topics that got the sockmaster blocked in the first place, as I articulated above? No matter how good they actually are? What is the line that we want to draw here based on these arguments? And would that make any sort of policy, useful or otherwise, obsolete? Love of Corey (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Inherently disruptive" on their own? Would you explain that? Disruptive how? We're not going to anthropomorphize them, surely, and claim that the bytes are sneaking around Wikipedia, spreading sockpuppetry oogieness over pure and decent edits, are we? Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits. All we have to go on is whether the edits themselves are accurate, and are well-sourced.

Beyond that, think for a moment on why we ban people. We don't do it because this is some geeky MMORPG, or to have safe targets upon whom to take out our aggressions. We do so to protect the encyclopedia. "Protect" it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.

A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution. Ravenswing 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits." So, what, are you saying that, despite their permanent block, the edits by HughD's sockpuppets should stay up because we have no idea what HughD's character or qualifications are? Even though, judging by what I saw on HughD's talk page, there was clearly some concern about their character, e.g. the discussions about harassment?

"We do so to protect the encyclopedia. 'Protect' it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.

A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution." That seriously, literally does not make any sense. What's the point in blocking sockpuppet accounts, then, if they aren't being unpleasant to other editors and making sound edits? What was the point in blocking HughD's latest sockpuppet accounts? They weren't being unpleasant to me or anyone else, and their edits were otherwise sound. If I hadn't become suspicious of how similar their edits were to an IP sockpuppet that I was already aware of, they would've continued editing virtually undetected, at least until someone else got suspicious later on. What would the justification be in blocking them, if they didn't fall under those "two broad categories". Love of Corey (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? In the same way that a bad person can do a good thing, a disruptive editor can (on occasion) make good edits. Where a disruptive editor has been banned for socking, their edits should not be reverted wholesale simply because of their ban. They should only be reverted if they are judged by those familiar with the topic to be disruptive.

The point of the BANREVERT policy is not to punish the disruptive editor. It is there to make it easier to clean up bad edits, hence why it has an opt-out of 3RR as there may be many non-sequential edits that need to be analysed and reverted. But it also warns those cleaning up to exercise care when reverting a banned editor, as the material you may be restoring could breach one or more of the core content policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Then what would the purpose of a topic ban be? Surely a topic ban here means an editor cannot be allowed to edit articles of a certain topic, right? Love of Corey (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If an editor is being disruptive either in the article or talk spaces it generally eats up editorial time. The exact nature of the disruption isn't really relevant, because in the end all forms of it will waste editorial time in some manner or another. Topic bans are there to prevent that disruption in the first instance, by encouraging that editor to edit non-disruptively elsewhere. While yes a topic ban means an editor will not be allowed to edit articles of that topic, that is only the case to prevent harm to other editors and article integrity. And while that may seem like punishment to the person who receives a TBAN, usually followed by complaints of "Why was I topic banned? I was only speaking the truth", that is secondary to the primary purpose; to prevent disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user? We're supposed to revert bad edits in general; it's not commanded of us, but reverting bad edits we see is a fairly standard part of Wikipedia editing. Reverting bad edits is a key tool in improve Wikipedia. Or are you suggesting that banned users have some sort of extra privilege to have their bad edits ignored??? A banned editor editing Wikipedia is inherently disruptive. It is disrupting our banning. What, if anything, does "banning" mean to you if it doesn't mean they're not allowed to edit here? Your demand that we overlook the ban is fighting against a lot of effort that has gone into considering and placing those bans. If all you see in the bans is "revenge", then I suggest you need to look further. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's fine to purposefully make an article worse, such as by removing the primary image for the article subject, so long as doing so is sticking it to a banned user? Apparently the rules behind the banning is more important to you than actually working on improving this encyclopedia? Silverseren^C 00:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Being able to actually ban users and keep them from taking part here is of use in the larger picture of building this encyclopedia, as I see it. If you don't feel that's the case, you are welcome to start an appropriate attempt to change the policies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Nat what you're arguing for would be a change in policy. BANREVERT already states clearly that edits by users in violation of a ban should not be reverted solely because they were made by a banned editor. The current policy is already to exercise editorial judgement on whether or not the edit by the banned user improves the article. If it improved it, leave it be. If it made it worse, revert it. If you wish to see all edits by banned users reverted solely because they were made by a banned user, then I'm afraid you would need to seek a change to policy in this case, and judging from the comments here I'm not sure that there would be a consensus for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You really are terribly insistent on responding to some conversation going on in your own head, instead of what other people are saying. Let me see if I can simplify this: no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits. Let me say this as well: no one is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Are any of those statements inherently unclear? Socks of banned editors, when found, are banned, and at that point they can make no more edits. So much so is good. What we are saying -- and what is confirmed by the explicit text of WP:BANREVERT -- is that there is neither a need to revert sound edits, nor a requirement to do so. I really have no idea why this simple concept seems to hard to grasp, or why you're kicking and screaming so strenuously against it. If you disagree with the provisions of BANREVERT, and you want a bright line requirement that all edits of banned users need to be stricken at once, then go to the talk page and try to build consensus for your POV. Ravenswing 01:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. So say, hypothetically, I get blocked because I violated a topic ban on mass shooting-related articles. I then create a sockpuppet account and leave a well-sourced, non-vandalistic edit on a mass shooting-related article. My sockpuppet account is discovered and gets blocked, but my edit stays up because it is, by your definition, "sound", despite the topic ban that I originally got blocked for. This is basically what HughD did for at least their recent sockpuppets. Do you see the loophole that this opens?

And yes, I get what you're saying here now, some edits by socks are genuinely good and there is neither a need nor a requirement to revert them. But when genuinely good edits are done at the expense of the genuinely good reasons why the sockmaster was blocked in the first place, I really do think this is where we are sort of obligated to address those genuinely good reasons for the original block and act accordingly. Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The loophole is already there: it is in the plain text of BANREVERT. Does this method require examination and judgment on the part of an editor reviewing the material in your hypothetical, instead of just doing a knee-jerk revert? Yep, it sure does. But that's scarcely different from how that works with any editor. I have a few hundred articles on my watchlist, and I cast an eye over every edit to them, minor or no, unless they're executed by editors whose work I have reason to trust. Ravenswing 01:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Then that is absolutely unfair and completely defeats the purpose of sanctioning people for topic ban violations and getting around previous blocks. Under my hypothetical and your reasoning, as long as I behave well and make good edits, it won't matter how many times my sockpuppet accounts are found. I just have an incentive to just keep making more sockpuppet accounts and continue making edits that circumvent that topic ban, since I have no concerns that my material will keep standing after I am blocked yet again. What would the point be in blocking a sockpuppet account of mine for the millionth time, if I'm not being disruptive? You might as well just unblock the sockmaster account and say, "No harm, no foul, you weren't being disruptive with your sock accounts so I'd say you've learned your lesson." Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned. But that doesn't mean that typos should be reintroduced or legitimate categories deleted. I find a lot of sock edits, and if their legitimacy is even the slightest bit questionable, I revert them. But if reverting the edit is ultimately disruptive (i.e. if the edit were not a revert and instead made by another editor, it'd be considered vandalism) then reverting the edit is absolutely the wrong action. For a great while, there was an LTA that did nothing but delete whitespace and fix punctuation errors in an effort to get accounts extended confirmed. Reverting those edits would be a fool's errand. To act to the detriment of an article is to validate the disruption of banned users, not the other way around. --Sable232 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned." Which is what HughD did. Edit on articles they had been topic-banned from in the first place, a.k.a. they were not allowed to edit them in the first place, regardless of how genuinely good an edit would otherwise be. Love of Corey (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

HughD was initially topic banned because they were disruptive in the area of American Politics and climate science. They had already been pushing the patience of admins prior to the ban because as an editor they would do what they wanted regardless of consensus. They also frequently made pointy edits. So lots of not bright line things that resulted in a topic ban. They then violated the topic ban and eventually earned a 6 month block. After that they decided to open a large number of sock accounts and continue the disruptive but often not bright line violation edits. When you look back at their long history of socks you see a lot of edits that are either attempts to put pet sources into articles (ie not improvements but typically not vandalism or out right bad edits) or you see edits where they are trying to target other editors. For example, arguing against a proposal only based on who is making the proposal, not the quality of the proposal. Thus the issue wasn't making good edits where they were otherwise tbanned. It was making edits that generally were negative even if not bright line violations. It was trying to target other editors etc. Still, we should think about what is best for Wikipedia. If they are fixing a clear spelling/grammar error of course we wouldn't revert. For most category stuff, so long as it's neutral, I wouldn't worry about it. Springee (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Exactly this. Lets not forget the case of Eostrix, a sock of who was so successful in "behaving well and making good edits" that they almost had a successful RfA. Even with WP:BEANS in mind, I'm still not sure how they were eventually caught. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the same person who is claiming that no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits is the same person who wrote The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. So unless we're playing one of these logic games where your real name is "no one", it looks like there's some falsehood mixed in with your efforts to be insulting. As fpr no is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, you've been in effect saying that we have to treat them like they're the equivalent of non-banned editors so long as they get a new sock puppet every once in a while. The idea that edits by banned editors are inherently against policy would seem to be built into the idea of banning. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I get the inclination to revert banned users (I've reverted certain edits by WP:BKFIP in the past), but you have to do it with care. Some edits by banned users are legitimately good, no matter how said user ended up being banned from the site. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I'm beginning to regret opening up that SPI investigation. Wikipedia lost two perfectly fine, non-disruptive, positive contributors because of it, sockpuppetry aside. I'll now have to keep this in mind next time I see an account that looks like a sockpuppet for another user. If their edits are good, then I'll just turn a blind eye. Sorry about that, everyone; I've learned my mistake. Love of Corey (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's entirely the wrong takeaway from this discussion. You did a good thing when filing the SPI case, and it looks like you spotted a connection that many editors would have missed. That is very commendable!

The problem is not that you filed an SPI and two users were blocked as a result. The problem is that because of the block, you reverted good edits that anyone familiar with the topic could have made, but in this instance were made by someone evading their topic ban. Looking at the SPI archive for HughD, it seems as though they have been both socking and loutsocking for years now. In some cases they were being actively disruptive, and in some cases not so actively disruptive. Cleaning up after this sort of editor requires both care and familiarity with the underlying topic at hand. While anyone could clean up active and obvious disruption, only those familiar with the topic could clean up any more subtle examples of disruption.

The takeaway should be to exercise more care when cleaning up after a banned user. Don't revert their contributions just because they are banned. Revert them because they are both banned, and that the contribution was in some way harmful. If you aren't familiar with the topic, leave a message on the article talk page or WikiProject saying Hey, a contributor to this article/set of articles was just blocked for being a sockpuppet. Could someone familiar with the topic please check their contributions for any problems? Thanks. and let someone else handle the rest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. I can think of several longtime editors whom after longrunning antics (and after multiple ANI threads over several years) I had a part in seeing tbanned and community banned. They were broadly disruptive, they were outright defiant of consensus with which they disagreed, they were wikilawyers to the core, they were often hostile, their word was often not good, they did a lot of damage to the encyclopedia, and the messes they left are not remotely done with being cleaned up. And they were not always wrong. They made many good edits. They created a number of sound articles. They sometimes tendered good advice. None of them came here intending to destroy Wikipedia. I don't regret for an instant that they've been sent packing, but it was scarcely some Manichean struggle between Good and Evil, and I feel no need to undo all their work.

Because the goal here is to build an encyclopedia, not to count coup. One of my catchphrases here is that the nature of a consensus-based environment is that sometimes you're on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only option is to lose gracefully and move on. If you took this issue to ANI to find out what the community thought, that was for the right reason. If, by contrast, you were seeking an uncritical rubberstamp for your actions, that was for the wrong reason. Ravenswing 10:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry to butt in on this report, I encountered this a while back too. An admin blanket reverted several edits made by a banned/blocked (unsure which because I've forgotten many details of this incident now) User, however, simultaneously reintroduced erroneous information on the pretext of BANREVERT. At what point do we give consideration to WP:ROPE and just give the guy a second chance? They are, from what I can tell, rather reformed. At the same time, they are becoming super frustrated that their constructive contributions to Wikipedia are being undone, much to their chagrin. This frustration is seemingly bringing out incivility issues that may have resulted in their first ousting. Is it appropriate for a user, much less an admin, to blanket revert contributions of an IP sock or registered sock just on the pretext the last account was a bad apple? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC) It is interesting that HughD has moved exclusively to editing shootings/murders/ect topics with their socks. As far as I'm aware, that isn't relevant to their political conservatism topic ban. SilverserenC 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the reply, Silver seren, however, this was not quite the answer I was looking for. I was talking more in the broad sense, rather than Hugh specifically. I also agree that this is getting off-topic, as such, I will collapse it. Feel free to pop over to my talk page if you have any further questions. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 05:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• If this current WP:SHITSTORM results in consequences for Love of Corey - who posted my suggestion in obvious good faith - I think it is only fair that those consequences should be visited on me first, and only later on them, if at any time.--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll bite: why would there be? And where in the above discussion has anyone so much as hinted at any? There's a huge difference between "What you're doing is unnecessary and damaging" and "What you're doing is in violation of policy." The latter is obviously not the case. Ravenswing 12:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing warning

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

---

This is ridiculous. User:JBW speedy deleted my draft, Draft:NER Class 4CC, with WP:CSD G12, however he didn’t warn me. Also, the copyright issues have certainly be fixed, how can he still tag it for copyvio. Worst issue (mentioned above) is that he never gave me a warning——and yes, NEVER——which I feel like is unacceptable. Please warn him. Ilovejames5🚂:) 13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless if it doesn't contain a copyvio in its current version, the page history still will. This is a legal issue for the foundation and no warning need be given, once it's in there there's nothing you as an editor can really do to fix it at this point. If there's an earlier version of the article that's free of copyright issues you could ask to have everything after that to be revision deleted but if there's been substantial editor activity mixed in its very possible this would be more trouble then its worth. And if the page started as a copyvio, everything built on top of it is a derivative work of that copyvio. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally I also see you failed to notify JBW of this thread. I've done so for you. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

For Ilovejames5 to complain that the deletion came without warning is absurd. Here is their talk page as it was the day before the deletion. Just look at how many warnings there were about copyright, and just look at Ilovejames5's responses to those messages, including their very last post there, in answer to a message about copyright: "I KNOW!" Ilovejames5 was fully aware that copyright infringing text is not permitted anywhere and is liable to summary deletion, and didn’t need to be told again. JBW (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

They also have an archive not linked anywhere on their page containing earlier copyright issues at User talk:Ilovejames5/Archives/2022/December. Only found it via an edit summary link by the bot in the page history. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ilovejames5: this is fairly clearly a spurious complaint. You've been warned many times about copyright problems but it keeps happening. Can you let us know that you now understand Wikipedia's copyright requirements and will follow them going forward? If not, there's a fair chance you'll be blocked from editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You’ve made me lose some motive to have new pages (i don’t have time anyway, maybe I’ll edit articles the most during summer), but wikipedia is still something i have to get back to a lot. I understand that wikipedia is copyrighted now. Please don’t send me anymore copyright messages, I’m tired of them, and i swear to god i won’t do this again. Ilovejames5🚂:) 15:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Vidpro23's edit war incident

I really wanted to do this ANI really quick as possible because this user was also involved in some edit wars with other IPs and users. This user has been blocked before back in 2011 for copyvios but this is not the focus here. Before you make a conclusion, please look at their history (Special:Contributions/Vidpro23), you’ll see that this user might be involved in some edit wars (the most recent one was at Paramount Global Content Distribution) that should have been solved through a dispute resolution. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

May I ask what a 12-year old block for an apparently unrelated behavior has to do with anything? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this user is still editing articles about TV shows. All of that aside, this user (alongside the IP) were edit warring on the Paramount Global Content Distribution article. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I do believe you were told SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, please talk to the user and report at WP:ANI (or, if applicable, WP:ANEW) if problematic behavior continues after a warning for that specific behavior. in this edit. Coming here immediately instead of taking that advice looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I had to do it immediately for a pretty good reason. Y'see, this user have fought with an IP address from last December to January of this year with various edits wars (which is something that a user should not do of you’re dealing with edit wars). I wanted to report these two editors for their involvement in edit wars in order to testify themselves but I am not sure if this is the right time. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And that "pretty good reason" I am left to assume, is a minor bright-line cross from two weeks ago? With his version of the article being supported by another user after such crossing? Was a report to WP:AN3 made then? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one had report this user to AN3 during the incident with the IP. The IP that the user had fought with has been blocked. But I do think that this user should make a testimony about the incident. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you added to your post before my reply went live. Can you provide specific diffs of problem edits? I think the admins would appreciate not having to do so much digging. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paramount_Global_Content_Distribution&action=history (The edit war happened on January 4 to 6. I am not sure if this incident is 3RR-worthy but I do get the reason why Vidpro edit this article but still). SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to why Vidpro23 reverting a disruptive IP (now blocked, and look at their contribs!) is a problem. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Vidpro23 did tried to explain the reasoning behind the removal by posting an edit summary but the edit war with the IP had intensified. This caused the IP to be even more disruptive. Both the user and the IP should have discussed the changes on the article's talk page. I thought about reporting this incident a very long ago when the incident started so that they can testify the situation and how they can solve the edit war. I have a concern about this incident involving this user and the IP. The main problem here is that they did not use the talk page to discuss the edits despite all efforts to settle the edit war down. I am going to let Vid make their own testimony on the incident. But if there is no response from Vid, we might have to close this. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If anything needs to be discussed here, it's probably the competence of SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, who made 58 edits so far to this one short and completely unnecessary section. Fram (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Nalinsharma80 repeatedly creating unsourced or poorly referenced articles

Nalinsharma80 (talk · contribs) has been creating many articles about political parties with nothing more than a single sentence of content and no references, often only a couple minutes apart. They have been warned quite a few times before for this behaviour -- a quick scan of their talk page shows 5 final warning templates for adding unsourced content, along with dozens of CSD, PROD, and draftification templates. I considered leaving a message to ask them to stop, but given the multitude of warnings they have received in the past I don't think that would be effective. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have moved all of their recent unsourced creations to Draft space and left them a final warning. I am not hopeful as they do not communicate, though; in 2,600 edits they have never used their talk page (or anyone else's) and have only posted on an article talkpage four times. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Marcelus

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

1. Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - 11 August 2022 [19]

2. Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources - 15 January 2023 [20]. This was Marcelus' response to me commenting about the Anti-Polonism section (created by Marcelus): This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. Marcelus wants to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist of recent times due to Marcelus disliking parts of his work. Marcelus has a grudge against this dead man already for quite some time, considering that Marcelus said (...). ([21])

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first sentence What exactly should be a reason for my ban? and the rest of the response only further prove you WP:DONTGETIT. Turaids and I have repeatedly (!) told you the problems with your editing: [22], [23], [24], [25]. Instead of appropriately addressing them, you disruptively edit. As for your submission to WP:RSN, considering that you made it on 6 April 2022 and no one paid attention to it, this only proves that you have an unjustified WP:GRUDGE against this man and your disruptive editing has been going on unadressed for far too long. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You did not adress any of the issues.

There is 0 sources calling Zinkevičius "anti-Polish", but you created an "anti-Polonism" section on the article ([26]). That whole section is WP:SYNTH, which makes it all WP:OR. Instead of removing that section because it is against Wiki's policies, you ignore the issue and sidestep it entirely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Polish newspaper article is questionable for numerous reasons, most importantly because it said that Dalia Grybauskaitė is a person who willingly refers to nationalism (...a także chętnie odwołująca się do nacjonalizmu prezydent Dalia Grybauskait?, która na wiosnę zapewne wywalczy drugą kadencję.). What's with Polish sources calling the most important Lithuanians of recent times like Vytautas Landsbergis, Dalia Grybauskaitė and Zigmas Zinkevičius (extreme) nationalists? Not to mention that time you cited [27] that Pole Marian Kałuski who literally said "Lithuanians became his [Satan's] instrument in sowing hatred between nations." (just check his article). And notice - that section is under the section "Personal views", not "Anti-Lithuanianism" or etc. Including a person's own quotes is by no means WP:OR. Unfortunately, your section is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, because you gather disparate information and yourself synthesize it into a 'narrative' where you basically smear Zigmas Zinkevičius. SYNTH has no place on Wikipedia and should be removed in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. If you actually read his works, especially his biographies, you would see that your accusation of Anti-Polish sentiment is unfounded. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Requesting comment on Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit

Respectfully requesting administrators' comments on User:Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit I had made. In the edit I had made, I restored and moderately summarized the content that Onetwothreeip previously deleted a few months ago over issues of excessive detail. Unfortunately, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit even though the content included information crucial to the Duterte administration's response to the COVID-19, such as the adoption of "draconian measures", "a local-government unit-led approach" to the COVID-19 pandemic, expansion of COVID-19 testing capacity, and appointing of czars to respond to the pandemic. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? As a side note, Onetwothreeip appears to be focused on trimming articles appearing in Special:LongPages, and have been involved in conflicts with other editors regarding article size. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin but fairly sure nearly every admin will wonder why you're bringing a WP:Content Dispute to ANI rather than continue to discuss it on the article talk page like you should be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Not only that, but you haven't even edited Onetwothreeip's talk page at all since July 2022, not even to notify them of this thread, even though the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require you to do. I have notified them on your behalf this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio reverting permanently my secular editing of the article on Padre Pio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I add the following:

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

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

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

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

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

And your modified version says:

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Artificial-Info22 using AI to produce articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive, anonymous user

There has been a campaign, possibly from a user using different IP addresses, disrupting articles using the phrase "black comedy", under the false premise that it's a racial term. Given that they don't have an account and a dialogue is impossible, if someone could block them that would be great.

Special:Contributions/179.234.84.47 YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@YouCanDoBetter: You have failed to notify 179.234.84.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this thread, as the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require you to. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Scabab and box office figures

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

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

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

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

User:Gebrehiwot chekole personal attacks among other things

• Gebrehiwot chekole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lalibela (Emperor of Ethiopia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, take a look Gebrehiwot chekole talkpage for warnings [[40]], also see discussion at this talkpage [[41]]. I wanted to assume good faith but the user has been adding factual errors to Lalibela (Emperor of Ethiopia), and instead of correcting or presenting sources to support his claim, the user has been engaged in personal attacks on both talkpages, (hence this ANI). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not attacking personally. but that individual isn.t ready to accept ideas. besides the sources he present aren.t based on reliable historical sources. i just tried to give my opinion based on sources. but he monopolized the Wikipedia and isn.t ready to accept. Gebrehiwot chekole (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1st warning (level 2) - Warning for removing content without leaving an edit summary. Inappropriate, as they did leave an edit summary, they just couldn't access the sources, which appears to be the reason they removed the paragraph. This also should have been issued as a level 1 warning due to the assumption of good faith.

2nd warning (level 3) - Warning for vandalism. Not vandalism at all. They were trying to edit the article constructively and this did not deserve a warning.

3rd warning (level 4) - Warning for unsourced content. You should have warned them about neutrality and weasel words, not adding unsourced content. Notable lists typically don't require sourcing, but they do usually require that a Wiki article exists for a person.

I'm not seeing any personal attacks here. I think the warnings regarding vandalism are also inappropriate and should have issued at a lower level, given that the user does appear to be trying to improve the article. The user in question needs coaching, and help, not for someone to WP:BITE them. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Hey man im josh:, those warnings were justified. What improvements did the user try to make exactly? First for a removal [[42]] and then also for inserting factually false content [[43]], not backed by the sources, which can be verified in archive.org. You would have a point if his edits were actually supported by the sources. It's also not the only article the user is making non-constructive edits. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

why are you adding your fairy tale on history. I am just trying to edit those added with out any reliable historical sources. individuals are creating their own history by destroying the real history. so if U have the Authority why do you allow individuals the change the prior editions with historical source? Gebrehiwot chekole (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

While Gebrehiwot has been using this colorful language against his content opponent User:Dawit S Gondaria, the latter has explained on the article talk page in some detail how he got access to the necessary reference books via WP:REX. At first glance, this is a case of WP:JDLI on the part of Gebrehiwot. In my opinion User:Gebrehiwot chekoleis risking a block if they make any more personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: You have failed to notify Gebrehiwot chekole (talk · contribs), even though the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require you to do so. This failure on top of your misapplication of warnings is quite concerning. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 19:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: Oeps, apologies i wasn't on my usual device when i responded, i must have read over that or not seen it. I'm not a frequent visitor, so i forgot. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:HandthatFeeds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HandThatFeeds

I believe this user resorted to personal attacks and when confronted, doubled down on them and also attempted to intimidate me into not reporting it. Concerning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)

While in the talk page, HandThatFeeds mentioned and linked to the consensus page. I replied back that consensus was not simply reaching a popular vote, and quoted specific lines from the page about the quality of the argument mattering. After this HandThatFeeds accused me of “wikilawyering” and also said “You're trying to lecture someone who has been editing since 2006 on how Wikipedia's consensus model works. I suggest reconsidering that tactic.”

I pointed out that this was a personal attack, and asked for clarification. HandthatFeed replied by doubling down on the accusation, claiming I was doing things that I did not, and claimed I wasn’t acting in good faith. I sent a message on his talk page going over the issues of the actual discussion, but saying I wouldn’t tolerate personal attacks or what I perceived as a more experienced editor attempting to intimidate a newer one, I would seek arbitration if they continued. HandThatFeeds replied “If by "arbitration" you mean WP:ARBCOM, you're barking up the wrong tree. They won't touch a simple dispute like this. And if you drag this over to WP:ANI, I expect you'll be excoriated. This isn't going to go the way you want.”

I then informed him that I will seek arbitration for this issue to which he then replied “If I were a religious man, I'd cite Matthew 7:5. But as I am not, I'll just say you're doing more harm to yourself than good by going down that path.”

Both HandThatFeeds and another user Doug Weller both accused me of acting in bad faith and are what I’m assuming is attempting to get me suspended or banned by relying on their seniority or standing.

Digital Herodotus (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While I don't love the sort of inherent appeal to authority in HTF's replies, nothing there approaches a personal attack, in my opinion. I would say you were receiving accurate advice in a brusque manner. I will also note that, so far as I can tell, you are the only one who has brought this to a noticeboard, so evidence of attempted suspension or banning seems lacking. I don't know that you will be excoriated, but I tend to agree that this isn't going to go the way you want. That said, reasonable minds can differ, and I am just one old guy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think you've notified HandThatFeeds (and possibly also Doug Weller)? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just thought it was worth dropping a ping to Doug Weller. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There was no intimidation, I was pointing out that you were likely not going to get the results you wanted by escalating this, and may in fact wind up facing sanctions yourself.

As Dumuzid points out, yeah, I'm being brusque. This was after a lengthy exchange where Digital Herodotus refused to listen to multiple editors offering them advice, asked if anyone had a real reason to object to their change, repeatedly attempted to cite rules & guidelines improperly, continued to demand a particular rule or standard of Wikipedia editing that my suggested change would violate, and generally refused to accept that other editors were unconvinced their change was appropriate, necessary, and supported by reliable sources.

At that point, I stated that this appeared to be WP:WIKILAWYERing.

Frankly, the whole issue boils down to one user insisting on a change that has not gained consensus, then repeatedly claiming they haven’t been given reason their suggestion was rejected. The WP:IDHT is visible and, while I might have been more gentle with my suggestions, I'm frankly fed up with the stubborn circular argument style DH is employing here.

Frankly, if they had stepped back to re-examine the previous arguments on this material & learn Wikipedia's rules first, we could've avoided this. Or at least, held a more productive discussion. Instead, DH has decided to escalate matters, claim other editors are simply looking for excuses not to allow this information, and then use the threat of arbitration to get their way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn’t exactly sure how to notify him, so I left a reply in his talk page letting him know that I had submitted this issue for arbitration. Also, concerning what I believe to be an attempt to suspend or ban me, I’m referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Digital_Herodotus

They both replied to an earlier, unrelated talk page and tagged other senior editors accusing me of lacking good faith. This happened after I informed him that I would be submitting this issue to arbitration. Digital Herodotus (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say this demonstrates DH's issues in a nutshell: ANI specifically gives a template to use for notifying a user about discussions here at the top of this page, but DH did not use it (or did not understand it). Perhaps they can learn over time but, right now, DH is plowing forward without actually reading the instructions provided. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I fully admit to not knowing everything about Wikipedia, but I do always attempt to correct whatever mistakes or oversights I have, find some sort of workaround or learn from mistakes. I do not appreciate being accused of engaging in “bad faith” for participating in a heated talk page, not accused of wikilawyering for knowing what the consensus building is about, especially when a senior editor attempts to pull rank and then intimidate me from seeking third party arbitration or clarification. That’s why I brought this up, I attempted to discuss it in your talk page.

Digital Herodotus (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You specifically claimed other editors were editing on the basis of personal views and opinions and objections to your edit were not real reasons. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you were only informing us of consensus building, while citing rules and guidelines at other editors and declaring everyone else is failing to adhere to them.

At this point, I'll step back and let others handle things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I was going to bring Digital Herodotus here tomorrow as I don’t have time to add all the links where he made personal attacks and lack of good faith. Just look at their edit history. I would have blocked but I’m involved. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@DougWeller You were going to bring this up tomorrow? Then why when I first mentioned this in HandThatFeeds talk page were you replied before him that I have a history of bad faith and would likely get blocked? Then you and HandThatFeeds reply to an older issue on my page claiming I’m currently engaged in bad faith after I informed him that I would be reporting this? Is that the proper way to handle situations like this?Digital Herodotus (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

incorrect. I said that their arguments in the talk page, not their edits, were based on personal views. For one example, a user claimed an article for CNN wasn’t acceptable because it was “Weasly”

Based on my understanding and from what I had been told before, consensus is about discussing a proposed edit and making sure it does not violate a certain rule or norm of Wikipedia, not so much “the most popular opinion wins” which is why I was repeatedly asking for a specific reason that my sources weren’t acceptable and a user just saying they didn’t like it or misreading them did not count. Also, you are the one who quoted the rules for consensus at me, so I find it completely hypocritical for you to do that, then accuse me of wikilawyering when I reference them to seek clarification. All that aside, you shouldn’t pull rank and try to intimidate less experienced users like you did to me when I made clear that I didn’t like how you were treating me. Digital Herodotus (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would invite you to re-read WP:CONSENSUS. While you are correct that it is not merely popularity, it does mean that just because something is technically acceptable under policies and guidelines does not mean it is automatically included. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)