Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	5	5
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	7	7
RfD	0	0	0	24	24
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 19 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 25 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 10 requested closures
• 85 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 8872 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:AlwaysPutsMeFirst 2024-11-24 01:25 2025-11-24 01:25 create DatGuy Yoav Gallant 2024-11-24 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Spore (2008 video game) 2024-11-23 18:48 2025-11-23 18:48 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Like 2024-11-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Algeria 2024-11-23 17:07 2025-02-23 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing EdJohnston 2025 Indian Premier League 2024-11-23 07:51 2025-05-23 07:51 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: semi-protection expires tomorrow, and confirmed socks already found their way here Ymblanter Luca Allam 2024-11-23 07:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz User:CFA 2024-11-23 05:24 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Reaper Eternal User talk:CFA 2024-11-23 05:16 2024-12-07 05:08 edit User talkpage under siege by LTA with any number of easily autoconfirmable sleepers Bishonen Human safari 2024-11-22 20:33 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 Kafr Kila clashes 2024-11-22 20:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kushwaha 2024-11-22 20:14 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) 2024-11-22 20:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Karim Ahmad Khan 2024-11-22 19:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case ???-type Pokémon 2024-11-22 17:43 indefinite edit,move Blacklisted name, best to add some protection Anachronist Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 6 2024-11-22 12:03 2024-12-22 12:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts UtherSRG Pam Bondi 2024-11-22 00:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Will log at AEL Ad Orientem State of Israel 2024-11-21 22:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Hindko 2024-11-21 22:02 2025-05-21 22:02 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Oreshnik (missile) 2024-11-21 21:54 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:RUSUKR Swatjester RS-26 Rubezh 2024-11-21 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Karbi people 2024-11-21 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 1995 Palestinian prisoners' hunger strike 2024-11-21 19:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures 2024-11-21 15:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Cleveland School of Cannabis 2024-11-21 03:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Anachronist Sandeep Lamichhane 2024-11-20 21:52 2025-11-20 21:52 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Draft:Vansh Sayani 2024-11-20 19:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato Young SaceP 2024-11-20 13:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU 2024-11-20 13:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD IFly.com 2024-11-20 05:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Created repeatedly at IFly Pro, moved to new name after that was create-protected Anachronist 2028 United States presidential election 2024-11-20 05:21 2025-11-20 05:21 edit,move requested at WP:RfPP Dr vulpes Template:United States Secretaries of State 2024-11-20 02:34 indefinite edit,move This only has 89 transclusions, that's a bit low for template-protection now that we can ECP due to risk level which wasn't allowed in 2016 Pppery

Blatant vote stacking

After Zefr was reported for violating WP:3RR at Ginkgo biloba (which seems to be a pattern), he canvassed four other editors to join the content dispute[1][2][3][4], some of which have helped him edit war participated in similar disputes in the past.[5][6] I asked them to recuse themselves from a straw poll, but they are participating anyway and will likely determine the outcome. I don't believe that this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and I would like to ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at this situation and either take some corrective action or give me advice on how to handle it. Also, I fully expect that Zefr will defend his actions here by saying that he was just enforcing WP:MEDRS, which is a gross mischaracterization of the situation (and not a valid excuse for vote stacking and violating 3RR anyway). Nosferattus (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are fine editors to "canvass," though, each and every one of em... @Roxy the dog, Psychologist Guy, Girth Summit, and Alexbrn: suck up pings. El_C 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

But is there a clause excusing canvassing if you like the editors, unwritten or otherwise? Because if so, I think anyone can see that’s a recipe for disaster. And not a good look at the very least. petrarchan47คุก 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no such exemption. El_C 02:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There’s a big difference between “Some new editor is trying to advance a nutty proposition that Novaya Zemlya is an independent nation, and I want others in this topic area to help me oppose it” (which this is not) and “Hey, this topic is under discussion; just wanted you to know” (which this is).

Zefr is an unimpeachably conscientious WP:NPOV editor in this topic area.

Quite a lot of our Northern Hemisphere ‘’’’’volunteer’’’ editors’’ are offline for big chunks of late August and early September, given national holidays and school resumption and the like. We may not be looking at Wikipedia even if we’re spinsters-with-cats who are just focusing on home plumbing improvements and hiding our electronics in our garages. But we probably check email, and a message like Zefr’s appropriately provides a NEUTRAL alert that maybe we might like to look in on a discussion of interest, which discussion might be arguably subject to time limits that might be over before we’re home from the beach. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How dare you besmirch the fine nation of Novaya Zemlya. It's just a little glowy, it's still good, it's still good. El_C 02:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nova Zembla patriots love you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's still canvassing if you're sending messages only to editors who you think will agree with your position. Looking the other way because it will lead to the "right" outcome is a pretty slippery slope. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A neutral notice at a relevant wikiproject should serve as notification. Pinging only like-minded users, even if one contend it being a FRINGE matter is, indeed, a slippery slope. El_C 02:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's circumventing the process and might make others feel like they would need to or are supposed do the same thing (on the opposing side) and Wikipedia could turn into something we don't want. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear all of you! I just hate, as a 50-year-old person with a new highly time-demanding job, that I end up not knowing that some article in which I was interested was up for AFD or whatever—just because sometimes I'm doing a stressful business-management thing all day Monday to Friday with about four minutes merely to go through my watchlist for presumptive schoolchild vandalism while I'm shoving a sandwich into my face, and then can't log into WP at night because the iOS app is so jacked up, and it turns out some AFD got closed as "delete" when I haven't even had time to dig in and notice it, because I'm a volunteer and my very demanding job has to come first.

Gosh, but some of us need to be able for somebody to let us know about these things! It's really difficult for me to spend the time any more to noodle about and find, e.g., AFDs about articles in which I'm interested in the course of life without somebody sending up a signal.

Do I need to figure out, somehow, whether and how to do an RFC about this? This is a volunteer project. I'd kind of like to think I'm a mature and helpful volunteer. It's very difficult these days for me to know about stuff like RFDs and RFCs unless somebody who's seen my handle in the edit history sends me a message—re: which I get an email! e.g. "El C sent you a message on Wikipedia". I don't have as much time as was once the case to loll about reading WP:RFD and the like.

And, again, if I'm miscoding this re: indents, etc., please refactor. I'm sitting in the restroom doing this on my phone. That's how I engage in my volunteer work for WP, by and large. The challenging mechanisms of the iOS app regarding WP administrative functions are more than I have time to winkle out. I am here to do what I think I'm good at doing: copyediting and proofreading especially in my greatly appreciated presumed designation by User:EEng as part of the "hyphen police", which is the second-nicest compliment I've been paid in the past 2 years, right after "I can't BELIEVE you figured out how to accessorize masks!").

I get that canvassing is a huge problem. But there's got to be a distinction between excluding figurative Nova Zembla separationists and just sending a neutral talk-page message of "hey, I know you're busy: you've been in the edit history of this article and there's an AFD that you might not see in time."

I'm just sayin'. You want Wikipedia to be inclusive? VOLUNTEERS ought to know that a thing they're interested in is up for discussion! I get that there are a lot of abuses, but there's got to be a middle ground to accommodate those of us who are extremely grateful for WP:NODEADLINE.

Thanks for hearing me out. I am here when I can be here because I think this is a joyous project. I just, you know, can't always be here. This "personal relief break" has taken about 0.4 of an hour longer than I can justify, but I thought this point needed making. Thanks for letting me share. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't accept that there was anything improper in my responding as I did. This is Zefr's message to me on my talk page. That was the only edit they have ever made to my talk, and I have never edited theirs: I'm not aware of them having any particular reason to think of me as anything other than an uninvolved admin. I was not aware they had messaged anybody else, and viewed their post as a simple request that an admin take a look at a content dispute which was becoming unhealthily personal on one side. Here is my response, which was met by a remarkable level of ABF on the article's talk page, and on my own talk page.

Here's my take on it: Zefr should have used a Wikiproject talk page notice instead of reaching out to individuals. Zefr has also been edit warring on the article, which they should not do even when they are correct on the content/sourcing matter. Nosferratus has also been edit warring, has been inappropriately personalising a content dispute (which I do not see Zefr doing anywhere on that talk page), and has been far to willing to assume bad faith on the part of others. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: It is trivial to prove that these statements are false. You have edited Zefr's talk page, and interacted with Zefr substantially in the past, mainly in disputes similar to this one. I've been personalizing the dispute because people keep lying and breaking the rules. As an administrator, I would think you would understand that. Nosferattus (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is it the number of editors that Zefr asked that is the probem? I have certainly asked admins from whom I have received help or advice in the past to look at a dispute in which I was involved. Is that wrong? Any dispassionate examination of this dispute would, I believe, reach the same conclusion that Girth Summit has above concerning the behaviour of Nosferratus and Zefr. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Peter coxhead: No, it's not the number of editors, it's who Zefr invited. All four of the editors that were invited have interacted substantially with Zefr in the past including on his talk page and have participated in similar disputes in the past.
    • Evidence that the canvassed editors were chosen for their POV:
    • Psychologist Guy: They have had numerous discussions on each other's talk pages, often about disputes similar to this one: [7][8]. They have edited 121 of the same pages.[9]
    • Roxy the dog: Here is Zefr inviting Roxy to join a dispute at Paul Stamets: [10]. Here's Zefr and Roxy reverting the same edits at Oil pulling: [11]. They have edited 196 of the same pages.[12]
    • Girth Summit: Despite Girth's false assurances above, he has had substantial interactions with Zefr including a discussion on Zefr's talk page about a very similar situation to this (removing material related to alternative medicine due to sourcing concerns): [13]. Here is Girth and Zefr helping each other edit war reverting the same content at Cranberry juice: [14]. Here is Girth supporting Zefr's opinion at Herbal medicine: [15]. Here is Girth supporting Zefr's opinion at Traditional Chinese medicine: [16]. Here is Girth and Zefr warning the same user within seconds of each other: [17]. Here is them again warning the same user within seconds of each other: [18]. They have edited 246 of the same pages[19]
    • Alexbrn: Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join a dispute at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: [20]. Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join a dispute at Honey: [21]. Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join two other disputes at the same time: [22]. Here is Alexbrn giving Zefr a barnstar for deleting dodgy medical claims: [23]. They have edited 695 of the same pages![24]
  • This canvassing behavior has been going on for years. The claims that these were just innocent invitations of 3rd party neutral editors is absurd and disingenuous. Sadly, I doubt anything will change as the enforcement of rules on Wikipedia seems to be strongly dependent on seniority and who you know rather than treating editors equally and fairly. Nosferattus (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, I encourage you to strike your comments about "helping each other edit war". You have a solid point about Zefr's canvassing, but you are diluting it with aspersions alleging tag-teaming (though not named so explicitly). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    I have struck the comment. Thank you for the feedback. Nosferattus (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Appreciated! You have a similar comment in your original post. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Looks disingenuous to me, for example the not-so-subtle twisting of my barnstar to Zefr for deleting dodgy medical claims, into being for deleting plain "medical claims". This should be corrected. I'm on holiday at the moment so can't really look at this, but even from my distant hotel balcony, my spidey-sense is tingling something rotten about this whole complaint (though, granted, Zefr would do better simply to get more eyes by posting to noticeboards). Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    @Alexbrn: I added the word "dodgy" as if that made any difference. My point is that you and Zefr know each other and support each other (usually for very admirable reasons like keeping herbal quackery off of Wikipedia). That in and of itself is fine. What isn't OK is Zefr canvassing his friends to win an edit war after violating 3RR. Does that seem reasonable to you? Nosferattus (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    The two examples of Zefr invitking Alexbrn to join a dispute are the same link from 2016 (a neutrally-worded statement about a noticeboard discussion). XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    @XOR'easter: Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the link and added another one as well. Nosferattus (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Looking at the diffs presented above, it seems that I did indeed leave two notes on Zefr's talk page in 2018. I actually checked the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool before posting the above, just to see whether we had actually communicated in the past - for whatever reason those edits didn't show up. I'll just have to ask people to believe that I'd forgotten about them.

    Cranberry juice has been on my watchlist since I made this edit in 2018; here is my first edit to Herbal medicine; here is my first to Traditional Chinese medicine. None of these edits were in any way related to anything Zefr was doing on those pages, but it means that the articles were put onto my watchlist. I do indeed occasionally revert dubious changes to articles on my watchlist, and I might occasionally comment on their talk pages. Zefr has made nearly 50,000 edits to this project, and I've made closer to 60,000: it would be remarkable if there were not some overlap. That is not evidence of collusion, or even that we are particularly aware of one another. All I can say about Zefr is that I've seen their name around a few times, I know that they are an experienced editor - and that's about it. I've no idea what they think of me.

    Now look at what Nosferratus writes: ...these statements are false..., ...Girth's false assurances..., ...people keep lying..., The claims that these were just innocent invitations of 3rd party neutral editors is absurd and disingenuous. - this is exactly the kind of ABF, hostile attitude I am talking about. People should not have to tolerate attacks on their integrity or their motivations. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Oh, and as for having edited 246 of the same pages - you are including in that count project pages such as this one, user talk pages, and many articles that we edited months or years apart from each other. If you restrict it to article space, where we have edited within a week of each other, the count is 34, out of the 22,529 pages currently on my watchlist. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    So pointing out that demonstrably false statements are false is being "hostile"? That's very Orwellian. Nosferattus (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, yes, I view the phrase 'false assurances' as hostile. More importantly though, I view accusations of lying and being disingenuous as direct attacks on my integrity as an honest person who is acting in good faith. You have worded those complaints in such a way as to avoid naming those who you claim have lied - would you care to be specific? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    You are welcome to demonstrate that you are acting in good faith by recusing yourself from the straw poll that you were canvassed to. Nosferattus (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to withdraw the personal attack on me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted that comment you left on Zefr's talk page, so I'm going to delete it from the evidence to be on the safe side. Nosferattus (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• • I don't need to demonstrate that which should be patently obvious to any impartial observer. I am still waiting for you to be explicit about who you are accusing of lying, and of being disingenuous. If you aren't willing to stand by that verbiage, you should strike it. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    I'll let the admins come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. Nosferattus (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, how can anyone come to any conclusions if you refuse to be clear about the accusations and evidence? Who do you think has lied? Who do you think has been disingenuous? Be specific and provide evidence, or withdraw your accusation.

    Let me be clear about the gravity of your accusation. I have given thousands of hours of my time to this project. Reverting vandals, deleting spam, blocking LTAs who abuse our contributors,, writing content that has been reviewed by my colleagues as meeting FA standards - I try to contribute to the project to the best of my abilities, and I always act in good faith towards that end. None of that gives me any special rights to say what a particular article should say, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of our content policies as a result of it all.

    You have impugned my motives as an editor. You have accused me of editing in bad faith. You have made vague accusations about lying, which I think refer to me. I am deeply offended by your comments here, and on my talk page. I ask that you make it very clear exactly who you are accusing of what. Thank you Girth Summit _(blether) 22:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Fine. I accept that you don't remember any of your previous interactions with Zefr and that your statement that you had never posted to Zefr's talk page was just an error. This complaint is about Zefr, after all, not you. Nosferattus (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, who, then, is the liar? Who has been disingenuous? You can't throw accusations like that around as if they don't matter. Be specific, or withdraw them by striking them - they are deeply offensive Girth Summit _(blether) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    I struck through those comments. And for the record, the only person who has been specifically accused of being disingenuous here is me, but I doubt anyone cares about that. After all, the rules of Wikipedia are only enforced for the benefit of long-standing editors. Nosferattus (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, I haven't seen anyone accuse you of being disingenuous - I may have missed that though can you provide a diff? I would not support anyone saying that about you - for all I have said that I think you are too quick to assume bad faith, I do not think you are a liar.

    Our sourcing rules are there for the benefit of our content, not our contributors. We can disagree on content all day long, but if you impugne someone's motives you are going to a very different level Girth Summit _(blether) 00:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    [25] Nosferattus (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, fair enough, I'd missed that. I'll leave it to Alexbrn to expand on that, I have no comment to make on your motives. I just hope that you now understand how offensive it is to have someone call you a liar (or make vague insinuations to that effect). Girth Summit _(blether) 00:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) I'm seeing a WP:BOOMERANG headed Nosferattus' way for assuming bad faith. Miniapolis 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remember that many editors have already commented on this thread that Nosferattus is correct that Zefr should not be reaching out to individual, like-minded users, and should instead be using the proper channels. I think Nosferattus has every right to bring up past behavior to make the case to admins. How else can one bring attention to this kind of behavior, which we can all agree is not good? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What past behaviour are you talking about here? Be specific about what you think has been problematic. I'm not saying that I, or anyone else, is above reproach, but it is unaccepable for you and N to keep making vague statements that concern other editors' conduct. If you are talking about me, I want to know that; I'm sure that goes for everyone else named in this thread Girth Summit _(blether) 00:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I am not talking about your behavior at all. I am referring to the canvassing by Zefr and the comment just made by Miniapolis, and hoping to refocus the issue on what the complaint is. There is nothing vague about the canvassing accusations (against Zefr, not you) that were documented by Nosferratus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like blatant canvassing to me without even considering past interactions at all. There doesn't appear to be some context here where the people notified were all of those involved in a previous discussion on the same topic. Instead, this seems to be the notifying specifically of the people who would support the notifiers' position. Even if the notification is a neutral template, that is still canvassing. Such notifications are meant to go on Wikiprojects, not specific editor's pages. Silverseren^C 18:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. WP:APPNOTE, the process followed to invite the review of a medical edit on Gingko biloba by three experienced medical editors and a neutral general admin. The four editors have their own interests and extensive editing experience which my invitation alone would not influence, i.e., not 'vote stacking'. All have had little or no activity on the gingko article, but have edited other herbal articles, having relevant background. I could have chosen from dozens of medical editors who previously coedited herbal articles with me over the past 16 years, but for such a conspicuously incorrect, extraordinary, and unsourced claim here, four reliable reviewers were sufficient. APPNOTE says "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief", all followed with the same message to each editor. I did not post the dispute on WT:MED because the proposed information was minor, unlikely to be of general interest, and obvious misinformation. Note that N did not start a discussion on WT:MED, where such a meritless edit would receive no favorable reception. On the gingko talk page, N initiated a straw poll which has been decisively defeated by consensus. N and supporter Pyrrho the Skeptic (P) are novice medical editors with only a few dozen medical edits combined, most of which have been reverted (many by me) due to low-quality content and absence of good sourcing. There is an air of vengeance-seeking by N in this discussion and many other recent talk page edits. On medical topics, N and P appear to be outside of their competence, WP:CIR - perhaps they would enjoy Wikipedia participation more without such frenetic arguing by staying within their knowledge base. Zefr (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Please note that Votestacking is defined as selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion. Medical editing experience aside, I think it can be argued convincingly that you are counting on these particular editors to weigh in on one particular side of a topic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition to kind of admitting to canvassing, your post came across as extremely arrogant and BITEy. Next time, I think it's better if you post a neutral notification on relevant wikiproject pages instead of contacting selected editors who you know will see the disputed content as obvious misinformation. Levivich 21:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't need to persuade anyone - review the discussion and poll at the Gingko biloba talk page or go to WT:MED to start a discussion. Better to side with experience and honesty. N and P apparently have a desire for controversy to engage in smearing and disguise the plain fact that both were in error arguing persistently for a baseless medical claim, then seeking some kind of retribution here. Own it and WP:DEADHORSE. Done. Zefr (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Zefr, just don't invite individual editors to ongoing disputes, especially like-minded ones, as that is text book canvassing. Use neutral notifications at relevant wikiprojects, okay? Because repetition of this behaviour would be a cause for sanctions. Thank you. El_C 11:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

N and P apparently have a desire for controversy to engage in smearing and disguise... is a clear personal attack. Levivich 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot to be desired, in general, with your conduct thus far here, Zefr. You're kind of at the brink, I'm sorry to say. A calm perspective is needed for you to correct your approach (separate from the contested content, as counterintuitive as that may seem). The time to pivot is now. No sense in crashing and burning when a number of different remedies exist when at an impasse. El_C 17:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree that calmness is to be encouraged, but I'm disappointed that editors such as ElC and Levicich, for whom I have enormous respect, have no comment to make on the repeated and sustained personal attacks upon myself, here, on the article talk page, and on my own talk page. I'm not asking for sanctions - they have eventually been withdrawn, at least partially - but to paint Zefr as the only party in the wrong here is very hard for me to understand. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No one is painting Zefr as the only party in the wrong here. Commenting on one party's conduct isn't blessing everyone else's. If we had to comment on everyone's conduct imagine how long the comments would be :-) But hasn't Nosf. stricken everything that they need to strike? I'll admit I haven't looked at any page except this thread, so if there's stuff on your talk page or the article talk page I haven't seen it. But I see multiple editors in this thread who have made either false statements or personal attacks (either way, should be struck). Nosf. is one of them, but Nosf. is the only editor who has actually struck anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nosf's transgressions were already dealt with (by you, directly, here in this thread, and I agree with how you dealt with them and everything you've said about them), whereas Zefr's PA I commented on (which is not the only PA in this thread, by far) occurred after Nosf's transgressions were dealt with. As I understand it, Nosf's conduct is not ongoing (which is why I didn't comment on it), whereas Zefr's is (which is why I commented). Levivich 00:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GS, I'm sorry, but you're doing Zefr (and yourself) a disservice here with such a dividing line. If you felt that the strikethroughs and retractions weren't enough, you should have said something other than fair enough, etc., because to me it looked like that part of it was resolved. Whereas Zefr seems entirely unrepentant about their canvassing, a misstep which, for all we know, they may well do again, and next time, they will definitely be sanctioned for. And if you even give them the hint that they could get away with it next time, you're inadvertently leading them off of a proverbial cliff, I'm sorry to say (truly). El_C 06:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the process gets tainted when only like-minded editors are contacted about a dispute, even if one is right on the science/content (excepting bonkers fringe positions, obviously). In this case, editors who are likely to support views held by medical orthodoxy (hey, I count myself among them) were notified to this dispute. That's a problem because it brings the canvassed side (for convenience, orthodoxy) under a cloud in the dispute, even when the strength of their argument/sources is likely to win the day.

Now, if members of the adventurist (for convenience) side are engaging in inappropriate advocacy elsewhere or anything else problematic is happening wrt them, rather than addressing that through a passing comment, it needs to be outlined through the format of a separate report (in this case, a subsection will do), with evidence and summaries that can be easily parsed. And expressed in a detached tone.

The sense I got is that, like Zefr, Nosferattus kneecapped themselves with various aspersions about some of the canvassed editors (as mentioned in my opening, all of whom I, myself, hold in high regard). It was dumb. It brought discord for naught. It muddied the waters and made this thread much more impenetrable and unfocused. But they have apologized and retracted. Enough? Not sure. The whole thing is a bit long, so maybe I misread. But what is clear is that the canvassing issue remains, because Zefr does not acknowledge it as being so (i.e. risk of repetition). And that's where we are now. Fair assessment? El_C 08:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The personal attack N made on me is still extant in this thread. I also note that the article concerned has been on my watchlist for years and I was already at the article when Z's note appeared, having edited it in the past. I'd like to thank Z for defending the project from the inexperienced editors we have seen at Ginko and elsewhere, and perhaps ask him to be a little more circumspect in his communication to fellow editors. Remember that we have some of the strangest policies on teh Internetz, and intimating, accurately, that a page is under threat from people who would degrade the project, is frowned upon FGS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are editors being referred to by capital letters in this thread? It's very odd and confusing. Also, what's FGS? El_C 10:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, right. G is for God — even God isn't immune from this, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 10:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

El C, as always (or at least often!), you are being very wise. I am offended and pissed off by the accusations, and find it hard to be appropriately dispassionate. I should step back, but I will correct you on one point: they have nowhere apologised, or even fully retracted what they said about me. They have stricken certain words, under pressure from myself, but they have done nothing to give me the impression that they genuinely accept they were in error to make those accusations, or that they will not be so quick to assume bad faith of others again. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shucks, GS, you're making me . Ah, I see. Duly struck, sorry for misreading. Again, that exchange is long and I found it challenging understanding a lot of it. El_C 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: "El N" and "El Z" would have been less odd and confusing? :-P Levivich 15:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's right, El_Nadir and El_Zenith — now that's a two weddings dance! El_C 15:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Y'all can we just TBAN Zefr from contacting individuals to polls and stop the petty bickering? It has been asserted that Zefr has also done this in the past, and Zefr's explanation of why he did not put a note at WT:MED rather than contact specific individuals does not seem to fly, after the fact. He has also not stated that he will no longer do this (contacting individuals to polls). Therefore a TBAN, which he can appeal in six months, should resolve the issue. NB: The TBAN and my proposal do not reflect in any way on the quality of Zefr's wiki participation or his motives in contacting specific people. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we not just do that and close the thread? It's more complicated than that. There's been canvassing, but there's also been behaviour by others, and on the content dispute I do rather think Zefr had it right. Gingko biloba isn't a therapy.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall, that is exactly why Zefr should have posted a neutral note at WT:MED, and not canvassed specific people. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is the classic example of what paves the road to hell. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The entire canvassing issue needs to be acknowledged by Zefr (assurances), then my warning to them would suffice, I think. But merely committing to [not] contacting individuals to polls (though I missed where that was stated) wouldn't be enough. Canvassing could also apply to disputes that are absent a poll. As my comment above notes at some length, if there are problems with the opposing side, that should be outlined in a format (evidence, summaries) that can be more easily parsed than... all this. El_C 14:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, that terse comment isn't helping. To me, it comes across as piggy-backing vis-à-vis your own canvassing recently. So, maybe don't. El_C 14:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If terse is not good, rest assured one of my to-do projects is to write an academic article on the damage CANVASS policy has done to Wikipedia and its community. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I'm rested-assured, I guess...? Anyway, sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. If it involves my own actions, I hope that you'd do me the courtesy of a reply, pre-publication. El_C 14:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit

Over the last couple of days, I've been giving some thought to my own involvement in this affair, and what I might have done differently with the benefit of hindsight. Kudos to El C and Levivich for challenging me in the collaborative way that they did. I was genuinely offended by the suggestions that I had been untruthful, and that I had acted as I did to support someone based on my agreeing with their POV, or because of their seniority, or because we were buddies, or whatever; it's possible that I allowed my righteous indignation to get in the way of my empathy towards less experienced users however.

I maintain that I have no connection with Zefr, other than recognising that they are an prolific, long-term contributor in good standing. I believe that other prolific, long-term contributors will recognise that there is nothing unusual about two people overlapping on the occasional article talk page discussion, and not remembering specifics. I expect that there are literally hundreds of editors with whom I have interacted more than I have with Zefr; I cannot be expected to remember all of those interactions. I genuinely did not remember posting on their talk page in 2018, and here is the interaction analyser that I checked to see whether I had. My method was to type Ctrl+F, then Zefr. User talk:Zefr does not appear in the search results - thus, I concluded that I had never posted on their talk. User talk:Girth Summit does show up, with one edit from Zefr - thus, I concluded that their post a few days ago was the only one they had ever made. As can be seen from the results of that analyser, we have edited a few pages within minutes of each other, a few more within hours, days, etc. Many of these are user talk pages, and I believe that all of them were the results of us simply overlapping when doing recent changes patrolling.

As I've already said, I believe that long-term prolific contributors will look at our interactions, and understand that there is nothing remotely suspicious in two editors overlapping in this way. However, I recognise that to a new user, who has made fewer than 1,000 contributions, this might look like evidence of collusion, or people acting as part of a cabal. I tried to explain that this was not the case, but perhaps I flew off the handle a bit too early without really considering the perspective of a new user, and should have spent longer explaining things to Nosferattus. I would therefore like to apologise to Nosferattus for this post, which was probably below the standards of what should be expected of an administrator. Since they have been willing to strike through the wording of their accusations, I am willing to accept that their suspicions about me were held in good faith, and that I should have made better efforts to explain the situation to them.

In my first comment to this thread, I said that I thought Zefr should have posted at an appropriate noticeboard rather than reaching out to individuals. When I read their post on my talk, I assumed I had been the only one they had done that to, and that they were contacting me as a neutral admin to comment on the edit warring/accusations of disruptive editing/etc. I'm prepared to accept that Zefr believed in good faith that their notifications were acceptable, as they have set out above, but it remains my view that it is better to post on a public noticeboard than to notify individuals. I think that a statement from them indicating that they take this advice on board would be a positive development.

I don't know whether there is any more that Nosferattus would like from me at this point. I retract my demand that they no longer post on my talk, and I'm prepared to let this flow under the bridge, if they are. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement, GS. Yes, the Editor Interaction Analyzer leaves out tons of stuff. I realized this many many years ago when I input myself and the only editor I had collaborated with quite extensively, across dozens of articles, and almost nothing came up. It's very frustrating and the tool should really be reported at VPT and upgraded. Particularly because it's used regarding SPIs. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I never accept it as admissible evidence. It's a novelty, that's it. It's troubling that it's seen as anything more. There's no shortcut to diff evidence. El_C 02:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thank you for posting the thoughtful note. I think we both let our emotions get the better of us. I understand how my actions made you feel unfairly treated, and I hope you can understand how I have also felt unfairly treated. I'm disappointed that Zefr has decided that I am incompetent and "vengeance-seeking". All I want is for the rules of Wikipedia to be applied fairly to everyone. I actually admire Zefr's work on medical topics and his efforts to keep fringe POVs and bogus medical claims off of Wikipedia (as I told him early in our discussions on the talk page). Despite being less experienced than many of you, I always try to cite my edits to reliable, independent, secondary sources, and if it's a medical topic, to review articles or meta-analyses. I'm also completely willing to be corrected when my edits do not adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What upsets me is someone just repeatedly reverting my edits without adequate explanation, and then breaking the rules (WP:3RR and WP:VOTESTACKING) in order to enforce it. If their opinion really is the more valid opinion, they shouldn't have any trouble fairly establishing consensus on the talk page. After all, that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and that's all that I'm asking for. Nosferattus (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Another way that Wikipedia is supposed to work, Nosferattus, is to "broaden participation to more fully achieve consensus". That quote comes from the the first sentence of WP:CANVASS: it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. That is what was done. This discussion may have taken a different, more constructive course had it been entitled, "Seeking consensus on Gingko biloba", which was my intent, as opposed to the inflammatory "vote stacking" accusation, which it was not. "Broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus" means that editors who were notified have their own editing experience, knowledge, interpretation of the content dispute, trust within the WP medical community, and individual decision-making about whether to even join the discussion. We assume good faith that editors asked to comment have their own ideas to contribute, uninfluenced by an invitation to assess. There was no vote stacking, no canvassing, soliciting, conspiracy, or campaigning to support my point of view, and no persuasion in any of the talk discussion. The only expectation was for independent review and collegial input to benefit the article, as is common (and expected) in scholarly collaboration. Meanwhile, at Talk:Ginkgo biloba, appropriate science- and source-based consensus prevailed. I value WT:MED, and have participated in many discussions there. I also know that not every minor dispute warrants community attention, as was this case. For a more complex content or sourcing matter, I would readily initiate and lead a WT:MED discussion, as done numerous times over the years. Zefr (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: logged warning for canvassing

• Support/propose closing this with a logged warning to Zefr about canvassing. Zefr's most recent post, just above, shows they still think they were not canvassing. Unfortunately I think a logged warning is needed to convince Zefr otherwise. Levivich 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. This was clearly canvassing. Paul August ☎ 00:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support FINAL warning or a TBAN on canvassing individuals. Even as we speak Zefr is self-justifying and refusing to acknowledge his canvassing [26]. He even says the title of the OP's report here should have been "Seeking consensus on Gingko biloba". Good grief. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support a logged warning; but I oppose closing this without more. It's a complex problem that isn't well-suited to simplistic outcomes. Zefr's canvassing, though wrong, was done for the right reasons. We don't have an infinite number of people willing to fight the battles he's fighting for us. I could make a good case for a barnstar as well as a warning.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I wish we would not say things like "We don't have an infinite number of people willing to fight the battles he's fighting for us." That's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It's this kind of thinking that creates WP:UNBLOCKABLES. The answer is WP:Wikipedia does not need you. There are no battles on Wikipedia that we need people to fight. Editing in a controversial topic area does not justify, excuse, or even mitigate canvassing (or otherwise editing against consensus). If anything, editing in GS/DS areas should make editors more scrupulous, not less. And anyway, the canvassing wasn't "done for the right reasons", it was done to win a content dispute; that's the typical reason, and it's the wrong reason. That we might agree with Zefr on the content dispute should not affect our thinking about the conduct dispute. Levivich 13:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The project's ongoing problems with recruitment and retention mean that we don't have an infinite number of editors willing to stick up for MEDRS, Levivich. Wikipedia absolutely does need editors who fight for reliable sources. I agree with you that it doesn't justify or excuse canvassing; but content does matter and in my view it absolutely should affect our thinking here. Misconduct while fighting disinformation is very different from misconduct while promoting disinformation. This is not an attempt to establish Zefrs as an unblockable. I'm merely saying that this proposed remedy, without more, is too simplistic.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about? All editors stick up for MEDRS: that's why MEDRS has global consensus. All editors fight for reliable sources. WP:V and WP:RS also have global consensus. MEDRS and RS aren't going extinct; it's not like they're only supported by a brave few. Your comments lionize ordinary editing and ordinary editors. There are, literally, tens of thousands of people editing, and they're all fighting disinformation, or at least they think they are. Even the worst POV pushers think they're fighting disinformation. Providing reliable information is what we are all doing here. The exceptions are extremely few: the number of people we block or sanction is a tiny, tiny minority compared to the thousands and thousands of people who edit without incident. The proof of this is in the encyclopedia: 20 years on, it works, it fucking works!, and it's not because there are a few brave righteous editors who are upholding RS. Puh-leez. The whole crowd is upholding RS. It's the majority opinion, and a large, large majority at that.
        And don't you get it? Can't you see it? This whole dividing of editors into good editors (those who "stick up for MEDRS", "fight for reliable sources", and "fight[] disinformation") and bad editors (everyone else?), it's how this dispute started: it started with Nosferattus, in a content dispute, accusing Zefr of POV-pushing, because Zefr disagreed with Nosferattus on the proper application of MEDRS. That was an example of the battleground mentality. We have policies like WP:AGF and WP:NPA that are specifically meant to address that battleground mentality. Absent evidence that someone is POV pushing (or "promoting disinformation"), we assume good faith: we assume that everyone is here to fight disinformation, to uphold reliable sources. Nosferattus created a large problem by failing to do so, by accusing Zefr of POV-pushing (which led to more PAs from multiple editors, and canvassing, and this thread). And here you are, SM, doing the same damn thing: implying that Nosferattus is promoting disinformation and not upholding MEDRS. Stop the cycle. Either bring the diffs and prove POV pushing or disinformation promotion... or else AGF and treat both Zefr and Nosferattus as editors who are both upholding MEDRS and fighting disinformation (but who simply disagree on the details). Levivich 14:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @S Marshall: For the record, the statement that Zefr canvassed to remove was cited to a Cochrane Review from its first appearance, which is considered the gold standard for WP:MEDRS compliance. Please see the straw poll in question. As I mentioned in the initial complaint here, this was not "Zefr enforcing MEDRS", this was Zefr fighting a content dispute by unilaterally reverting 3 other editors and then canvassing. Sure, MEDRS can be interpreted to support Zefr's opinion, but it can also be interpreted to support my opinion. Nothing in MEDRS prohibits adding the sentence I added to the article, and I don't think anyone would argue it is "disinformation". What people are arguing about is the strength of the evidence. This complaint, however, is not about content, it is about behavior, so I would love it if we don't bring the content dispute here. Nosferattus (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Despite Levivich and Nosferattus' very outraged, passionate and spirited defence of this, I remain of the view that while Zefr's actions did amount to canvassing, there are mitigating factors. I remain of the view that a logged sanction for Zefr should form part of our response to this, but I disagree that it should be the only response.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
            • @S Marshall: What other response are you proposing? Personally, I think tightening up the language at WP:MEDRS would be a good response. If the community truly feels like Zefr's interpretation of MEDRS is valid (i.e. that cited sources must focus specifically on the claim cited rather than discussing it within research on a related topic), that should be written into WP:MEDRS. Nosferattus (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm still looking at it, and I haven't finished deciding how I think we should respond. At the moment I envisage the additional required responses as advice and guidance rather than logged sanctions. I can also see good grounds for edits to guidelines. A question that has recently troubled me is how I should act where someone canvassed me to join a discussion and, having read it, I did want to participate in the discussion. I think the editors Zefr canvassed would have benefitted from that too.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

                @S Marshall I understand where you are coming from, but WP:MITIGATING isn't even an essay yet. In my experience, our community is much more about the letter of the law than the spirit. For the record, in principle, I agree that mitigating factors should be more often considered - you can also check out my relevant mini-essay here. And as for the barnstar, nobody needs an ANI permission to award one. If you think Zefr's deserves a barnstar, you can award him one at anytime. The odds of it being a community approved one on the level of a warning, however, are rather slim. (Out of curiosity, has AN(I) discussion ever resulted in a community-approved barnstar...?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

            • I am not outraged and that wasn't really passionate, at least for me. Levivich 17:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Question Can someone explain to me what a "logged warning" is and what effect it has? Nosferattus (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a warning that's logged at WP:EDR. Levivich 17:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Levivich and El C: So is someone going to act on this proposal? What is the next step? Nosferattus (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nosferattus: don't know. Haven't looked at this since my Sept 11 comment. El_C 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - per Nosferattus' question. What is "logged warning for canvassing". GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. Blatant case of canvassing. A warning is warrented because Zefr continued to excuse his actions. It's unfortunate that experienced editors feel compelled to defend breaking of the rules when it's done 'for a good cause'. It's harmful WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality as Levivich mentioned above. Av = λv (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. scope_creep^Talk 12:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

It's been about 2 weeks since the last substantive comment in this discussion. Could an administrator review it and close it? Thanks. Nosferattus (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fake referencing

I am usually deep down in the mines digging for information to improve articles with, so I may have missed this topic being discussed here. I frequently come across OR, or POV-pushing where the sources referred to either don't contain the information at all, or actually say the opposite of what they are claimed to say. I am getting more and more concerned by this and I wonder what kind of administrative sanctions that would be suitable for editors who are caught adding fake references or change referenced information in non-trivial ways.--Berig (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fictitious references suggests that users found to be deliberately adding false citations should be warned suitably and blocked if the behaviour persists. I agree with that approach; the {{uw-error1}} series of warning templates seems to cover this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 08:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!--Berig (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally have very little patience with users who falsify content or lie about citations. Unlike obvious "lol penis lol" vandalism, this has the potential for lasting harm, and blocks should be made quickly. —Kusma (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I am tempted to just give these editors indefinite blocks.--Berig (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no point in warning a user that intentionally corrupting articles with false references is wrong, this is something people already know is wrong. I do see the need to determine if it was intentional though. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree. An immediate indef seems more appropriate. If some kind of "good reason" exists, this can then be used for an unblock. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there was recently such an incident where I could assume good faith due to the circumstances involved.--Berig (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Berig, can you elaborate? I believe you, I just can't myself come up with a scenario under which deliberately adding information not included in the source could be good faith. I can see misinterpreting, but that wouldn't fall under 'deliberate'. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:, in this case, it was a long time editor in good standing who tried to fix a few broken references, believing they were from a particular source that was already in the bibliography, and there were other issues about it. The result was unfortunate, but it is fixed now with the intervention of other editors. I think the editor who did it is embarrassed about it, and I am certain it will not be repeated.--Berig (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It is edits like these that make me really concerned. The last source doesn't even mention the topic.--Berig (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see -- so certainly not deliberate falsification, just a misstep anyone could make. And, yes, it's often nationalistic POV-pushing where I see this, and it's especially difficult when the source is in another language and isn't available online in a translatable form. I've definitely had occasion where AGF seemed like it might just be credulousness. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOAX may be relevant and is an actual guideline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I try to be fairly tough regarding warning and blocking editors who falsify references. Wikipedia is built around principles based on trust and honesty such as WP:AGF and WP:V, and people who make stuff up in the hope of tricking readers and other editors have no place here. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be OK with an immediate indef if you were certain that the person was doing it intentionally. I was trying imagine situations where it could be done inadvertently, when a warning might be more appropriate - say someone finds a bit of information in one article with a source, and ports it over to another article, citing the same source but not actually checking it. That's bad practice, but it's not intentional deception if it later turned out that the source was a dud. Similarly, if someone read something in the Daily Mail, which referenced some bit of scientific research, I could imagine them repeating whatever the DM said about it, but citing the original source without reading it - again, bad practice, but not intentional deception. But yeah - if they've set out to deceive, they have no business editing here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's also more than possible for someone to read one source in a series of citations,^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]} verify that it contains some other bit of info they're seeking for some other article, and then accidentally Ctrl-C on the wrong cite in the series. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This happens all the time in articles that are of interest to children. IP editors, mostly. Basically, they use citations as decorative elements to give their edits more credibility. What sometimes happens is that a reliable source says that a cartoon first aired in 2018. Our IP editor knows this is untrue because they clearly remember watching that cartoon in 2017. However, they're savvy enough to know that someone using Huggle will insta-revert them if they change the date without a citation. So, they replace the existing source with some random citation, preferably one that goes to a paywalled website. Voila! The correct information is now on Wikipedia, and it's even sourced. Outright vandalism is rarer in my experience, but it definitely happens. I tend to range block those as I find them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

An example: LouisAlain

Let me give an example of a prolific editor (whom I'll notify directly) who does this (the mild version). User:LouisAlain translates biographies from German (dewiki). In the past, they also translated unsourced BLPs, which got them into trouble. They then started adding "random" sources at the end of paragraphs: sometimes about the subject of the article (but not the paragraph), sometimes not even that. I repeatedly warned them about this in January[27] and again[28], with many examples. To no avail, as a few weeks later the same happened again[29]. When I look at their creations now, I see Thorsten Pech, which had only a few refs in the original German article. LouisAlain adds some to his translation, but again uses random refs in random places, with this to source a biographical paragraph, and this Reddit discussion of a Youtube video to source a further biographical paragraph. At least in this case, both sources are about the same person, not some random namesake, but the end result remains: unacceptable "fake" referencing, to give the impression that all paragraphs are sourced when in reality they aren't. Fram (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I regularly improve new translations by LouisAlain which show up on my watch list, and have not noticed what you call "fake referencing" recently, examples Leo Kestenberg (there was a long passage without refs, now commented out, - please look in the history if you can help sourcing it) and Josef Friedrich Doppelbauer which came with few references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There are also articles that are at best lazily translated without checking the sources. Roman Sadnik (from 2021-09-01): second ref, although claimed to have been accessed on the same day, does not mention the article subject. (If you accessed the page, why did you not read it?) Third ref: dead link, marked as dead on dewiki more than two years ago. LouisAlain, I am shocked to see that you have been here 10 years and have 60000 edits but still make this kind of mistakes: why would you ever cite an irretrievably dead link with no known archive, and not even tell people that you know the link is dead? —Kusma (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that not only don't they check the sources, but they pretend to have checked them anyway. In Udo Schneberger, they claim to have "retrieved" the sources on "19 August 2021", but the first source doesn't work because they made an error when copying it, and the second source no longer exists. The original, German article had these sources in January 2015, when they were working. Claiming that you have retrieved a source when translating an article, when in reality that source is no longer available, is again fake referencing. Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst, sentence about her early career, sourced to her Shazam profile (!) which contains no biographical information at all[30]. Third source, again a paragraph of biographical information, sourced to this which has nothing of the sort. Johannes Cernota, first source should be about their studies with Luciano Ortis, but that source succeeds in not having any information on either of them[31]! And the second (and final) source for his biography is ... Napster[32], which again has no information relating to anything in the preceding paragraph. It looks as if this is a constant in nearly all their creations (or at least way too many of them). It has often been suggested that they should work through AfC / Draft space instead of creating articles directly: perhaps it's time to turn this into an actual sanction? Fram (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst has an interesting history: The German article was originally copied from [33]. The text was donated, see de:Diskussion:Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst. So while it is not copyvio according to that talk page post (can't check the OTRS), it relies only on a single self-published source, and the English version now does so as well. (The "Institut-fuer-bildnerisches-denken" ref is just a copy/paraphrase of that). This is nowhere close to acceptable sourcing for a new BLP. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, I've removed the website autobiography from that article and sent it to AfD. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going through his last 100 creations one by one (bottom up), and nearly all of them have these issues. Typical examples are Franz-Josef Birk, sourcing a full paragraph to this and one to this. Gereon Krahforst, the first section on his training is only sourced to this. Many of their creations have already been moved to draftspace (e.g. Draft:Hans Robertson or Draft:Friedrich Schirmer, see [34]) where LouisAlain so far refuses to edit. 08:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I was reviewing several of these articles over the last few days on npp. They are very very poor articles. The referencing was dire. I found many of them had damaged refs, incomplete, dead links and so on, whole bits not ref'd. Its like there is no time to slow and that is at the expense of quality. I think it is a good idea to make the articles go through afc. scope_creep^Talk 12:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on article-creation for LouisAlain

Proposal: LouisAlain must create all new articles in draft space, and they can only be moved to the mainspace by AfC reviewers. Fram (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support, although I don't care too much who does the moves as long as it is not LA. The responses to concerns (sometimes promises, sometimes just attacks against the editor pointing out problems) like this look like LousAlain either doesn't understand the problem or chooses to ignore it. In either case, things can't just continue like this. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think we have two problems, one is adding references that don't reference, and another is to detect that an article written in a foreign language is a copyvio. The first can be avoided by LouisAlain not adding any references, and for the second, Fram would be a good help. All in draft would make it very difficult for me to detect the new ones, - please spare me that trouble if it can be avoided. I'd have to follow contribs, which means several articles per day. I'm just grateful he does it! Many of his creations have been rescued from draft space where nobody watches and nobody is invited to improve. I suggest we help each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  LouisAlain not adding references would definitely solve the problem of fake references, but then these pages clearly won't be in a state acceptable for mainspace. Having his page creations in draft space wouldn't necessarily have to mean more work for you: I think there could be easy ways to alert you and other interested people of LouisAlain's new drafts (say, a page where announces them to a WikiProject or to all interested people). —Kusma (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't want to be alerted 5 times a day, having my own work. I notice new articles on my watch list, and then look if I will expand. I do one article per day, and can't keep up with the speed. Isn't this Wikipedia, where all can help. You see an article without refs, and decide to tag it or find one. I can't help thinking that finding one might be easier. In German articles, often making a further reading (Literatur) a ref and cite it inline does the trick. - LOOK. Two DYK articles today, and both created by LouisAlain. We'd miss a lot without him. How about more thanks on his talk. I fail to see how admins could help at all in the process of making this corner more collaborative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain's response
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
-- Hey, I just discover I have the honour of a whole paragraph on the administrator's notice board. Thanks so much to all who've made it possible. Now, this will be an all out confession : I'm bad ! I'm very bad and I apologize for the chaos and mayhem I have brought to the English wikipedia. Oh the sinner ! oh the criminal ! oh the bloody beastard ! He creates articles that are not perfect when put on the main. Be he and his family damned until the 40th generation ! Hadn't I lost my autopatrol rights some three years ago (didn't know what they were, didn't ask to be granted them, they were presented to me after 50 articles which I suppose were deemed in lign with this Wiki policy), I wouldn't figure on the list of "users to follow step by step", they present a very suspicious figure in our books. Why did I lose my A.P rights ? Well, you know her name... Of course I won't answer to the informer who took at least half an hour of his life to research in the archives examples of my misdeeds. Besides, he once again shows his true colour (for those who didn't know) by evoking sanctions ! (rest assure Mr. informer, this won't fail to happen and you'll have the sadistic pleasure to have another victime on your "user to get rid of" list. My memory may fails me but User:Richard Nevell wrote some three years ago that you were harrassing me. Nothing new under the sun). What a friendly atmosphere to work in when one is surrounded by hunters whose ultimate goal is to kill their prey. I notice that two of the guiding principles of wikipedia are regularly ignored and even stomped on : Supposedly Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, hence help and support are (at least that's my understanding) expected, not the opposite. Suppose good faith. That one takes the cake ! I'm spoken of here as if I were delibaretly and voluntarily ignoring messages and advice I receive. Duhh ! I've already answered several times to this one but of course to no avail : executionners never listen to those they want to behead. They stubornely pursue their ultimate enjoyment : destroy the other. See fr:Perversion narcissique So I repeat once again : I am bad at finding references. I suck at this exercise. So you may tell me one trillion times to better this part of my translations, you can threaten me with whatever your wild imagination may invent, even cut my wrists or my arms, it won't change my unability to find decent references. I don't know how others do but I can't, I simply can't though I'm doing the research on Google.de. I try my best and all I find are most often very poor references. For crying out loud, what part don't you understand in what I write ? Is my English so poor that I'm even uncapable to be understood ? I repeat once again : I am bad at finding references. I suck at this exercise. Since the discreet intervention of Boleyn three years ago, all my translations are supervised by reviewers (about 4,500 of them since her intervention) who every now and then add the {{refimprove|date=July 2021}} tag. What's the point of being rewieved (mostly by John B123 who I thak here for his education and good manners) when some of my fellow Wikipedian friends insist my translations need more stuff ? As for not reworking the articles sent to the deep freezer, I simply profondly object to the unceremonious handling by some people who lack the basic manners of politess. You see, I belong to the old school and stick to the old fashioned way. Scuttling an article whose completion may have taken one or two hours of work irks me a littel it to say the least. All the more when no explanations are provided. I've reworked some of them before, submitted the new version and it was rebuked. Oh well... The funny thing (kind of) is that the fate of many an article depends on the person who performs the move. Talk of consistancy here ! How amateurish ! I notice there are hundreds of hundreds thousands articles with no ref. (or possibly one or two, including dead links) but obviously nobody cares about them. I've linked to some of them on my homepage (and yes, the informer once spent some minutes to better one of them). Other than that, I can only hear the sound of cricket regarding these so-called "articles". Speaking of so-called articles, the most prolific creator (whose name of course I won't mention) with something in the range of 95,000 articles, seems to benefit a green light for all his stubs of stubs (one sentence or possibly two, one ref or two ad that's it). What is the secret of this user to keep on publishing his botched job ? (Oh, I know about the Pokemon argument which I consider the perfect pretence to not change anything at all). Since it crosses my mind right now, I thank Kusma (who I gather is German) for helping me understand I don't do enough to propagate Germanic culture on the English Wikipedia. I'm shoked here, Kusma, very shoked ! So, to put an end to a long entertaining monologue, I've decided that from today (yesterday actually) I won't translate any article from German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. if is not accompanied by sufficient online references. Here they are : Horst-Eberhard Richter Jeanne Barbillion Armin Thurnher Elfriede Hammerl Brucknerfest August Bauer Willy Spatz Max Martersteig with references found haphazardly on the net. As far as I'm concerned, only Gerda Arendt and Grimes2 actually play the game according to the rules implied by the collaborative thingie. May they find another expression of my gratitude here. Again : I suck at finding good references. I can't like I can't read Chinese. Not to mention my many shortcomings with the HTLM code. Now if you want to castigate and to threaten me even more, You know my name LouisAlain (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain, sorry, I have no time to read all this (but hope writing it was good for you), because today it's not only one of your articles but also a violinist who died and has a miserable article - all referenced but not doing justice to what he meant to the world - and there's RL. I like your list of articles, - how about putting just the names of those you plan to do on your talk, and Fram can make a tick if copyright free, and I can make a tick for "will expand", and others can comment as well. - Please, everybody: don't use "<br>", ever, it ruins the colours in edit mode. Alternatives: a blank line, bullets, or close it: "<br />". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:: the corrida goes on ! LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So you are bad at finding references. OK. One of the things we've been talking about is that your new articles come with <ref> tags and external links that do not work or that (no longer) link to anything related to the article subject. Can you tell whether a link that somebody else (for example, an editor on the German Wikipedia) has suggested supports the content preceding it? —Kusma (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma. I used to delete dead links on the German Wikipedia until someone over there told me not to. So, What am I supposed to do ? I thought I had answered all of your remarks but of course, as is usual, to no avail. Intellectual dishonesty runs deep among some administrators. I raise the issue of the point of my articles being submitted to rewievers. What was your answer (as well as other close friends I have on this site) ? None. Zilch. Zero. The sound of cricket. And I'm supposed to take you seriously ? Comme on. LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not to be mean, but if you can't find good references, you shouldn't be writing a wikipedia article. I get that you're translating, but asking others to find the references is going beyond collaboration and into making things more difficult for the other editors. The way to write a wikipedia article is to find the good sources, read the good sources, and THEN write the wikipedia article from the sources that you find that are good. If you're translating an article, presumably those non-English articles have sources - in which case you should read THOSE sources, make sure they support the information in the article you're going to translate, and then translate the article, using those sources over here in the English wikipedia. It's immeasurably harder for other articles to take unsourced wikipedia articles and then have to find sources that support the unsourced information - because it's not the best way to make sure that the information is sources and paraphrased properly. What you seem to be expecting is that you translate the article, and then some other editor comes along, goes out and finds the sources that support the information you've added, and then they have to make sure that the way you translated things actually fits the sources they found. Do you see how that's a lot more work? Whether there are other articles that don't cite sources is immaterial - we shouldn't be ADDING to that number of articles that are going to make folks have to work harder to find sources and then shoehorn them in. Please don't expect other editors to clean up after you... that's not collaboration. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth. You shouldn't be writing a wikipedia article. Now we're going further in the process to eliminate me. A simple thing to do is to delete all my translations; sorry about having polluted the project with my filthy contributions. Also, I raised the issue of hundreds and hundreds thousands articles without the slightest reference and with no substance at all. What was your answer ? The sound of cricket of course! What you are suggesting is that participating to the project requires an intellectual scope well above mine. Can one be more discrimating ? LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't be here, I pointed out the correct way to write a wikipedia article. And how to properly translate one. I get that you're trying to improve Wikipedia - what I'm trying to do is improve your editing so that you don't feel like folks are harassing you and following you around. So... for example - Tag des offenen Denkmals, which you just translated today. In it, it has the sentence "In 2006, the Tag des offenen Denkmals was awarded as an "Excellent Place" of the Germany – Land of Ideas campaign." with the source here. I note that you included the source because it was in the German article. All well so far. When you translated the article, you said that this source was "365 Orte 2006: Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz. In: land-der-ideen.de, retrieved 6 September 2021." When you put in "retrieved 6 September 2021" you are implicitly saying that you checked that source and it supports the information you're saying it sources - that "In 2006, the Tag des offenen Denkmals was awarded as an "Excellent Place" of the Germany – Land of Ideas campaign". Unfortunately, this is not the case. The solution to this is not to quit wikipedia, but to change your workflow in translating. You should check the sources in the articles you're translating before you bring them over to the English wikipedia. If the sources in the German (or whatever article) do not support the information ... you should NOT attach them to the English translation. This is the problem. You're falsifying references ... even if you're taking the "good faith" approach and assuming good faith on the part of the editors who originally added them in the non-English article. If you'd just not do that, a large chunk of your problems would be gone. You'd still need to find sources for the information, but at least you wouldn't be misleading others that there ARE sources that support it, when they do not. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support restricting creating new articles in mainspace (but I don't agree with requiring afc; any editor should be allowed to move them to mainspace). I just can't wrap my head around someone saying they are bad at finding good sources but are still creating articles. Finding sources is Step #1 for creating an article. If you skip that step and still create the article, you're only creating a problem. Levivich 13:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Levivich And now I'm learning I am creating problems on the en. Wikipedia; Thanks for the recognition of all the work I have done here. With friends like you...

• Maybe they should be required to provide sources before they are even allowed to create an article.... Rgrds --Bison X (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Who's "they" ? When I started learning English some 60 years ago, the pronoun for the first person in singular was "he or him" The times, they are a'changing... No wonder I'm lost in this jungle.

Bison X. But what a good idea ! Creating second rank users who will beg for the possibility of participating to the project. And I thought even correcting a typo was worth intervening. But Bison has his own criteria mind you ! You also show you haven't even read my former answer: So I'll repeat it: I decided two or three days ago I won't translate any article from German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. if it is not accompanied by sufficient online references. Here they are :

• Horst-Eberhard Richter
• Jeanne Barbillion
• Armin Thurnher
• Elfriede Hammerl
• Brucknerfest
• August Bauer
• Willy Spatz
• Max Martersteig with references found haphazardly on the net.

My last 25 artices:

• Tag des offenen Denkmals
• Henri Boncquet
• Emil Jungblut
• Gerda Kratz
• Malkasten-Redoute
• Johannes Radke
• Eberhard Westhofen
• Hermann vom Endt
• Willi Hoselmann
• Alte Tonhalle
• Karl Friedrich Wunder
• Irmtrud Wojak
• Gerlinde Haid
• Susanne Scholl
• Hans Haid
• Waldemar Titzenthaler
• Siegmund Labisch
• Albert Zander
• Zander & Labisch
• Edgar Weil
• Doris von Schönthan
• Franz Danksagmüller
• Wolfgang Glüxam
• Elke Eckerstorfer
• Christoph Wigelbeyer

It's references that you want ? There they are. Now, I'm sure you all guys won't be deterred to attack me on other points some wicked people never fail to find. At least, have the courage and honesty to write you want me to be banned. Also I have de:Friedrich Wilhelm Graupenstein with 69 references in view. Does Bison X have the magnanimity to allow me to take my chances ? Some minds are inebriated with hubris as soon as they smell an opportunity to devour their next.

• John B123 : Please, no need to keep on rewieving my publications, some nice fellows here are showing me the way out. Fram has already showed them the way (blocked twice for peccadillos, and simply ignoring the "Suppose Good Faith" mantra). They don't read my answers, don't take them into consideration, ignore my questions and will pursue their drive to crush me until I'm given the boot. I've been here before and nothing can surprise me from people I'm no match to, intellectually speaking.

• The lengh some people with an ounce of power will go to assert their will on others is simply flabbergasting ! Homo Homini Lupus. Of course we're all equal on Wikipedia except for those who are more equal than the others.

• Plato had a perfect quote for this kind of interlocutors but it would take too much time to unearth it; Too bad, but if you insist (knowing perfectly well you won't) I'll will deliver. In the meantime I have this : Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughter house and thinks : They're only animals (Theodor W. Adorno)

• Forgive them Lord, they don't know what they're doing. LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've just clicked on the 'random article' button only to immediately land on Archaeologia Polona. 2 references repeated twice. I'm sure the bright minds associated against me will rush to correct the situation (Actually, I don't hold my breath. Nothing will be changed : I'm their target, and nobody else). How pathetic and morally corrupt some people are. LouisAlain (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've reverted it as a copyright violation. I don't think insulting people left and right is your best way forward here. What also won't help is simply continuing with the problematic behaviour: you created Henri Boncquet (translated from dewiki), and added one source to the 1 1/2 sentence "[...]then moved to the Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts in Brussels for a few years. He received his first official commission in 1894: the bronze eagle in the botanical garden at the Schaarbeek Gate in Brussels"[35]. That source has no information on the preceding paragraph at all, so why add it there? (The second source in the article is equally bad, but you copied that, you didn't add it). Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • In Gerda Kratz (very poor sourcing, but that's in the original), you claim that you retrieved the 6th source yesterday. I doubt it[36]. Claiming that you have checked a source (or at the very least its existence) when in fact you haven't again is faking references. The article should probably be moved to draft as a very poorly sourced, partially translated, unverified article. Fram (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Susanne Scholl, created by you two days ago: In this edit, you claim that the statement "Her temporary arrest by the Russian authorities while reporting from Chechnya caused a sensation." is supported by this. Not there (apart from the fact that this isn't a particularly good source). If you can't read French, you should not use French sources. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  @LouisAlain, if you do not address your own behaviour, you will not get anywhere here. This is not because anyone is out to get you, it is because the quality of the sourcing you use is consistently terrible, and you regularly present wrong references that do not support what you claim they support. If you are unable to tell that, well, Wikipedia:Competence is required from all editors here, and those unable to read the references they cite should be shown the door. —Kusma (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote before : a dialogue of the deaf. I've alredady wasted too much time on this thread which shows how biased some here are. It's blatant that my translations are under fire (probably rightly) but not the other horrors I find everyday on the main. Why am I singled out when thousands other users do far more worse than me ? I'll never know since questions aren't answered here. Does Der Process ring a bell Kusma ? What's the use of being rewieved ? Still waiting for an answer. Why did you wait nearly 6,000 articles to discover my incompetence ? (Sorry, my I.Q has only two digits). There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands articles like Archaeologia Polona that I had to bring to you attention so that Fram intervened. Fram, if you're unsatisfied with Gerda Kratz or Susanne Scholl, please delete, delete, delete. It won't take you more than one second. And since you're at it, delete also all the crap that are on the main (it will take you several month now) and at least 4,000 of my translations. Kusma, please, spare me "your competence is required from all editors here" whereas it is obviously an all-out lie. I've lost complete trust in the way Wikipedia is run by people who behave like Chief human resources officers treating users like their employees to whom orders are given. I now know for a fact that whatever the quality of the sources and references, some will always find something to object to. I'll have to find this quote from Plato which fits so perfectly with someone's behaviour here. It's an everyday psychological mindset around the world.

you claim that you retrieved the 6th source yesterday. I doubt it. I affirm I did, now of course only me make mistakes. And you once again spit on one of the founding principles of Wikipedia : Assume good faith by suggesting I'm a liar and a cheater at that. The man is frontly insulting me and nobody cares. Ô the confort of being part of a corporation where "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is the keywod at the expense of good faith editors.~Withour Jimmy Wale's support on my side. This whole business is so, so, so amateurish and dishonest.

I thought the point was moot since I announced that I had changed my tack (my "behaviour" in Kusma's parlance) and will translate uniquely articles with correct sourcing in the first place. Is Tag des offenen Denkmals to your taste or do you still want to pursue this silly escalade to more an more references? I wasn't born last year, been around for some decades now and when I see a profile like yours, I know who is adressing me. Have a look at fr:Perversion nacissique (with a translating machine at the handy). I'll translate the French one (yes, I can read French) even if the 36 references are all in French (probably).

I've started translating de:Lorenz Cantador with 27 references. Please all you folks, tell me it's useless, the English version has already it's place in the paper shredder. I don't know about your "competence" Kusma (I wouldn't have had the crass audacity of using that term à propos you. A matter of education perhaps) but I admit you're a virtual Olympic champion at discouraging others. Rest assure you're not the only one. LouisAlain (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain, are you deliberately trolling? According to Tag des offenen Denkmals, you accessed this page today, which is a 404. You should be blocked from editing the next time you lie about sources like that. In fact, you should be blocked already, but I'll hide behind WP:INVOLVED instead of doing so as you have started insulting me. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, dear fragile carebear. Don't bother to banish me. I've left volontarily. I'm not up to your intellectual level. LouisAlain (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to indef block them, I think. Apart from source I highlighted above, and the one from Kusma (where LouisAlain claims in both cases that they were working just a few days ago, quite a coincidence), see e.g. also Hans Haid, where both the 1st[37] and 6th source[38] are not available, even though LouisAlain had no trouble accessing them 2 days ago. Combined with the more and more outrageous personal attacks and ramblings, I see no reason to let them retire now with the possibility of an unretirement whenever they feel like it. Fram (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We have to be hard on fake referencing, especially if the person has been warned before. I can take care of the indefinite block.--Berig (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, please. LouisAlain translated all Bach cantatas to French, DYK. And was banned there. Now he created thousands of translations into English. And you come with this proposal?? I thank LouisAlain, and would miss him. Just look for his name in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/DYK 2021 and its archives. If an estimated 5% of his translations cause problems, why not fix them, but thank him for the 95% others? Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If it were just 5%. Even now, with the articles he created during this ANI discussion, we get these issues on many of his creations (e.g. with the sources he "retrieved" during translation, but which are mysteriously unavailable days later, or with sources he added which don't support the preceding text). Perhaps the question should be why he was also banned at frwiki instead? Fram (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with an indef. He responded to the concerns raised here by making personal attacks and continuing to add false access-dates to references. Not to mention creating an article without checking the references. It's not acceptable. It's not helpful, it's unhelpful. He needs to stop making articles, and clearly he won't on his own. A block is the only way to prevent disruption such as giving false information to the reader and wasting other editors time. Sorry but not everyone who volunteers their time here is actually helping. We just don't need someone to translate articles without checking references; that must stop one way of another. Levivich 14:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have any influence on LouisAlain that can prevent him from deliberately trying to get himself blocked, please use it. Unfortunately I can't agree with your estimate of "5% cause problems"; there seem to be far more, and the deliberate lies about access date don't engender any trust. I didn't go out of my way to search problems, I opened just a few of the pages LouisAlain himself linked to and found that the sources did not work. Reading his French talk page, LouisAlain seems to have a way of being his own worst enemy (and of painting himself as a victim of an abusive system). The ban on mainspace creation proposed above looked to me as if it could provide a way out where LouisAlain does not need to change his way of referencing, with others helping. Sad to see this not working out. —Kusma (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: Why am I singled out when thousands other users do far more worse than me ? We do have thousands of terrible articles, yes. Hundreds of thousands, actually. But you are not being singled out, you are standing out by yourself: If you would add to the number of terrible articles slowly, you would probably pass unnoticed. However, you have created 1400 pages in the last year. Please name any of the thousands other people who create four pages per day that require substantial cleanup regarding sources and prose. —Kusma (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose ban I protest a ban of LouisAlain strongly. He is good in translating, with a little weakness in referencing. Maybe there is a solution. I can do the referencing part (timeconsuming, please not so many articles). He can create an article in his sandboxes, I do the referencing. After that, the article can be released to mainspace. Grimes2 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks to me as if he is strongly opposed to any such solution, all similar suggestions have been dismissed. If you can get them to agree to such a condition, then that may be a possible way out. Fram (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If he doesn't agree, a partial block from mainspace is another option, short of a sitewide block. Levivich 16:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain agrees. Important for him is, that he has the ability to release to the mainspace. Grimes2 (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Grimes2 Maybe there is a solution. I can do the referencing part this is exactly what can be done if they're creating articles in draftspace. Other users can improve references before it goes into article space, which would be better than having undersourced/incorrectly sourced articles in mainspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My experience is, that an article is forgotten in Draftspace, and after 6 month it is deleted. What's wrong with an article that is well referenced. The article is only released to mainspace, if referencing is done. Grimes2 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grimes2, thank you for your work on this. It does not look as if LouisAlain has stopped creating poorly sourced articles in mainspace. Could you and @LouisAlain clarify what the agreement is here? @Fram just had to move Nicolas Mahler to Draft:Nicolas Mahler today, where LA had added an obvious non-source to his translation of the dewiki article. (Great Austrian comic artist by the way, I love his work and am slightly ashamed on behalf of the English Wikipedia that we don't have a decent article yet, but I don't see LA's first draft helping much). In the absence of a concrete agreement, the proposed mainspace creation ban still looks like the weakest sanction we can consider here, and we can't just continue to ignore this. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Nicolas Mahler was my fault. This has been fixed. Please take a look at the article now. It can be released to mainspace now. Grimes2 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban on creating directly into article space. Forcing them to create articles in draftspace means that if they are undersourced, other editors can help fix them before they go "live" in article space. Or if they don't get fixed, they don't get published. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment An editor hasn't just had problems providing sourcing--they've been providing false sourcing, lying about it, and are deflecting when caught and insulting the editors who are raising concerns about this. How are we even talking about partial blocks, or accepting people arguing that LouisAlain is a productive editor with "some" sourcing issues? This is a major behavioral fail, which is causing, has caused, and will cause significant amounts of work and rework for other editors to clean up the "productivity". They should already be blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• AFC is not a solution. AFC reviewers won't be checking citations to see if they confirm the text. What is needed is an Apprenticeship with an extremely diligent fact-checker who will take it upon themselves to check every single citation in anything LouisAlain produces. And since he is apparently largely unable to produce even an accurately cited draft, he should do all these mock-ups in his userspace (subpages and sandboxes), and await the fact-checker who is mentoring him to do anything further. Lastly, If he sucks at citing, he should not be writing articles. It's just that simple. WP:V is the cornerstone of Wikipedia and indeed any encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's not just sourcing issues, the quality of the translations is also poor. The recently created Dietrich Meinardus, Ludwig von Milewski, Moritz Geisenheimer will all take more time to clean up than rewriting from scratch would, and it's less fun to do for most people. There's a recent warning by @Shirt58 about this on the talk page. LouisAlain creates far too many such articles; we'd need to clone Grimes2 and Gerda a few times to fix them all. —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that AFC is not a solution. AFC is not at all suited to handle the issues raised here. AFC generally does not involve looking closely at source material, and there are not sufficient multilingual reviewers in any event. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose editing restrictions.

  (written yesterday, trying to not participate in the "judgement" but adding information:) Today's pictured DYK was created by LouisAlain, DYK? He began working in a sandbox. I enjoy the work with him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Today's DYK has Leo Kestenberg, created by LouisAlain, and its that type of article I'd miss much if he left. I believe that articles don't have to be perfect when created, - actually I believe that no article will ever be perfect. But together, we can do our best to make them good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. Fram (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No improvement Yesterday, they created Joseph Euler. The second source is "retrieved 9 September 2021". It doesn't work though[39]. @LouisAlain: do you claim that this link worked yesterday? Fram (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC) I DO. Mister Fram, you're so eager to fulfill your dream of killing me after 5 five years of stalking me that you make a fool of yourself in the eyes of everybody. The link still works, just scroll down a little bit and you'll find the content of the site. Now, what's next? Will you reproach me to not have indicated it was necessary to scroll down a bit? Or to not have modified said site so that the content pops up on top of their page ? A 9,719 ko.s article in one shot, and all you come out with is another wrong accusation. How other supposed intelligent administrators followed you to this point baffles me. Today, I've just finished Ludwig von Milewski (one shot). Search, search, you may find a wrong placed coma or whatever. But rest assure, sooner or latter you'll succed in your drive to ban me. LouisAlain (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC) You're right, it does, my apologies. Fram (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I previously spent more time translating but have since moved on to other activities, in part because of the difficulties posed by translating articles that are not well-referenced (including inadvertently translating copy-pasted content and introducing translation copyright violations, which are fairly difficult to detect and remedy later). Is there any way that LouisAlain could concentrate his efforts on featured articles or similar, to minimize these issues occurring? I think that translation of poorly referenced or unreferenced articles is often unhelpful because of the higher standards at en.wiki, and presumably there are enough well-referenced articles that could be translated to keep LouisAlain busy for some time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I previously decided not to take part any longer to this thread but your recent comment (one of the smartest of them all if you allow me) that I just discover, calls for an exception. This advice should have been given to me years before. Anyway, I took the decision some 8 days ago to do exactly that: Pick up articles with a minimum of five verified references in the original German or French (or other European languages) articles. My latest Carl Ernst Bernhard Jutz had 8 references including one dead link. That one has 14. To no avail ayway, some here will be too happy to find one single typo to crucify me. LouisAlain (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain, this seems like a constructive way forward! good luck! i disagree with others below who are expecting you to personally check references (especially those that may not be available to you) -- as long as some editor has vouched for the content of the reference, i don't personally think it's the translator's job to do so again. but i may be in the minority here... also, it seems like people care deeply about the access date listed, so be careful with that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I was invited to participate in this discussion, and here are my thoughts:

LouisAlain, you should always double-check and read your sources of information. Writing a new article is a fairly significant amount of work, which requires reading and understanding your source material completely and comprehensively. Indeed, you get the message "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions" every time you make an edit. This, incidentally is why you can see offers to write articles on my talk page that I politely decline because I don't feel sufficiently qualified on the subject matter. I don't think getting excessively snarky with people who are pointing out mistakes is at all helpful, and will just make other people think you're not a net positive to the project and should be blocked. Sure, I can think of some examples where somebody points out mistakes in my writing in a not-amazingly-polite manner, but usually I remind myself that it's not personal and manage it accordingly.

I'm pleased to see that Grimes2 has offered to help look at some of these articles and improve the verification and sources on it.

I'm writing this message in good faith in the hope you're recognise there's a problem, and that I'm not saying any of this to be mean, but just trying to make sure the encyclopaedia is factually correct.

And finally, Fram, we get that there are problems with LouisAlain's editing, and I think your comments are now bringing more heat than light into the discussion, and it would be helpful if other people chipped into the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Ritchie333. It would be great if some others could help with checking LouisAlain's referencing (and his translations, which commonly require a {{RoughTranslation}} tag; cleaning up such translations is a major effort comparable to writing the article from scratch), which often looks OK if you don't go and click the links and actually really read the reference given and compare it with what it references. It was a surprise to me to see how many of them are broken or incorrect. It could also perhaps show LA that this is not a personal vendetta by @Fram and myself, but a genuine community concern with his prolific creation of articles looking nice from a distance, but requiring serious cleanup work. —Kusma (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Today's new article Johannes Busmann. "Busmann passed his Abitur at today's Carl-Fuhlrott-Gymnasium [de] in Wuppertal, then studied art, music and philosophy at the University of Wuppertal and obtained his Staatsexamen in 1988 and the degree in 1989" claims this reference, which does not contain any of this information. Those who do not read the references they claim to use should not create new articles. This apparently includes LouisAlain. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • See also from the same day Eugen Busmann, where both this 404 error and this "cannot resolve hostname" are claimed to have been retrieved on 11 September. So we have references claimed to be checked but which don't work, references which work but don't support the text to which they are attached, machine translations (often only half finished, see the "work" section on Anton Josef Reiss), and abandoned "in use" wrecks (Guido de Werd, tagged as "in use" even though LouisAlain has since created 4 other articles, I have moved it to draft instead). Perhaps time that someone closes this section with appropriate measures. Fram (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at the very least - concerning editing history here. Nice to see others finally recognise that editors repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles is actionable... GiantSnowman 14:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• support topic ban Comment - if repeatedly adding fake references is not actionable, what is? I hope everyone here agrees that we are dealing with a very serious type of editing that compromises Wikipedia's reputation.--Berig (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• If no action is taken here, why should others take WP:HOAX and WP:verifiability seriously?--Berig (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Question/comment I see a lot of comments about "fake referencing" and "hoax" being thrown around but it seems more likely to me that AlainLouis is translating articles in good faith but it turns out the references in the non-english article he translated don't actually verify the text of the article. (And also that he is using the current date as a default for access-date but he should be copying over the access-date in the original reference.) Is this all there is, or am I missing something? Also, for people who think translators should be personally verifying all content against the listed reference, do you also think people who splice or merge articles should do so? And if not, why not? I view translation as akin to a splice and would not require the translator to verify the content of a reference that the original adding author has already vouched for by adding it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between translating and just executing a merge/split. In a merge/split situation, others can easily check the page history of the original pages. In a translation situation, it is impossible to do without some knowledge of the source language. If you just translate without checking any references, you're not just assuming that the people adding the references checked that it supports the text, but you are also assuming that nobody ever added text to the article that is not supported by the given references. That's a pretty big assumption. Translations done that way should be marked as unreliable, as their source is a wiki, not necessarily the claimed references. (I have translated like that, but that was in the Dark Ages of Wikipedia, before we had a general agreement of using reliable references. It was back when quantity, rather than quality, was our main driver of editing).

  If you want to translate properly, you often need to consult the sources at least to check which meaning of an ambiguous word is intended. Otherwise, your translation is likely to be not just unreliable, but even wrong. So yes, translators should vouch for every word they add, just like any article creator. If people don't want to do a proper translation, they can just add {{ill}} links and let readers take the risk of a poor automatic translation; I find that preferable to a translation that looks nice from far away but hasn't actually been verified by a human. (I've essentially stopped translating and just write new articles from the same sources nowadays, which is much slower but produces better articles that only contain verifiable content). —Kusma (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  When you split an article, you are likewise "assuming that nobody ever added text to the article that is not supported by the given references". Splitting an article referenced to foreign-language materials is really no different from translating an article sourced to foreign-language materials. In both cases, it is somewhat harder for a reader to verify the content of the article because the sources are not in English and may be difficult to obtain. I don't think as a practical matter that people go through article histories to compare the text of the article when the reference was added to the text of the article at present. If this happens, I assume that it is vanishingly rare. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - If Louis is knowingly "adding" fake references which is what has been described here then I agree that is not a good thing, probably actionable. However, I agree with @Calliopejen1 that the translator, this being Louis, can not be totally responsible for the sources of articles they translate. Ideally, a translator would be fluent in the language of the wiki they are copying from but that is not always the case and realistically can't always be the case. Louis is doing something very few care to engage in for these reasons. I think it's a little disingenuous to call what they are doing "adding" fake references when those references came from the original article on another wiki. If that is not the case then I stand corrected. I am going based on what I see in the conversation here. What I would caution Louis to do is to make sure that they are using the sources from the original article, they are using the access date of said sources unless they have checked the source themselves and can confirm the source is related to the information in the article or where it makes sense to update upon confirmation. I would also caution Louis to remember that not every wiki has the same exact restrictions and what is within the rules for one may not always be within the rules for another. That's true whether there are three, four, five or ten sources for an article. The rules are sometimes bent on even this Wikipedia to include something that may or may not be on the fringe of just over the edge in regards to our policies. Typically that is the case when consensus agrees so we should always follow consensus, even if consensus turns out to be wrong. Bottom line is that Louis can do better but so can we all. Louis can do some things to help alleviate some of the pressure on the community to clean up translated articles by just taking a few extra precautions. The community could do better about not assuming bad faith on the part of an editor that is trying to do a good thing for the encyclopedia in an area that very few actually try to edit. We often confuse civility with personal attacks. Louis has not been attacked though I know they feel that way. However, some of the the comments, the tone, the words used are uncivil and unkind. Louis would do well to understand that the frustration that others feel about these translations are justified. Likewise, the community would do well to understand that the constant piling on of uncivil remarks and unkind references are causing an enormous stress on an editor that is just trying to improve the encyclopedia. In cases like this we need to come together rather than rip each other apart. It's the civil thing to do. It's the kind thing to do and it's the best example of community collaboration we could ever hope for. --ARoseWolf 13:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ARoseWolf:: LouisAlain used to add fake references (not present in the original article), to avoid getting the articles draftified or deleted. He has for now stopped doing this it seems, but he continues with all the other issues, see e.g. one of his most recent creations, Adolf Schill
    • References "retrieved" by LouisAlain, which don't work or don't support the referenced text (this one doesn't work as presented but another page on the same site has the wanted info; this one has nothing to do with the wanted information, and nothing on that site seems to be of any interest; this one simply doesn't work, and neither does this one)
    • Very poor formatting, resulting in a "big red" cite error
    • Machine translations, resulting in things like "Born in Stuttgart, Schill attended the Staatliche Akademie der Bildenden Künste Stuttgart from 1864 to 1870, where he was introduced by the eclectic Christian Friedrich von Leins was taught architecture and Adolf Gnauth in stylistics." (first sentence of life section, including the link to the stylistics article which has nothing to do with the contents here, as far as they are decipherable).
  • All this coupled with a very confrontational attitude towards people who don't simply clean up his mess but try to get him to follow some basic principles and rules (see the above texts or the personal attacks he routinely offers on his user page and talk page). It's not as if this ANI section comes out of the blue; there have been countless discussions on his talk page, from many people, to get him to change his approach. Perhaps this one finally has brought some changes, although the intention to create pages in his sandbox and let someone like Grimes2 approve them first lasted for all of, what, 2 days? Fram (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't here from the beginning but I honestly believe that if anyone looks this situation, like most, objectively and tries to understand the position of everyone involved one could see how they would feel confronted and therefore respond in a confrontational way. Louis feels "attacked". Even if that is just their perception it's still valid. The frustration that some in the community feel is valid as well. I don't believe Louis acted maliciously, again, I haven't been here from the beginning but during my brief interaction with them they have been thoughtful and civil. I know it's a pain to go behind someone and clean up mistakes. I still have some of my earliest, I haven't been here that long, created articles and edits watchlisted and people are still fixing errors on them. On a few of my very first I actually used sources that were less than stellar. I went back and fixed them later where I could. On some it was done before I realized. I felt terrible that someone had to go behind me. I still do. I said that to say this, we are all human beings and while I do believe there are limits to what the community should tolerate as far as what we consider disruption, we can always improve how we respond to make sure we are doing so in the kindest way possible. That's all I am advocating for. --ARoseWolf 18:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As for "[r]eferences 'retrieved' by LouisAlain" I assume that you are just referring to him using the incorrect retrieved date when he is recreating the translation from the non-English Wikipedia? I view this as basically the most minor issue imaginable. In general, the retrieved date is only used for archive.org purposes, and it is easy enough to find old versions of the website at archive.org even if the retrieved date is incorrect. He should be given a reminder about this so that he ensures that he copies over the retrieval date from the source article as appropriate. This is not a reason to ban someone from article creation. Re: "'big red' cite error" are you seriously proposing a ban because he forgot to put a single </ref> tag, out of 35 references? Because that's what happened at that article.[40] On the machine translation, I agree that sentence sucks. I have no idea whether this is a pervasive issue, however. It may be that he forgot to clean up one sentence while revising a machine translation (which is, by the way, a perfectly fine way to translate if you in fact revise it afterwards). If there is evidence that he is often doing this, I agree it would be a problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, LouisAlain has created about 1400 articles in the last year. A large number of these (I would guess between a quarter and a half) have been edited substantially and improved up to standard by Gerda Arendt, Grimes2 and a few other people, while a large number of these articles has not been improved (Richard Gutzschbach, Moritz Geisenheimer are just some examples, see for yourself at [41]). There are many machine translations (or other poor translations). Often, the German article being translated is also not particularly good to start with. Many issues are just small errors, easily forgivable for a newbie. After 6000 articles, I think we can expect a little better. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Kusma, I don't see either of those articles as net negatives (unless there are some significant inaccuracies in the text that you can identify for me? I don't speak German). I note that both Gerda Arendt and Grimes2 (those presumably most familiar with his strengths and weaknesses) both oppose the proposed editing restrictions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Well, Richard Gutzschbach is a pretty good example: the actual source for the German text is what LA puts in the "Further reading" section. The reference 1 is untranslated, so you still need to know German to understand that you have to look up a different work at an unknown page to retrieve this. Reference 2 does not support the content. Reference 3 does not work. The link to Hochschule für Musik Carl Maria von Weber is kind of correct, but to put it in the text like this is misleading, as that name was not used until 1959, so "Dresden Conservatory" is the right name to use. Reference number 4 actually supports the content in the text (it could even be used to reference the entire article). It also shows that the "1840" birth year is speculative, and we don't learn whether the reference 1 has better reasons to assume it is definite. The external link is contained in the AC template and redundant. None of this is visible if you don't actually go and check the references (and that is the reason for this being under "fake referencing"). (Some of the non-working /non-referencing ones were actually added by LA, and are not present in the original de:Richard Gutzschbach). —Kusma (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I agree with you on refs 2 and 3, that is bad. It's not obvious from the German article that the article was based on the Eisenberg work, so I don't blame him for using it as "further reading" (which I think "literatur" is closer to (?)) instead of putting it as a reference. It's not great that reference 1 is untranslated, but I'm more of a "meh" on things that can be fixed by later editors, which this definitely can be. It's not harming anyone to have an untranslated sentence hanging out that in fact leads readers to a reference (even if not ideal). Other issues I consider minor and fixable by the ordinary editing process. If things like 2 and 3 are a regular practice, I would be concerned. There is so far not enough evidence on this thread that this is a regular practice IMO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, see #An_example:_LouisAlain above. From recent articles: Hermann Carl Hempel, reference 5 does not work. Carl Murdfield, reference 2 links to a page on how to book tickets for services in Cologne Cathedral. Looks like a regular practice to me. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, those are just old references that he has transferred over that existed in the source article. For both, it was trivial for me to retrieve good versions of the link at archive.org: [42], [43]. Minor imperfections like these are not a reason to put a ban on article creation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, that's the thing: LouisAlain needs a cleanup crowd several people strong just to keep up with this kind of "minor imperfections" in his new articles. I don't mind him creating a few articles requiring such cleanup, but I do mind thousands of them, with new ones created faster than Gerda and Grimes2 can fix them. If the issues are "trivial", well, then perhaps LouisAlain could just fix them? —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma I agree that it would be better if he could do this. I see three options: 1) we try to work with him more to get him to fix these imperfections himself, 2) we ban him and lose his imperfect articles entirely, 3) we accept that he is what he is and we get the imperfect articles. Given the bad blood between LouisAlain and the community at this point, I doubt we can redirect his efforts to other tasks (which might otherwise be a #4). Re #1, I'm not sure this is possible as a practical matter. It might be. The conversations I've seen linked here have been accusatory and hostile and not the sort of friendly, constructive outreach that might actually lead to behavior changes, and starting this AN thread certainly hasn't been helpful. Though for whatever reason there are always some editors who simply refuse to make simple changes, no matter how nicely they're asked, for reasons that remain a mystery to me. (User:FloridaArmy comes to mind... another frustrating editor who I still believe is a net positive.) So if he falls in this category maybe #1 is impossible. Of course, option #1 is theoretically the best, if possible. Of #2 and #3, I think #3 is the better option. I don't think that his body of work is a net negative, even if it has obvious problems. And when it comes down to bans like this, I think net positive/negative is the correct test to apply. Anyways, my two cents. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The idea in this thread was to prohibit article creation in mainspace and to only allow articles to be moved there after the referencing has been checked/redone. That would be a minimal change to LA's workflow (he would need to use draft space or userspace instead of main, but could continue to paste slightly copyedited machine translations), give others time to check his work, and prevent further buildup of a mainspace cleanup problem. —Kusma (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that is the worst option, to the extent we're relying on AFC (which is what was originally proposed). AFC is completely inequipped to do reference checking etc. The workflow at AFC is basically: does it contain copyvio? is it a legitimate topic? is it an ad? if the answers are satisfactory, it gets approved. AFC generally doesn't check whether sources verify text, and there are not enough multilingual AFC reviewers to deal with this sort of thing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, also, in case it wasn't clear, the reason I say that 2 and 3 are bad is that he has introduced references that don't verify the content, as opposed to just reproducing references already present in de.wiki that don't verify the content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see the difference. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I'm going to register my view as formally oppose ban.I'm changing back to officially neutral (possibly even weak support? not sure) in light of various issues that have arisen below as well as LouisAlain's refusal to engage in good faith discussions about the real issues that others have raised. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC) I think we should try to work constructively with LouisAlain. He has already committed to only translating well-referenced articles, and I believe that he will easily fix the issues with access-dates that others are complaining about. If there are issues with the quality of his translations generally, I think that should be revisited in a separate thread that is not confused with these other issues that hopefully can be easily addressed and resolved. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  He is translating articles that look well-referenced, which is quite different from well-referenced articles, which is something that is impossible to tell without looking at the sources. What he needs to do is very simple: just check whether at least the easily accessible online sources (in languages that he speaks) actually are related to the content they are supposed to support, and not add additional references without checking whether they actually support the content being referenced. If he did that, maybe we'd get two reliable articles instead of four unreliable ones per day, and I'd happily shut up about this. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Kusma, I disagree that the burden is on translators to go back to all of the sources used in articles to check that they verify what they purport to verify. We don't ask people who copy-edit articles to do this. We don't ask people who reorganize articles to do this. We don't ask people who merge or splice articles to do this. Is it that we think so little of German Wikipedians that we believe their footnotes are significantly more likely to be bad than en.wiki footnotes? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Calliopejen1, I am not even asking for translators to go back to all of the sources used in articles to check that they verify what they purport to verify. I am asking them to verify the one-click accessible online sources in languages that they speak. There's no good reason to exempt translations from WP:V (Remember that we don't accept wikis as sources!) The German Wikipedia has a very different approach to sourcing and footnotes from ours. They traditionally used to have "Sources" or "Literature" sections that list all the works used while writing the article (and usually also several works not used while writing the article) and often have no inline citations, so you don't know what comes from where. For a typical example (I just clicked "random article" a couple of times): de:Thomaskirche (Mannheim), where three books are given and no inline citations. The German Wikipedia still asks people to name their sources in the edit summary: de:Hilfe:Zusammenfassung und Quellen, so if you translate an article without importing its history, you can lose some references. This doesn't mean we think so little of German Wikipedians, it just means that we need to understand what the information we translate means, and we as translators need to answer the question why we think the text we write is true. If we don't do that, we might as well go for machine translation instead. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Kusma, I understand that the referencing culture of de.wiki is different, though one would think their footnotes reference the text to which they are appended... no? Assuming that is the case, I still don't understand how this is different from someone who splices an en.wiki article sourced to online foreign-language sources. That is no more "relying on a wiki" than the translation of footnoted text is. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1. Please explain what you mean by "I disagree that the burden is on translators to go back to all of the sources used in articles to check that they verify what they purport to verify". Are you actually saying that WP:RS and WP:HOAX are irrelevant if it is translated from a Wikipedia article? How can translating a WP article with fake sources be acceptable?--Berig (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Berig, If someone takes the article History of Ghana and sees it is too long and breaks it into Colonial history of Ghana and Post-independence history of Ghana, we don't expect them to go back and verify all the sources at the time they create those new articles. If Colonial history of Ghana now contains a bad reference because there was a bad reference in History of Ghana, we don't blame the editor who spliced the article and say they created a hoax. We blame only the person who introduced the bad content/reference. Another way of looking at this is that we rely on the vouching of the person who originally added the sourced content (i.e. their vouching that the content reflects what the source says). I don't see how taking content across languages (as opposed to between articles in the same language) is any different. One Wikipedia author has looked at the source and vouched for the text of the article as consistent with that source. Once that has happened, subsequent editors can rely on the original vouching. Of course, it is good practice to periodically check back on sources to ensure that no detritus has accumulated that's inconsistent with the source. But this has nothing to do with an article being translated/spliced/etc. The accumulation of this detritus can happen anywhere. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself and everybody else responsible for the information and the references written into an article. I don't even borrow references from reliable professors with tenures because I know they can make mistakes and consciously or unconsciously misrepresent information. I have learnt this the hard way by verifying sources as I write.--Berig (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Berig, so you think no one should splice an article unless they personally look at every source in what they're splicing and verify it? i think that would be a slim minority view, and one that would hinder rather than help development of the encyclopedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, you don't have to translate everything from a Wikipedia article. Translate what actually is verifiable, per WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting analogy. But I would regard someone copying content as incurring more personal responsibility for the validity of that content than if they were moving content. For example, I would not copy-paste a sentence from Ashanti Empire to History of Ghana without reading it over carefully, checking references, and making sure it generally passed the smell test. Whereas if I were doing a simple split, I would be fine with more or less doing a blind ctrl+x, ctrl+v. By copying "bad" content (whether from a different article, a different wikipedia, or a different wikiproject), you're increasing its reach; you're increasing the net "badness" of the project. The same is not true when moving bad content around within the project. (Also, I would say copying from a different wiki requires even more care than copying within the wiki, since different wikis may have different content policies.) Colin M (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is Wikipeda policy, and it means that an editor is personally responsible for the text they translate from another Wikipedia. Why does it appear to be more acceptable when LouisAlain adds hoaxes and effectively unreferenced material? Or is this a case of an editor having enough friends to do it?--Berig (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Berig There is no prior consensus that this is the appropriate way to interpret that sentence. If you think it should be a policy/guideline that you have to personally verify the references of content that is already in Wikipedia in another language before translating it and bringing it to this edition of Wikipedia, please start a discussion to establish that consensus. Your proposal would mean that it is forbidden to translate the impeccably referenced fr:Ancien tramway de Rouen unless you personally have the obscure French books and periodicals on which it is based in your possession. Is that seriously what you are proposing? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that if we borrow references we vouch for them being correct, don't we? Maybe we should not use obscure French references if we cannot verify them to begin with. I would never translate articles from Swedish Wikipedia without painstakingly studying every reference simply because I know that Swedish Wikipedia is not reliable.--Berig (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Middle ground? There's got to be some interpretation of the existing guidelines, or some way in which they should be amended, to prevent this scenario: A prankster wants to create fake articles. So the prankster identifies the Wikipedia for another language where patrolling is really lax, or else the guidelines are, and a friend who's fluent in that language. The friend adds the articles, with fake references, in the other language to the other Wikipedia. Then the prankster "translates" them to English Wikipedia, where the prevailing presumption is that if it came from another Wikipedia, it must be fine already, with little or no need for scrutiny. Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Largoplazo, the thing is, that is not the scenario we're faced with here. What LouisAlain is doing is simply translating articles from de.wiki that sometimes have footnotes that are either deadlinks or (as it turns out) don't actually support the text. I don't think we should ban him from doing translations because of this, or (even worse) require that his translations go through AFC where reviewers are completely unequipped to evaluate articles for this issue. Of course, people can create hoaxes through translation just like they can create hoaxes through mis-citing difficult-to-access sources. But there is no "hoaxing" here, only the translation of imperfect articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Suppose I find a CC0 licensed English blog post on the Ancien tramway de Rouen. It's written in an encyclopedic tone, and includes footnotes to cited works which appear to be reliable sources, but there's no evidence the author of the blog is a recognized subject-matter expert. Is it okay to copy this content into an en-wiki article (with appropriate attribution and formatting adaptations), including the footnotes, without verifying any of the citations? If not, why? And why does the same reasoning not apply to copying material from fr-wiki? Colin M (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Colin M, I'd say no because I draw the line between non-Wikipedia and Wikipedia. That's because trust in Wikipedia editors' vouching for sources cited is inherent in this project. You can also follow up on the person who originally added the content and see what their contribution history is, unlike with a blog post. On a semi-related point, forbidding translations except if you personally verify the sources (i.e. making translations significantly more difficult) will only contribute to the systemic bias that's already a problem here. Translations are a way of amplifying the work that other Wikipedians around the world are doing and getting content here that covers the entire world, not just the Anglosphere. [Side note re: your point about increasing the "reach" of bad content, above-- every time you add a link to an article you're increasing the reach of that content, but you're not going to be blamed if you link to an article that contains incorrect content...] Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd draw the line at the project. If someone translates or otherwise transfers a page from another project onto this one, they need to check that it meets this project's global consensus, which may be different from another project's. That means making sure links work, content is verified, no BLP issues, not copyvio, etc. It should be just like creating any other mainspace page. When copying within this project, like splitting a page, one can rely on the page history, but not when taking material from outside the project. (Or even from outside mainspace, I'd say.) Levivich 04:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I think I'd support a ban in principle, but am indifferent about whether it needs to be a formal logged restriction. Grimes2 volunteered above to do review and referencing, which is fine IMO, so long as that agreement is adhered to. Bottom line is, there are several articles with content cited to sources that don't verify the information and probably never did (e.g. Spotify links can't verify extended prose). If Louis isn't going to check the references then they should not be in mainspace until someone checks them. The featured articles suggestion above probably makes life easier on the reviewer, but is not a solution to the underlying problem (as featured articles, after being reviewed, sometimes have unverifiable content added into them). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That agreement lasted all of two days, I believe. Nothing is checked before LouisAlain puts in the in the mainspace, and few things are checked afterwards. In general, not even the most friedly advice gets results. @Calliopejen1: nicely asked them to stop using the "retrieved 23 September 2021" addition to sources (as it would be slightly less problematic to simply add links that don't work, instead of pretending that they checked the link and it worked and confirmed the text at the time of translation), but to no avail.

His most recent article, Hugo Helbing, again has links like [44] (currently ref 7) and [45] (ref 12), their previous article Moritz Leiffmann has [46] (ref 8). Both are very poor machine translations, with a section title like "After Helbing's Tod" or sentences like "The gallery owner was forced into this demolition because of Helbing's and Flechtheim's Jewish origins, and the works Degenerate Art were confiscated." or (from the second article) "His children, including Martha Leiffmann, born in 1874, who married doctor Peter Janssen in 1904. married and gave birth to the later painter Peter Janssen in 1906, he was baptised Protestant." (contrary to what one might think after deciphering this sentence / these sentences, the original German article doesn't indicate that Peter Janssen II was baptised Protestant, but that the children of Moritz Leiffman got a Protestant baptism).

Too often his poor translations introduce such factual errors: in the second article, "[...] was acquired by the gallerists Alfred Flechtheim, Hugo Helbing and Georg Paffrath by public auction": no, the auctioneeers Flechtheim, Helbingand Paffrath sold the items, they didn't acquire them for their galleries. Whether this is carelessness by rushing through too many article creations, or is caused by LouisAlain simply not understanding German, is not clear. Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikipedia:Unblockables. Some editors are simply "allowed" to keep acting in a problematic way.--Berig (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: Can you please explain why all the online references in the article you created today, Hugo Helbing, say "Retrieved 22 September 2021"? Did you access each of these links on 22 Sep (yesterday)? Levivich 17:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: As pertains Hugo Helbing, I wrote "Retrieved 22 September 2021" because I check all the references the day I translate (very badly I concede) articles from German. I've just finished Raquel Camarinha from French and you'll also find the "Retrieved X/X/X" line because today is the day when I retrieved and checked the references (and added 3 or 5 since there were many dead links on the French original. Maybe "retrieved" isn't the right, proper and appropriate word, in which case the drama can be solved by telling me what I should write. This thread has been unfolding for nearly three weeks now which makes me think some people have time on their hands. I feel like Josep K. in Kafka's the Trial, wondering what do all these nice people calling for my banning are accusing me of. In 2021, there still exist people ready to send their next to the gallows (or under the guillotine); humankind will never evolve.

I recently translated Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral (with 48 references) expecting the issue of wrong, dead etc. references would at least be over. To no avail apparently.

Out of good faith, I've been working here for 5 and a half year, 4,500 of my translations have been checked by at least 40 rewievers, without any of them raising the issue of the quality of my translations or the references question. Am I invited to think all these people did a botched job with my output and should better have abstain from engaging in a job they weren't up to ?

In the process that led to my banning from the French Wikipedia, a sharp mind suggested all my nearly 8,000 articles should be rewritten (I don't speak French) while another genius accused me of racism, no more no less. I nearly escaped the anti-Semitic accusation. The mind boggles. In a Christic move I forgive you all for reasons that are mine only. Ban, ban, ban. LouisAlain (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In the article Hugo Helbing, Ref #7 ""Provenienzrecherche - Franz Stuck von". Bundesamt für zentrale Dienste und offene Vermögensfragen. Retrieved 22 September 2021." the link [47] is dead, it goes to a 404 page. I'm assuming it did yesterday as well. So why are you writing "Retrieved 22 September 2021" when, obviously, you did not retrieve this source yesterday. I mean what does "check the references" mean if a 404 page is passing your check? And if this was once or twice I wouldn't even say anything, but this is what we've been talking about for weeks here and there are still multiple errors like this, just today, and every day it seems, not just for weeks but for years, and maybe across multiple projects? How are you still repeating this mistake? I just don't understand, how are you making this error over and over again? Don't you see it's a 404 page? How do we fix this so that you are never marking a 404 page as "Retrieved [today's date]". This particular little issue which really isn't that big of a deal except you seem to be doing it hundreds if not thousands of times, has me flummoxed, and yet it is just one of the issues raised here. I wish there was a way to resolve these issues without banning you from making articles. But there is an active discussion about banning you from making articles in mainspace and you're still repeating the same mistakes with new articles while the discussion is going on. This tells me you just don't care, that you're not trying to do better because you don't think these complaints are important. Please tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you can go like a week without making articles with dead links, etc. Levivich 19:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"4,500 of my translations have been checked by at least 40 rewievers, without any of them raising the issue of the quality of my translations or the references question. " Your talk page history is one long list of people moving articles to draftspace or proposing them for deletion because of (mainly) referencing issues, but also people having serious issues with the quality of your translations, e.g. User:Smeat75 here from 2019: "These machine translated articles that Louis produces in vast quantities in extreme haste contain some terrible mistakes". Or User:Voceditenore, February 2019[48]: "there have also been quite a few problems—namely extremely poor or non-existent referencing and the use of machine translation which can sometimes result in very confusing or even outright false information being added to Wikipedia.". There may have been others, there are no talk page archives and hundreds of talk page posts so searching is very tedious. Two years later, nothing has changed and here we are, but still you pretend that no one had issues with these until now? Fram (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused about this reference to machine translations. LA says "my translations". Is LA translating or are these Google translates? Levivich 13:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Most (if not all) are very similar to the Google translates. Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral certainly is derived from Google's translation of de:Domumgebung (Köln), as you can easily check if you browse using Chrome. As I understand it, the use of Google translate was part of the conflict leading to LouisAlain's ban from the French Wikipedia: [49]. —Kusma (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

LA is translating articles from a language he doesn't speak??? Levivich 14:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked and jogged my memory with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#User Fram and User LouisAlain... I thought the outcome of that thread was that everyone agreed that using machine translations to copy articles from another language wiki to enwiki was not OK? I was under the impression this stopped after Fram's block of LA two years ago? Levivich 15:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me just state here clearly that machine translations are harmful. They usually look nice from far away, but often contain wrong statements. Cleaning them up is a lot of work that requires specialist human translators do to properly (the relevant section at WP:PNT has a five-year backlog, but only lists a fraction of machine translated articles that need checking). We should speedily delete all machine translations to encourage faster creation of proper articles (translation browser addons and {{ill}} mean static machine translation is at best useless). —Kusma (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As one of the regulars over at PNT: I fully agree with the statement above. Lectonar (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, which I think has been around for 10+ years and has the heading, "Avoid machine translations", states: Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing., bold in the original. If any editor is posting to mainspace machine translations from another language wiki, when they do not have fluency in the other language and aren't checking the accuracy of the translation themselves, that's a serious problem. Frankly any editor who continues to do this after being asked to stop should be pblocked from mainspace forthwith because the cleanup is going to be a lot of work and we don't want that pile of work getting bigger. Levivich 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Did I say 10+ years? It's at least 18 years. Wikipedia:Translations in 2003: Never use machine translation to create an article! Also (all emphasis in the originals):

• WP:COFAQ#MTRANS: Machine translation is useful for obtaining the general idea of a text in an unfamiliar language, but it produces poor translations and should not be used on its own. If you want to use machine translation as a translation aid and intend to edit the result, please go ahead if you think it would be helpful. However, please do not paste a machine translation directly into an article.
• Wikipedia:Content translation tool#Why machine translation is disabled in content translation: Raw or lightly edited machine translations have long been considered by the English Wikipedia community to be worse than nothing.
• Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week: More guidelines, such as the prohibition against pure machine translation, can be found at Wikipedia:Translation into English.
• Particularly on-point is Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia, intended to assist editors in Translating German Wikipedia articles for English Wikipedia., which has a section on Auto-translation help:

  • Word order: Google Translate and Bing Translator can cross-reword paragraphs into another language, but "proper word order often it doesn't". All automatically translated text must be checked before use, as comparing phrases to the original language.
  • Verbs/phrases omitted: Google Translate sometimes drops verbs, or whole phrases (even in 2016) in long sentences, or where a verb could have multiple meanings. So a verb gets dropped, rather than risk showing a wrong equivalent verb.
  • Town names: Google Translate and Bing Translator might translate proper nouns in some town names, but not other instances, even in the same paragraphs.
  • Wikitext form: Google Translate may garble wiki-text markup coding; for example by showing illegal spaces after the slash in closing wp:reftags (as in illegal "</ ref>").
  • Short sentences: By hand-splitting long German sentences into shorter parts, some computer-translation programs might generate better wording than others, but all automatically translated text must be revised before use.
  • Copy as in other pages: Once the first page on a theme is translated, similar pages could copy parts of it, so the translation of idioms can become easier in related articles.
  • Verification rules: Many articles on English Wikipedia have some awkward, broken English, but German Wikipedia is heavily patrolled by editors to alleviate rough or awkward wording.

It seems extremely clear that consensus prohibits a non-speaker from using machine translation to translate articles. Levivich 17:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It certainly should be prohibited; sadly, it is not. As far as the Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia essay is concerned, imho it should be deleted. Having it around makes monolinguals who have access to DeepL or GG translate plus a two-page outline on German translation think that they now know everything there is to know about German to English translation. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: I think if you tried to read this section in a less defensive way you'd see people have clearly raised their concerns. About duration: for a new editor this probably would've lasted less than three weeks and already ended with sanctions, so in that sense I'd say this is favourable treatment. I feel like people would be more reassured if you actually tried to listen to what concerns people have, and maybe even set out a plan for how you'll try to resolve them. You silently removed the reference Levivich was concerned about, so I'm presuming you do actually understand the concerns here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My goodness! We have an editor who habitually translates articles with google translate and doesn't care about the referencing. Why isn't he banned yet, like on French Wikipedia?--Berig (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the problems with his translations are based on Google Translate (could he be using a different tool? i guess it's possible). I looked at a few wacky translation errors in his articles and none was caused by Google Translate. So I'm not sure if it's just bad work that he's doing himself?.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support too many issues, which have continued since the section began, and next to zero recognition of the issues or any kind of plan to do better (despite generous lifeline offers from other editors, which it appears LA does not wish to take up). I'm happy to reconsider this vote if one of those things changes. Will also note that the persistent commentary by LA including far-fetched insinuations of an 'unfair trial' is also very unimpressive, and this section has been a massive sink of other contributors' time so far, in their attempts to verbosely explain the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/DYK 2021, to date 61 articles translated by LouisAlain made it to the Main page this year, and we'd be poorer without them. I agree that this thread is a waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  So quantity over quality? Accuracy doesn't matter--being fluent in the language of your source material doesn't matter, unsourced material doesn't matter, even in a WP:BLP like the one he created today and marked as "translated by LouisAlain" (Talk:Stefan Koldehoff) although it seems to be almost entirely a pasted Google translation of the dewiki article --none of it matters and discussing it is a waste of time as long as he makes a lot of DYKs? This is not a video game, high score doesn't count here. Levivich 22:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I encountered LouisAlain four years ago at Template:Did you know nominations/François Bott. I suppose I didn't think too much of it at the time, but you can see the same pattern: missing references, references that didn't support the text, poor-quality translations, lots of other editors pitching in to address the various issues caused by LouisAlain's editing. Now, to some extent, that's just how Wikipedia works. We're always improving the work of others. There's an inherent expectation that as a result of this process all editors will improve over time, and respond in constructive ways when editors critique their work. Editors that cannot or will not improve tend to be shown the door. I have no personal beef with LouisAlain, but if he's unwilling or unable to improve his approach I don't see any alternative. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment LouisAlain, would you kindly self-evaluate your ability in each language you translate from, in particular French and German, plus any others you habitually translate? Preferably by adding Template:Babel badges to your User page, but you could, if you wish, just list the languages below, using the Babel levels of 0 (no knowledge) to 5 (professional quality, virtually equal to a native speaker), to N (native speaker)? For example, {{Babel|it-1|de-2|fr-3|en-N}} would mean you have basic Italian, intermediate German, advanced French, and are a native speaker of English. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Done

I am once again summoned before a tribunal presided over by the spiritual heirs of Fouquier Tinville, Roland Freisler and Andrei Vychinski. Yes, this is how one is treated on Wikipedia when one is the weakest link.

I have replied I don't know how many times to the friendly accusations made to me concerning -among others- the question of references. For at least the last 15 days, I have only translated articles whose originals have solid and verifiable references. Did anyone check ?

I have never ever received a single answer to the questions I have asked about the somehow 40 rewievers for example who never raised an eyebrow regarding the topic at hand or any other issue. What is the point of asking regular users to rewiew new articles if their opinion is considered of no value nor interest ?

• Lorenz Cantador
• Düsseldorf Castle
• Alte Kunsthalle
• Sophie Hasenclever
• Kölnisches Stadtmuseum
• Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral
• Linneper Hof
• Zander & Labisch
• Clemens Julius Mangner
• Johann Josef Scotti

and last year was this one wich now may have dead links which were not when translated.

are among my latest translations. Accusing me of putting unreferenced articles on the main is a deliberate blatant lie and an insult. I have changed my habit following the nice remarks and insults that have been hurled at me since this thread began.

My very first translation here was Marguerite Aucouturier, 5 and a half years ago. See what it was then and what it has become since. That's what I call playing the game of a collaborative encycopedia. Were it for the vast majority of sysops, this article would have been deleted within hours. For whose gain or benefit ?

For the sake of answering guess games, I am a native French speaker and never use Google translate. Never. This answer is written without the help of any translating machine (and I guess it shows). So much for those who suggest I shouldn't use Google translate : I don't, period. As is usual, nobody will believe me since the "Assume good faith" motto is a joke which everyone betrays when it fits their need and prejudice.

There is a drive (and I know where it comes from) to ban me fom this site where apparently most believe I act out of volontary ill-will, stubornness and ontological meanness despite all the "kind" advice that have been given to me by magnaniminous and humanist administrators playing the "good cop/bad cop" game. I wasn't born last year mind you and I'm old enough to be the father and even grandfather of most of you (which of course doesn't grant me any privilege) but I have lived long enough to not fall twice in the same trap ("Fool me once etc.", you know the line). I have gathered a bit of personal experience regarding human nature and the death instinct vis-à-vis one's next.

After I changed my tack as pertains references, I thought the issue was over. What an imbecile I was ! The new accusation now concerns dead links. Well, as opposed to all administrators (whose name are circulating in the Vatican fo a possible beatification and even canonization), I happen to make mistakes, yes I do. This user must be the only one from whom most here expect and even demand immediate, complete and absolute perfection at first shot. We're all equal on Wikipedia except for those who are more equal than the others. Please, don't mistake me for a dork...

I never hid my flaws regarding my weak skills in English (again, see the footnot at Marguerite Aucouturier) and innumerable corrections have been made to my output by Gerda Arendt first and then by Grimes2 plus many other users. Also, being slightly mentally unbalanced isn't a plus in social interactions. Unbalanced yes but not completely imbecile though...

Like in the Moscow trials, the accused stood absolutely no chance, whatever their good faith or innocence and I don't hold my breath as regards my eventual fate here. The dice was cast the day a female informer from N.Y (discreetly, I agree) had my A.P rights removed, hence drawing attention to me for all to see and draw their conclusion : He is a filthy troll ! The load of work of 40 something rewievers was made heavier, to no avail of course. They wasted their time. Now, if there is some consistancy in your accusations, please, please pray and delete all my crappy translations which are a stain on the English Wikipedia (bet you won't though). Like my salvation depended on the whims and self-esteem of an army of ants. It is not because 1, 2 or even 7 billion people assert the earth is flat that said earth is.

Now, you've made me lose 2 hours that I wanted to spend on the translation of de:Luftangriff auf Magdeburg am 16. Januar 1945 with 59 references (still to be checked one after the other).

Oh, one last question: Do you allow me to keep on translating whatever article I want from French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and other European languages for my personnal private collection or must I ask you first your permission ? What a sinister farce and a riot ! LouisAlain (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked LouisAlain for his lies about the use of machine translation. Many of his articles are lightly copyedited machine translations (and some look so much like what Google translate does) that this is simply not believable. Sorry, Gerda, I don't see a way forward without Louis actually engaging with the issues instead of attacking the messengers. —Kusma (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

As an administrator, I support that block.--Berig (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain apparently uses DeepL, not Google translate, see User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Block_of_LouisAlain. I don't think this makes a huge difference, but it should be mentioned for the record. (It does produce very similar results to Google, even with identical sentences in many cases). —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support block/ban. There's either a dishonesty going on or it's a WP:CIR issue. If I may quote a cartoon character: Megatron to Starscream - "You are either lying, or you're stupid!". GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• I endorse the indefinite block by Kusma. As LouisAlain is not interested in discussing the issues, the block is absolutely necessary to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• I was reminded, reading and commenting in this thread, of comments made on AN, of all places, in 2012, by Geometry guy, and I placed a line from them in my editnotice at the time, keeping it until 2018 (that line bolded by me):

  "In my view, a thread like this should be viewed as an opportunity to reach mutual understanding: not agreement, perhaps, but at least an understanding of what the disagreements are actually about. This thread will have no consequences beyond that anyway: it will be archived automatically in a few days, recalled by those who read it, and possibly diffed for a few choice comments. With that proviso, I have a few remarks.

  • This page is not ANI, so no immediate administrator intervention is being requested; however, the topic is of interest to administrators, not least because there is a block in place that at some point in the future may require reconsideration. There are plenty of other reasons for discussing this case, including wider ramifications.
  • There are many reasonable editors here, with reasonable positions. Reasonable opposing positions are not addressed by referring to extreme aspects of opposing positions (for example, no reasonable position involves "vitriol": such concerns should be taken to the user talk page of the editor in question).
  • ... (this comment related only to the 2012 case)
  • Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not.
  • All editors should be encouraged to follow best practice (e.g. with regard to close paraphrasing), not merely typical practice.
  • The idea to study typical practice with regard to paraphrasing is flawed, assuming an objectivity that such a study would almost certainly be unable to achieve. I have made related comments on Moonriddengirl's talk page.

  That's all. I thank all editors in advance for reading and thinking about the many issues this discussion raises. Geometry guy 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)"

  I believe that an indef block for "lying by omission" is out of proportion. I also believe that we should rethink our stance on machine translation. Deepl is often better than I am. Dismissing it wholesale seems no service to content on the English Wikipedia. I enjoy articles such as Max Creutz which reminds us of a forgotten person with rich achievements. (The editor in question back in 2012 was unblocked 2 months after the comments.)

  I support an unblock but would understand if LouisAlain wasn't even interested in serving here further. The "perennial gang of three" is broken, and I miss a friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  As I just wrote on my own talk, the history of Max Creutz provides great examples that show why we should never employ thoughtless mechanical machine translation. We shouldn't translate poorly written sentences, and we must check whether our translation introduces ambiguities that can't be resolved without dual fluency. DeepL can't do that for us. As for an unblock, we would need to have something in place to prevent mass creation of articles that haven't been checked for accuracy of either translation or referencing. —Kusma (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  The block - as I understand it - was not for machine-translated articles, but for "lying by omission", which again wasn't in it's reasoning but explained below. (Needless to say: I found Martin's questions valid, and share them.) I believe that a minimum in respecting that an editor you block is a human being is to precisely say why you do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think the reason why restrictions are needed (and rather widely supported) is clear if you read the entire thread. The last straw that caused me to block at that particular time was the highly misleading statement right above my block notice. —Kusma (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think anybody so far uninvolved looking at this block should not have to go over the whole thread, but should be sufficiently informed by a concise and unambiguous reason given for the block, with all aspects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, I have indefinitely blocked LouisAlain for his lies about the use of machine translation. (After he previously lied about having checked his references). —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-block discussion

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

---

Just want to say here that my indefinite block of LouisAlain doesn't necessarily have to be the end of this discussion. However, the potentially more useful ways forward (a page creation ban in mainspace or a requirement to go through AFC, which were both opposed by some people) would require LouisAlain's cooperation, or permanent policing. Given that he lies about his methods and seems unwilling to check his work, I'm not sure whether anything requiring his cooperation could result in something sustainable. A pblock from mainspace would mean LA can't even introduce links, and that part of his editing is usually not problematic, but we could still try it. So I'm open to creative suggestions on how to go forward, but I am opposed to just unblocking and pretending the issues don't exist. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I still support an article creation TBAN (which could be an unblock condition). I agree that's better than a pblock because it allows him to keep contributing to mainspace in other ways. Levivich 14:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: Can you please unblock him, please. This seems a bit unfair and its a bad block, on a mostly productive and creative individual, who is plus to Wikipedia, where other remedies could be put in tried first. scope_creep^Talk 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of the creativity and the plus? I have only seen thousands of machine translations with sourcing issues, combined with four years of evasive responses to requests to improve his work. I am aware that hundreds of his articles have become DYKs, but that's not LouisAlain's work, it is Gerda's. Anyway, as I said, I am happy to unblock with a clear restriction in place, but not without. Guess that makes me a wannabe dictator and, in LouisAlain's words, a modern day Roland Freisler. (See Roland Freisler if you don't know how offensive that is). —Kusma (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is the right way to handle this. Following the discussion, I have seen too many issues with WP:RS, WP:CIR, WP:NPA and just plain honesty. If an editor doesn't listen and change unacceptable behaviour, we have no other choice but to block. His comparing you to Roland Freisler is beyond the pale and only confirms that an indefinite block is the right decision.--Berig (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A related discussion is on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we see any diffs for the claim that he "lies about his methods"? (but this sounds like some kind of general summary of his activity, not a single instance or small number of instances). Presumably LA was asked to stop doing something and refused? Again some explicit diffs would be useful. Was this indef block imposed by a wholly uninvolved Admin? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

2nd. I'd like to see evidence for the "lies," preferably by not reading this mega thread cover to cover. El_C 18:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me dig out the highlights from this thread for you.

• Claiming to have retrieved a reference that Fram pointed out does not exist.
• "I check all references the day I translate". Some of the links in the article discussed were dead.
• In response to the people trying to find out whether he uses machine translation, "I never use Google translate". That may be technically true in the present, but it is a lie by omission, as he himself admits to using DeepL machine translation instead. (This is the diff that made me block, as it was obvious that LouisAlain used machine translation).
• Same diff as the Google translate one, another lie by omission: "40 rewievers for example who never raised an eyebrow regarding the topic at hand or any other issue", implying that nobody ever raised any serious issues.
• These are the smaller problems. The bigger issue in my view are lies in mainspace about pretending to have accessed sources that do not exist, as in the subsection #An_example:_LouisAlain above.
• As to WP:INVOLVED: The first time I found a very recent lie, I thought I should block but didn't want to, partly because I didn't want to upset LA's friends, partly because I wasn't sure whether I'd appear involved after recent insults against me by LA. The statement "I never use Google translate" in response to a question about manual or machine translation, from a user who was banned from the French Wikipedia for insulting others after some discussion involving his self-admitted four years of using Google translate, was too much for me to let pass, though. If you think this turns it into a bad block, feel free to reverse it, but please note that several users above including admins @Berig and @Ritchie333 have endorsed the block. —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a struggle here with your concept of "lie by omission". I would have thought if you asked a certain question, you'd expect a straight answer to that question? I might agree that "comparing you to Roland Freisler" might be seen as a little extreme, even "beyond the pale". But you wouldn't actually indef block someone for that, yourself, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The question was "Do you use Google translate or are these your own errors?" and the answer we got was "I do not use Google translate", which seemingly implies that he does his own translations, which just isn't true. Even if you don't accept that "Google translate" is essentially a synonym for "machine translation" just as "babelfish" used to be in the past, he is not engaging with the intent of the question. (The incomprehensible thing for me here is that LouisAlain actually has pretty decent language skills in several languages and should be able to translate manually if he wanted to). That he did actually use Google translate at least before he was banned from frwiki is something I only discovered while researching for the reply above; it did not factor into the block.

That dozens of people mentioned issues to LA also isn't communicated at all by his 40 reviewers sentence, which seems to me to indicate the opposite. I find that dishonest, even if a lawyer might say that there is a way to interpret what he said as technically true.

And no, I do not block long-term contributors merely for insulting me. —Kusma (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

When someone says For the sake of answering guess games, I am a native French speaker and never use Google translate. Never. This answer is written without the help of any translating machine (and I guess it shows). So much for those who suggest I shouldn't use Google translate : I don't, period. As is usual, nobody will believe me since the "Assume good faith" motto is a joke which everyone betrays when it fits their need and prejudice. but they're actually using a different machine translation other than Google, that's a lie. That's deliberately misleading. "I am a native speaker of French," but not German, and that's why it matters if he was using machine translation. He was marking these article "translated by Louis Alain" but actually copying and pasting from machine translation. That's lying. And they had errors (of course), which makes the lying harmful. And he's made 6,000 articles, which makes this a minor scandal. The fact that we allowed ourselves to be the second language project where this happened is an embarrassment, I'm sorry to say. Do we want a repeat of the Scots Wikipedia scandal? Nobody should be relying on machine translation to translate articles, but if they do, and if they're not up front about it--if they're passing off machine translation as their own translation--that's lying. Levivich 08:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a grey area. If he had said "I never use any machine translation tools", yes that would have been a bold lie. I'm not skilled enough to know if some machine translation tools are better than others. I'm also not sure how one would determine the exact tools he's used, without asking him. I would have expected someone who knows other languages to perhaps use a machine translation as the basis for a translation and then check it over for accuracy. Are we saying that all 6,000 articles have been wholly machine translated and none of them checked by him for errors? Have a sufficient sample been checked? I somehow doubt that, as some machine translations may be sufficiently accurate in some cases. Kusma's argument was starting to look a bit like "He's been banned from French Wikipedia, so we'd better ban him here". The other problem area seems to have been the use of sources that are dead in the original non-English article. If a source has been marked as dead in the original article from a given date, then it's easy to see he's not checked properly. If not, I'm not so sure. Of course everyone should check that all the sources work, in the proposed English version, before it's published in main space. Continued inability to do this suggests that a restriction to draft space, for article creation, might be appropriate. An indef block seems a bit too blunt. Some of the articles he's created, that I've looked at, seem to be generally correct and well sourced, whatever tools he's used to produce them. But then I've not had the time or inclination to follow him round on a daily basis, correcting his errors and/or building a meticulous admin case against him. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. I don't think you should block any contributors merely for insulting you. You should raise it as a vase of WP:CIVIL and ask another, wholly uninvolved, Admin to consider appropriate action?

The block-worthy insult (direct Freisler comparison) came after my block (and was on a different Wikipedia). It did not factor into this block. —Kusma (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Louis Allain obviously felt a bit hard done by. I'm still not sure that a post-block insult, which might be viewed as merely overly dramatic or flippant, can be used as retrospective justification for a block. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Dismissing their remarks as "merely overly dramatic or flippant" ignores not only the severe nature of that singular remark, but also their continuous stream of attacks (generalized or directed at one or two persons). Note that they also have declared, in the discussion where they made the above remark, that they have been IP socking to avoid their block at the French Wikipedia, and intend to do the same here. This includes e.g. "accusations made by sick minds, pervs and other sadistic minds. Not to mention vile informers."[50], "How pathetic and morally corrupt some people are."[51], " when I see a profile like yours, I know who is adressing me. Have a look at fr:Perversion nacissique"[52], this[53], or another Freisler (and more) attack: "the spiritual heirs of Fouquier Tinville, Roland Freisler and Andrei Vychinski."[54]. Fram (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of the "continuous stream of attacks", so it's not possible for me to dismiss them by addressing a single post-block comment in that manner. If this is part of the rationale for the block, this should be made clear by the blocking Admin. I'm assuming he was asked to apologise for those remarks? It looks like he felt there was some kind of witch hunt against him. It seems unfortunate that an editor who has spent years trying to improve the encyclopaedia has now turned into an enemy. I now see that Louis Allain has said "I've left volontarily". So I guess there is no more to be done. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has been turned into an enemy. Let's recap here... Above Grimes2 offered: Maybe there is a solution. I can do the referencing part (timeconsuming, please not so many articles). He can create an article in his sandboxes, I do the referencing. After that, the article can be released to mainspace. LA did not respond, and created articles since then which indicates he doesn't agree to this idea.

The fact of the matter here is there is a problem. That can be remedied either by LA on his own, or with the assistance of another editor who reviews and does the referencing. If this weren't an established editor who spent years trying to improve the encyclopaedia, it's very unlikely anyone would've offered their own time to do that. LA had multiple olive branches extended to him in this discussion, but clearly does not accept there is a problem and thus is not willing to make any changes to his approach. There is no "witch hunt", and there's only one person responsible for this very preventable block. I mean heck, there are 20,000 words of discussion here, much of which is very specific and exampled feedback, and the only thing LA said in response was soliloquies about unjust persecutions in medieval and early modern Europe. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I said "has turned", not "has been turned." I guess it might be hard to separate. Just like any other articles, I guess those 6,000 can be checked. That's normal mundane Wikipedia day-to-day process. I still don't really have an idea of what proportion of those 6,000 is inaccurate or unreferenced. Perhaps Fram's examples were all pulled out purely at random. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Martin it's pretty obvious you haven't read this thread. Levivich 12:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd better read it all again then. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, sorry to say it but your questions and comments are about things we just spent three weeks talking about. Is machine translation sometimes ok? I posted a long collection of policy/guideline/whatever quotes about that, and that was before he said "I never use Google translate". Have all 6,000 articles been checked, are the examples typical? Well, the examples were created while this thread was ongoing. It's hard to tell if LA was using machine translation without asking him... yes, this thread where we've been asking him has been going for three weeks now. His response was the "I never use Google translate" denial, combined with the personal attacks, etc. Then he was blocked. This wasn't out of the blue (it's not even his first, or second, block for this), and many people have tried (for three weeks this most recent round, but for literally years before this) to negotiate some kind of resolution. We've been met with personal attacks instead, and he continued to make articles with machine translation with errors while telling us he was insulted that we would think he would use Google translate (but he was using DeepL instead). Levivich 13:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a good block, and I find bizarre the continued attempts to defend an editor who has years of disruptive edits, in eluding previous blocks for COPYVIO; who has lied about his editing; and who has engaged in personal attacks. GiantSnowman 13:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my continued questions "bizarre continued attempts to defend an editor". Like I said above, I have read a few arties by LA, and as far as I could see they were well-sourced and had been created without any "lies about editing" or "personal attacks". I'm still unsure about how many of the 6,000 articles have broken the rules. Perhaps I've missed that in the discussion here. Or is it a case of "he's told lies, so we must assume all 6,000 of his articles have been produced with machine translation"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not clear, in terms of Wikipedia policy, that machine translation of any type is completely forbidden. Even it it was clear, I'm not sure how you prove someone's used it without them admitting to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I posted a collection of 18 years' worth of policy quotes up above about machine translation, you can find it by scrolling up, look for my comment It seems extremely clear that consensus prohibits a non-speaker from using machine translation to translate articles. How you prove someone's used machine translation without them admitting to it? By comparing the machine translation of the German Wikipedia article with the English Wikipedia article and seeing it's a match (it was). Levivich 13:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I guess there must be a policy page that summarises all of that? To run that check across 6,000+ articles must have been quite an effort. Are they now all to be deleted? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. GiantSnowman 13:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I personally checked three articles LA created in the day or two before he was blocked (they're linked above) and they were all machine translations all marked as "translated by Louis Alain". I bet you can't find three articles he marked as "translated by Louis Alain" that were not machine translations. And since you asked, yes, I think all 6000+ should be deleted, except any that have been substantially edited by other editors. These articles were created in violation of a ban against machine translation (it's against our rules, LA was blocked for this two years ago here, plus banned from frwiki for this) and thus should be WP:G5'd. Levivich 14:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So that's only 5,997 left to go. But glad you were not "lying by omission." Many thanks, Giant Snowmnan. I will read WP:MACHINETRANSLATION carefully. But, just for the benefit of this discussion, have I got this right... if I use machine translation to create an article and then I use my own language skills to check and improve it, making changes where necessary, I still deserve to be indef blocked? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've only challenged you to find three that aren't machine translations. But, just for the benefit of this discussion, to make sure you have got this right... if you use machine translation to create an article and then you don't use your own language skills to check and improve it, making changes where necessary, because you don't have sufficient language skills, and if you were blocked on two projects for this, and you kept doing it anyway for years across thousands of articles, and when people asked you about it you vehemently denied using Google translate while not disclosing that you used another machine translator, while simultaneously hurling personal attacks, then yes, you deserve to be blocked again. Levivich 14:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's clearer. So I'll have to assume I've got it wrong above. Thanks for the challenge; but having not ever run DeepL machine translation, and in view of the likely negative benefits for the project if I had to learn how to do it, I may be tempted not to accept it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I probably should simply ignore the above trolling by Martinevans123 (or how else should one call such utterly ridiculous requirements from someone who apparently hasn't bothered researching the facts of the case for themselves, but insinuates that if not all 6000+ articles are checked and demonstrably machine-translated, somehow this would influence the block for some reason), but just for the sake of it; I scrolled down through the creations, to a page from 2018[55] and looked at a somewhat larger article: Célimène Daudet. And the French version from the same moment in time. The enwiki article has the strange bit "impregnated with two cultures" (French "imprégnée de deux cultures"); which Google translate reasonably translates as "affected by both cultures"[56], but which DeepL gives as "impregnated with two cultures"[57], the same poor translation (certainly in context) as given by LouisAlain. Of course, not all such sentences will still give the same result as they did in 2018 or thereabouts, as these tools also get improved (one hopes); but enough such instances can be found to make it quite clear for anyone willing to look instead of putting unrealistic burdens on others, that LouisAlain has been machine translating articles (from French first, from German later on) for years. And as I noted above, he was warned about this multiple times, by different people, years ago already. Fram (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

All of my contributions here have been made in perfectly good faith and I think your accusation of "ridiculous trolling" is extremely unfair. I have now read the entire thread through twice. The fact that the other editors here have kindly taken the trouble to reply politely and apparently to my queries suggest they don't agree with you. I seem to recall that Louis Allain was involved when were you were stripped of your Admin role a while back. Perhaps that's a factor in his seeming indignation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

How was he involved? The block of LouisAlain was endorsed at the ANI discussion and no concerns about it were raised at the ArbCom case (it was mentioned for the connection to your block, but not as problematic in itself, and that's it) and LouisAlain was as far as I'm aware not involved in my desysop. Fram (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that was an unfortunate coincidence. But the present situation for LouisAlain here now looked like it was "unforced business" for you. Except that it now looks like it is finally finished. And yes, your indef block of my account for attempting to restore an article LA had created was quickly overturned, I recall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's then twice in two posts that you recall incorrectly. While the length (1 month, not indef) was deemed too much, the block itself (for knowingly reposting a lengthy copyright violation) was endorsed. Fram (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, a mere month. Thanks for reminding me. The unblocking Admin said there were "close paraphrasing/direct translation problems" not "knowingly reposting a lengthy copyright violation"? Your indef block of my account, also overturned, after 2 days, was the year before that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it looks a lot like trolling.--Berig (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why asking for clarity on why an editor has been indef blocked should described as "trolling". I wasn't alone in wanting some further details. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You have several times argued about important points that have been discussed thoroughly in this thread. Enough reasons have been given, and please read through this thread thoroughly before you ask other editors to serve you the reasons on a plate (I will not). Also, can you please explain to me why you bring up the recalling of Fram as an admin?--Berig (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've never knowingly asked for "reasons on a plate". I think the circumstances surrounding Fram's recall might explain why Loisu might now think he's been "witch-hunted". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, when editors are under criticism from several editors at the same time, and they can't understand, or will not accept, the reasons for the criticism, they will argue, or rather insinuate, that they are ganged up on.--Berig (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In general terms yes, you are certainly right. But this was a very particular and visible recall. Indeed a very controversial one that few will ever forget. I saw that Kusma wrote on Gerda's Talk page, two days ago: "With a suitable agreement / creation ban / namespace restriction in place, I'm happy to unblock immediately." I'm wondering if they have now changed their view. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the possible conditions are named in the thread.--Berig (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Help wanted

Opéra de Montréal is mentioned on the Main page with Jean-Paul Jeannotte, and - as I see only now, sorry - is a sad stub. Normally, I'd tell LouisAlain, and he'd provide help: translating the much more that there is in French. With this discussion going on, I don't dare to, because that French article is not well sourced. So, please, everybody, get one bit from the French, and translate it with a reference. - Generally - but I think I said that above a few times: we can't expect a translation to be better than its original, different Wikipedias have different sourcing style, and the adjustment to "our" style here could be done in Main space by us all, while in some draft space, who will even see it's there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have tried have had a look, as I speak and write French on an academic level, but I must say that sources appear to be very hard to find.--Berig (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I have added a paragraph on the history of the opera, but I am sorry to say that I not well-versed in the special terminology of operas, so it needs your eyes.--Berig (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I miss LouisAlain, collaborator and friend for almost a decade, but would not advise him to appeal in the present mood. He's a true (honorary) member of the cabal of the outcast. It's not without bitter irony, "perennial gang of three". See also In Freundschaft, in friendship. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I will add a source and a bit from it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No, don't. If that French article is not well sourced then why the hell would we translate the French article? Can't you see that is the problem?? Don't translate the poorly sourced French article. Do find sources and write a well referenced article in English. If all the sources are in French, then don't do work on the article at all unless you are fluent in French. If you are fluent in French, then by all means, please write an article using French sources, but don't waste your time translating a poorly sourced article from the French wiki: all you'll get is a poorly sourced article in English, which is far worse than a well sourced stub. Quality, not quantity: please don't recruit other people to make the same mistakes LA did. No one who isn't fluent in a language should be translating, and no one should be translating unsourced material. Levivich 15:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am fluent in French and I found the sources on my own, and if you are thinking of the reference to the opera's homepage, we know where it comes from. Never mind, I have other things to work on where it would be interesting to see anyone question the reliability of my sources.--Berig (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, there are days when I am afraid my English is not sufficient. I wrote "get one bit from the French, and translate it with a reference", - wasn't that clear: to only translate bits that can be referenced?? There's now a fine ref from the Canadian Encyclopedia, feel free to use that more. I need a distance for today. I will get back to it when preparing for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding after a sad day: When I posted I didn't know that LouisAlain was blocked. The article looked like this. I thank all who helped, and will work on it further. - I remember having been too proud to appeal, and am afraid LouisAlain is of the same kind. I gave in two years later. We'll see. Why should he want to work with us, tell me? - A sad day for content on this project, and I miss a friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Gerda Arendt, I am sorry and I feel bad for you that it had to come to this with LA. Anyway, if you need help with translating from French, you can always ping me or leave a message on my talkpage.--Berig (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I can also help with translations from French. Meters (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, are you seriously asking other editors not to improve an article on a notable topic? Does it occur to you that we might do so by adding WP:RS (of which, since it actually is a notable topic, there are plenty) and writing encyclopaedic content based on what they say? Gerda Arendt, I dislike translating and much prefer to write new content based on the sources available, but I read French without difficulty and – like Berig and Meters – would be happy to help if at any time that's needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the offers, Justlettersandnumbers and Meters. What you - and all willing to help - could do is: watch Deaths in 2021 and check for French-speaking persons. Some are just fine, some need references, some have no article yet. Do what you can. - In the past, we took care of Claude Mercier-Ythier and Francis Rapp, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Help wanted 2

Checking in after busy days RL, and just finishing the 4th (!) article of people who recently died, - 2 are on the Main page now. The next one in that line is writer de:Eberhard Panitz. Nothing in English yet, so I'd normally suggested to LouisAlain to translate. Anybody listening and helping, perhaps? Other wishes, all red links in articles linked from the Main page (now or soon): de:Kirchliche Hochschule Berlin-Ost, de:Evangelisches Stift Tübingen, de:Schloss Jaroměřice, de:Questenberg (Adelsgeschlecht), de:Berliner Architekturwelt, de:Carl Rehorst, de:Max Wallraf, de:Peter Bruckmann, de:Kaufhaus Tietz (Elberfeld), - no end of missed content in sight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Translation topics still open

This topic primarily about user behavior will get archived soon, but it touched on some core issues of translation and responsibility for verification in which there is lively disagreement above, and I just wanted to note for the record that these are important issues that have lain open and mostly dormant for years, and at some point will need a proper forum (probably more like VPP than here) to deal with it.

Some of the issues that come to mind (some of which were touched on above, others dredged up from my cauldron): The role of Draft space and Afc; who can do translations; who should do translations (is it ever okay to translate from a language you don't know? what about those myriad, one- or two-sentence bio-stubs that smack of database-to-stub automata, such as the one about the bronze-medal fencing winner from the Grand Duchy of Fenwick in the 1956 Sydney Olympics); possible editing restrictions on translation-creations; knock-on effects, such as how to evaluate Rfc not-votes on a translation issue when the majority of comments will be from monolinguals (and who should close); how to deal with poorly sourced originals, who bears responsibility for poorly sourced material translated into en-wiki from a poorly sourced original (addressed several times above with no consensus); how important are English skills vs source-lang skills in translation (e.g., what is the acceptability of a factually accurate translation by someone who is en-3 and makes some grammar mistakes and the occasional awkward phrasing in English that needs copyediting for grammar, syntax, and style afterward, vs an en-N (native speaker) whose German is decent but occasionally misunderstands the original, turning it into perfect English which misses the point 5% of the time).

One of my pet peeves is monolinguals doing translations. This should be forbidden in most cases. The results passed through automatic translation sometimes look okay, sometimes not so okay, but the monolingual user (or later, well-meaning editors) can take a pass through the article, making the English look perfect, but without necessarily representing what the original article states (whether properly sourced or not). I've seen cases where the translations were wildly off (even stating the opposite of the original), but once the English looks perfect, who's gonna know or do anything about it? Hey, it's sourced, right? Who among us takes the time to scan random articles, checking for proper verifiability in citations in articles not containing {{failed verification}} tags? I tried to highlight this problem years ago, see Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Articles by user; and to take the most egregious example of it check out this accounting of >300 article creations translated from 20 languages by a monolinugal. Nothing came of this. I created template {{Hidden translation}} as one attempt to at least flag this probem, but it never caught on.

And one of the tougher ones: what is our attitude, really, about WP:MACHINETRANSLATION? The field of machine translation and the technology of statistical machine translation has been and continues to grow steadily, and for some language pairs is getting pretty good for certain registers or knowledge domains (for others, less so). One of these days (prediction: 2032) it's going to pass the Turing test. However, this intersects with the previously mentioned "who bears responsibility" issue, so is not simple.

The thread raised an interesting discussion about the meaning of "retrieval date" in citations (by which I assume we are talking about parameter |access-date= in some of the citation templates) and whether and how to update it in the process of doing a translation. I haven't run across this aspect of the translation issue before, and find it interesting and worth further discussion. It occurs to me that we could make recommendations in the citation template doc of how to handle this, including perhaps, for example, "leave the original access-date in place if you have not been able to retrieve the source and verify it for whatever reason, whether it's not available to you, or you cannot read the language that the source is in; replace the original access-date with today's date if you have checked the source and it probably verifies your translated content". Alternatively, because we would never be sure what an "old retrieval date" (i.e., an access-date prior to the save-date of the translation) meant, maybe an entirely new param to positively indicate translation-verification, such as |verified-date= (which, now that I think about it, could be useful beyond just for translations). Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should always be honest about the source we use, and make it clear what we have seen and what we just copy. So for a reference that you translate without checking, you should say so:

 Some text.<ref>The German Wikipedia cites the following reference for this text: {{cite web|...}}</ref>

In German, this is called the de:Autopsieprinzip. It helps against the spread of misinformation like fake citations and can help prevent citogenesis-like effects. —Kusma (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the accountability aspect, but in practice, I don't think anybody is going to do this; it's too clunky and wordy. Or at least, not until we add something very clear to a policy-level document that states it unequivocally, and even then it will take some time to osmose through the translator userosphere. Even so, I think some will just never get it, or just ignore it until repeatedly warned about it. That said, I'm not sure I have a better alternative. Afaic, my default assumption about all content is that it isn't sourced or verifiable unless I see a citation following it (and even then, I don't *really* know, do I?); maybe an analogous assumption in citations found in translated documents could be, "translated content near this citation has not been verified in en-wiki, unless you see a |verified-date= in the citation (or, state-your-method-here)". This whole issue of accountability of and responsibility for translated citations is imho one of the most important or *the* most important translation-related issue to have come out of this AN discussion thread, and I was saving it for last, so thanks for raising it now. It richly deserves an entire discussion at the proper forum. Also, thanks for the link to de:Autopsieprinzip, which I was not previously familiar with. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

de:Wikipedia:Belege (their WP:V) is explicit about translations and states "Translations from other language versions of Wikipedia are only suitable if external references conforming to our local sourcing requirements are available. References from other language versions should be checked before being used in the German version (see Autopsieprinzip)." —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

We ought to have a discussion about that here. But even having it spelled out in de:Wikipedia:Belege or added one day to WP:V is one thing, but actually carrying it out is another. And who is actually going to do the scutwork of checking somebody else's work on this? Maybe the threat of ending up here and having it brought to light as a clear violation of this future principle will be enough; I hope so.

Meanwhile, I found English sources on the Autopsy principle difficult to find, with only passing mentions so far, such as Huistra (2013), but not much in depth. Maybe it needs a punchier name, like the (doubting) Thomas principle, on analogy with Merton's Matthew effect. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to suggest a formal principle, I think we should assume the same principle as at DYK. Online sources should be checked to ensure they actually correspond with the article content, and offline sources that can't be readily accessed should be AGFed until proof of contrary [or, if the online sources don't match, that would be reason enough to doubt the offline sources too]. Since this is actually for a very concrete article writing purpose, it would also be possible to go look at WP:RX. Of course, article creators, whether they're translating or starting from scratch, have the responsibility to check for sources, so if someone consistently fails to do this then that is a larger issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I like this DYK principle. I think it strikes an adequate balance between 1) taking advantage of work done by non-en.wiki Wikipedians that may be difficult to replicate and 2) ensuring that articles are supported by reliable sources and are not copyright violations. Perhaps there could also be exceptions for FAs in languages where we trust the FA review process. (Though perhaps this is adding needless complexity). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

At DYK, reviewers are explicit about whether they have checked the content or not and either give the "reference checked" tick or the "assuming good faith" tick. I'd like translators to be equally explicit if possible, perhaps with a template that says (in a less wordy fashion, and perhaps not fully visible outside edit mode) "unreviewed reference taken from French Wikipedia" with an easy way for people to indicate when they have checked the reference and vouch for its content. As the translator speaks the language of the original content author, they could also ask on the other wiki about the references used and to do some inter-language WP:RX. —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Monolinguals shouldn't be allowed to do translations, and especially not with machine translations. This is a clear case of WP:CIR, and I think it should be a blockable offence as it creates a lot of articles with poor content, which damages the reputation of this project..--Berig (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm really glad to see this topic still open. Mathglot touched on a lot of points that are relevant to my own editing practices (maybe favorably, maybe not.) See, I'm really only fluent in English. Pathetic, yes, but it's never stopped me from engaging with the greater non-Anglophone world. I've trusted GTranslate(and others) with so many things in my life- things that literally shaped who I am, things that I'm so grateful and proud to have been able to do thanks to machine translation. As far as WP goes, I've always read it for the topics that would be obscure to me otherwise, sometimes due to technicality, but more often due to language barrier. That, in turn, also directs the topics that I'm interested enough to edit. However, I'm not naïve enough to trust M.T. in all respects, since language is only one aspect of difference between countries and cultures (WP:V, eh?). Most of what I do on EN.WP is low-level muck work: sourcing the unsourced, destubbing the stubs; my lone attempt at climbing the glorious quality ladder of GA was an utter failure, so 'here we are'. And there is a distinct issue in this article wasteland: they suffer for lack of language. I do my best: if I add content from non-English sources, I generally note in the edit summary that I read the source using Gtranslate, or I simply add a source to the page so it's there to satisfy general notability. But en masse, without a fluent reader to confirm sourcing, it's still a risk, especially in stubs and obscure topics. Should I stop? Hope someone else will come along after 10 years to do what I couldn't? Lists of Wikipedian translators are out of date, Wikiproject talks get very few eyes- TLDR; technology is a bridge for the information gap, but if there's a a rule for it's use, it's a blurry one. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Community review: WP:GS/IPAK sanctions

Following a recent request at ARCA, ArbCom has issued a new, standardised procedure for what was previously called the '500/30 rule', and is now called the 'extended confirmed restriction' (ECR). Given that ArbCom has conducted this housekeeping, I believe it would be worthwhile to review the function of the sole example of a community-imposed 500/30 rule, WP:GS/IPAK. Originally, I filed a request at ARCA to see if ArbCom would consider incorporating this community sanction into the existing ArbCom-imposed WP:ARBIP sanctions regime under the new standardised rules, to reduce red tape and avoid bureaucratic confusion, but it quickly became apparent that this community-imposed sanction may either 1) not be working as was originally intended or 2) does not actually have true community consensus in the present. Therefore, I am proposing that the community review the function and necessity of this regime, with a few potential courses of action in mind.

I would like to lay out a few problems that have been identified with the GS/IPAK regime:

Firstly, as was pointed out by the honourable ProcrastinatingReader at the relevant ARCA request, only 25 pages are presently extended-confirmed protected under this regime. Clearly, this does not represent the intended scope of the restriction, which was said to cover 'any conflict between India and Pakistan'. We cannot truly say that only extended-confirmed editors are currently being allowed to edit all articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan, given the present state of enforcement. Instead, it looks as if administrators are applying ECP at their discretion, on pages that have been points of conflict. If this is this case, however, there is no need for the community sanctions regime: under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions in effect in the same topic area per WP:ARBIP, any administrator could apply ECP as he saw fit to the relevant pages anyway (under the following clause of WP:AC/DS: 'Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content [except when consensus for the edit exists], or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project).

Secondly, if it is deemed that the community does want to retain this restriction, and actually have it enforced as it was intended, there remains a bureaucratic issue to be solved. Following ArbCom's recent adoption of a new set of standardised rules for what is now called the 'extended confirmed restriction', the GS/IPAK regime has become procedurally isolated and outdated. While all other examples of this type of sanction follow the same rules, GS/IPAK has been left with its own unique set. I would argue that this is a procedural nightmare, and likely to introduce conflict. Therefore, to remedy this situation, there are two possible solutions: 1) the community could amend the WP:GS/IPAK restriction to mirror the new standardised rules at WP:ECR, so as to avoid any procedural confusion, or 2) the community could appeal to ArbCom to have this regime be incorporated into the existing WP:ARBIP sanctions regime as a standard WP:ECR regime, simplifying enforcement and reducing red tape.

Considering the above, I would like if editors could consider the following potential outcomes:

Abolish WP:GS/IPAK and continue ECP enforcement as needed under the WP:ARBIP DS.

Adopt the new standardised WP:ECR rules as an amendment to WP:GS/IPAK and enforce it as was originally intended.

Appeal to ArbCom via WP:ARCA to incorporate GS/IPAK into ARBIP as a standard WP:ECR sanction.

No action

I am looking forward to hearing your opinions. Thank you for your time and consideration. RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

In my opinion, the fact that this has been a largely unenforced remedy but the topic area is still mostly intact shows it was never really necessary to prevent disruption in the first place (noting that some degree of disruption occurs in all contentious topic areas & most don't have topic-wide ECP restrictions). Continuing harsh sanctions in the face of evidence suggesting they are not required is very perverse, so I'd oppose ArbCom taking it over (as that will likely lead to proper enforcement). I'd say vacate it formally, but IME evidence (via GS logs) is not usually persuasive so I doubt there will be consensus for that. Doing nothing, thus, seems like the best option, as it is practically equivalent to vacating it. A clerical change to adopt ECR won't really change anything, perhaps it might make it even less enforced since WP:ECR is rather verbose, so I'd support that too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Abolish – As ProcrastinatingReader says above, there is no obvious evidence that a topic-wide ECR is needed, and at present, such a restriction is not actually being enforced. Given that the existing WP:ARBIP DS allow for the continued extended-confirmed protection of those pages where it is deemed necessary (such as those presently logged under WP:GS/IPAK), I see absolutely no reason to retain the separate community sanctions regime. Abolish GS/IPAK, and maintain enforcement under ARBIP. If other editors see a need for the proper enforcement of this restriction, I would argue that having ArbCom take it over seems like the most reasonable course of action, as it will make enforcement easier and reduce bureaucratic confusion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Abolish - I supported the creation of this GS in 2019, but now that we have a standard ECP DS sanction, everything would be so much easier to just have one regime under which we ECP pages, and that should be the DS/ECP. I don't see a reason to maintain what is essentially a duplicate page (GS/IPAK). Levivich 17:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Abolish - I was one of those who argued against ARBCOM subceding this by a motion, but certainly this ruleset doesn't seem to be being used (or, in dire need of being such beyond the current pairing). Due to that, I lean abolish rather than a pure request to ARBCOM to assume it. It may lead to the DS regime being extended to a few more articles, but I don't see a need to merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Abolish — simpler is better. Bishonen | tålk 22:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC).
• Abolish — per editors above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with the abolition. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm stupid — magic touch? Maybe I am a wizard... El_C 12:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• But less seriously, RE: It may lead to the DS regime being extended to a few more articles — actually, I can't conceive of a single page covered by IPAK that isn't already covered by ARBIPA. Certainly, any protection logged at IPAK could have been logged as ARBIPA just the same. BTW, there's two IPAK log entries for 2021, both are my own (both by way of RfPP). The problem, I think, is that the consensus reached in the 2019 discussion (of which I was not involved or even aware) that ratified this GS just isn't being enforced as intended.

Yes, some key India-Pakistan conflict articles got ECP'd, as they may well have been under ARBIPA, but the crux of IPAK is that it actually prohibits users below EC to edit any articles relating to the Indo-Pakistani conflict, which isn't being enforced like it is for non-EC users who edit WP:ARBPIA pages. IPs and confirmed accounts edit these pages all the time, sometime productively, sometime disruptively, and everything in between — and no one does jack about it (in so far as a those accounts falling short of the WP:500-30 tenure, that is). El_C 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That's why I say abolish this here, and relog those pages that are ECPed under WP:GS/IPAK as ARBIP enforcement actions at WP:AEL. In the event that some change of situation warrants the actual implementation of what is now called the 'extended confirmed restriction', I'm sure that ArbCom would happily consider imposing it via a request at ARCA. RGloucester — ☎ 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

For sure. WP:GS regimes, in general, see less enforcement than WP:ACDS ones, so I'm all for streamlining whenever feasible. But ArbCom's go ahead may be required for any AEL mergers — so that, in itself, may need to be ARCA'd (which may well end up being a mere formality there). El_C 13:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the old ARCA is still open, I'll go ask Committee now, for avoidance of doubt. RGloucester — ☎ 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily? Any single admin can just go through the list of 25 and log them in their own capacity, which would probably be less bureaucratic than having ArbCom pass a motion at ARCA, and probably more ideal too actually since then there's an "enforcing admin" to request unprotection from, whereas if ARCA did it then presumably the ECP on these 25 pages could only be lifted with another ARCA (or AE?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, myself, I'd prefer a subsection at AEL/IPA that notes former IPAK log entries, just for best record keeping practice. El_C 13:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, RGloucester. Thanks! El_C 13:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, and no other member of the committee, I would endorse @ProcrastinatingReader's solution rather than making us to do it by motion. Keeps things clear about who the levying admin is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Barkeep49. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Abolish These pages can be EC protected as a normal admin action and in the unusual event that that isn't suitable, under discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan — procedurally, this is what's being overturned. Yes, this prohibition can only be enforced by ECP (unlike ARBPIA, which offers other remedies, like blocks), which is weird, but maybe worth bludgeoning random participants with (who could not care less = extra fun). El_C 13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Stop the double voting! Timeline: 1. On Sept 22, RfPP request invokes IPAK, idiot protects, logs. 2. On Sept 23, this request to dissolve IPAK sees unanimous support. 3. On Sept 24, idiot bludgeons, inadvertently brings to the discussion the most feared heralds of doom: arbitrators. 4. Sept 24 — Present, thread dies. El_C 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Given that this discussion has petered out, I'd like to request some upright administrator close this discussion as appropriate. It really must be an administrator too, as whoever it is will need to change the ECPs as mentioned above. RGloucester — ☎ 14:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Idiot volunteers. Give me a sec. El_C 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I did the thing. Please review my work at WP:GS/IPAK and WP:AEL. El_C 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I'm quite certain you need to go through the list at GS/IPAK, see which ECPs are still active, reprotect them as an AE action and then log them. That's the only way the 'chain of custody' will be clear. The subheading the AEL log seems unnecessary. RGloucester — ☎ 12:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

RGloucester, I'm not sure that retroactive bureaucratic hurdle is necessary, at least for me to do single-handedly. But maybe that's the prevailing view and I missed it...? The AEL note seemed fitting to me, as well, certainly, for now. Anyway, I brought this to the Committee's attention at ARCA (direct link), as well, so I'm inclined to wait for their guidance before acting further, since ARBIPA is ultimately their domain. To be clear, this is a tentative close and I invite other admins to adjust my work as they see fit. If there's a need to do something (different), I'm sure it won't be long before a plan of action is formed and executed. El_C 13:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request from BashurMan

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

User has requested to be unblocked via UTRS appeal #48468. They were check user blocked by Materialscientist on February 20, 2019, who then unblocked. Was checkuser blocked again by DoRD February 22, 2018. Yamla found no checkuser evidence of block evasion. Courtesy ping for my colleague Yamla, who wishes to take part.

There request is carried over below:

I understand why I have been blocked from editing. I created multiple accounts for the use of sockpuppetry. I vandalized a small number of articles with those created accounts. The reason why I committed these actions is that I wanted to put a bad impression on my friend. I realize that this was a bad idea, and I should not have done that. I was immature and did not know better. One of my edits was me threatening to murder someone. That was part of me attempting to make my friend look bad. I now recognize that it was extremely bad to edit an article to say that. I regret editing that message and I want to apologize for any harm to any user that had to read that. If I were to be unblocked following this unblock request, I would help contribute towards various genres of articles to keep them up-to-date. These genres include U.S. sports, U.S. infrastructure, and statistic genres. I would fact-check these genre-type articles to, like previously said, keep them up-to-date with the present, and help make sure other editors do not vandalize the articles, causing the articles to be confusing for others. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry – with all respect to a "people change over time" and especially "people grow up over time" approach –, but I've stopped considering an unblock in the moment I read "One of my edits was me threatening to murder someone." There may be others who have a more understanding approach, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I think that they are referring to this edit, where they used a sock account to threaten themselves??? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I recognize that there is a difference between "threatening to murder someone [else]" and "sending fake death threats to oneself". Still, I'm out of here. I won't go through every edit of the user to ensure that this is what they referred to, and I don't trust them enough to accept this explanation without going through every edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Yamla for actually checking all the edits. This partially resolves my concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify which edit they made which was threatening to murder someone? That could help provide important context. If it is just the edit the IP linked, it seems to me like an isolated petty feud on a user talk page, and I'd be inclined to support the appeal, but if it was a different edit, I would reconsider.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Technical notes:

• CU data are kept only for a short time, so the fact that Yamla did not find evidence of socking on 22 September 2021 has little meaning.
• DoRD reblocked on 23 February 2019, not 2018.
• I wonder how do we know this is not a continuation of the same game, kind of "let us see how easy is it to get unblocked"? Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. I went through all the edits of this account and the socks and am very sure the murder threat was indeed this edit. Threatening to kill one's self is, well, WP:EMERGENCY but in this context, not the same as threatening to kill another editor. However, it does show a profound lack of maturity. Deliberate trolling that causes problems for us. Frankly, when combined with the vandalism, that's enough for me to oppose unblocking here. If others think enough time has passed and this user has demonstrated more maturity, fine. I don't see it. --Yamla (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. The misconduct was severe, and I find the explanation The reason why I committed these actions is that I wanted to put a bad impression on my friend to be bizarre. I see no evidence that this person has the maturity to be a useful contributor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock. The past misconduct shows immaturity, but the willingness to acknowledge it now, 2+1⁄2 years later, shows just the opposite—as does the decision to request an unblock rather than try to evade, which, let's be honest, is what most reformed small-time vandals would do in this situation. If this very request is trolling, we'll find out soon enough, and won't fall for it the next time. If we won't unblock for something like this after two years, when will we? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This threat precludes returning, it invalidates the standard offer. I don't care if it was to himself. It was a public message and gave the appearance of a dangerous environment. This form of trolling makes Wikipedia a scary place and drives off good users. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock, because the bizarre episode appears to be an isolated, and it has been more than six months since the most recent socking, so I am willing to support a standard offer unblock with a one account restriction.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, and recommend that this thread be removed and suppressed per the overt threats of violence. I know people can change and mature and I'm usually one of the first to advocate for second chances, but we need to weigh that against the possibility that they'll use Wikipedia to threaten to murder someone else, and no it doesn't matter one tiny little bit that it was a joke or a game (it makes it worse, in fact). Is that possibility slim, or is it not worth taking the chance? I think the latter. Some people are never going to be fit to edit Wikipedia, and the sort of person who makes murder threats even once strikes that chord for me. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock on the basis that they seem to demonstrate understanding of and genuine regret for their previous actions, and WP:AGF and all that. As noted above the supposed murder threat was a fake death threat against themselves; I don't see any compelling need to worry that they might start threatening other people. Obviously, as with anyone returning from a block, any further misdemeanour could see the block return with very little chance of a future unblock, and I think they know that. WaggersTALK 12:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support because "I wanna kill you" is a common thing that people say in casual conversation to each other all the time. It's one of the archetypical examples of hyperbole, right up there with "I wanna kill myself." It's rarely intended or understood literally. This distinction is more difficult to discern over text, but still, I don't see this as a genuine death threat but rather as ordinary trolling/vandalism/fuckwittery, the kind of thing kids are known for. The fact that some kid wrote "I wanna kill you so fucking bad" once on this website is not worth a lifetime ban. There is no reason to think if we unblock them they're going to go about making death threats. Two years is long enough to mature, and they can always be blocked again if need be. Levivich 16:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, I am as so often overwhelmed by the understanding, tolerance and forgiveness that is shown to problem editors, and in this case it is an editor who comes with threats of killing someone, or committing suicide, if I understand it correctly.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support unblock. Not going to lie, I only didn't comment sooner because I thought I might be the only one who thinks this way, but now that there are few more support comments I don't feel as silly supporting. The apology seems genuine, and I think the user should be given a WP:LASTCHANCE to demonstrate that they will never do something that bad again. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abusing various accounts

I'm reopening a case that I filed earlier this year as there hasn't really been a solution to it. Long story short, the editor of the sock master Cool a123 has continuously created new accounts (which can be seen here), and have also been using multiple dynamic IP's. The IP they are currently using is 2603:8000:401:9930:0:0:0:0/64, which was blocked for 1 week, but is now active again. I will list their more recent accounts below.

• 172.119.122.91 (Blocked)
• 2603:8000:443:9600::/64 (Blocked)
• Poolison 2000 (Blocked)
• 2603:8000:403:4053:0:0:0:0/64 (Unblocked but inactive)
• 2603:8000:400:41A1:0:0:0:0/64 (Blocked for 2 weeks)

This has been a constant cycle for the past nine months. Every time one of their accounts get blocked, they are able to come back with another one. It is also very frustrating with the fact that the IPv6 address keeps changing, so the /64 range blocks have somewhat been ineffective. I'm hoping that there is a solution to this, because the way that they are able to return with new accounts or IP's each time they get blocked is not cutting it. Yowashi (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Restored from archive as no responses as yet and user chasing. Keith D (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like block on 2603:8000:401:9930:0:0:0:0/64 has been extended by 2 weeks but user is looking for a more permanent solution. Keith D (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone moved my userpage and my talkpage in other userpage.

User:Himynameselijah can you help me block this user, he moved my userpage and my talkpage to another unknown userpage. He currently doing edit war against me at the Carmina Villarroel. NEED AN ADMINS ATTENTION!. My original page is User:Clipred and User talk:Clipred. clipred (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred: I moved your pages back to where they belong. I'll leave to admins to deal with Himynameselijah. No such user (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. clipred (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred I've gone ahead and notified the user of this thread. Please make sure you do so going forth when starting a discussion about another editor here, per the big red box at the top of the page. I've also requested an explanation as to why they made the moves. SQL^{Query Me!} 09:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Himynameselijah blocked for 60 hours for disruptive editing and being a nuisance in general. -- Longhair\^talk 09:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much admin!. But please if he do that again. Block him forever!. clipred (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred: We'll cross that bridge once their block expires... if they continue their disruption please report to WP:AIV. -- Longhair\^talk 09:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The pages should probably be move-protected, indef and never undone for any reason except under request by Clipred. 176.12.152.42 (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Longhair: thank you very much!. clipred (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef. For the record, my block summary reads: Setting the block duration not to expire due to persistent WP:COPYVIO coupled with zero communication (user hasn't used a talk page of any kind, ever). El_C 09:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Fair call. A non-productive editor overall. -- Longhair\^talk 16:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: You've blocked him forever, sorry i can't speak and understand English properly. clipred (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Clipred, I blocked them until such time they start communicating, which they have not been doing (whatsoever). Such communication will need to assure us that they will desist from persistent copyright infringements (last violation Sept 25). If that never happens, then they never get unblocked. El_C 10:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: thank you admin. clipred (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Himynameselijah: I've also applied "move protection" to these pages for 6 months to ward off any disruption. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Wait, what?. You protect his userpage? Not mine?. I actually don't understand that protection, can you explain?. What's that protection?. Thank you. clipred (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If I can speak for xaosflux (and I will): they wanted some of that sweet, sweet comedy of error, too.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred: sure, you can have some too - move protection for everyone! (It prevents anyone from being allowed to "move" that page for a period of time, this is normally not needed - but as a response to vandalism can be applied to prevent further disruption. It will have no impact on your ability to edit any page, or your ability to move other pages). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Haha, nice save! El_C 13:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you admins!. I hope that my request (rollback feature rights) will be granted, I've requested it to the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, and waiting for any administrator's response. It will help me to revert faster when I encounter vandalisms. Anyways, thank you admin. clipred (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• You can also add BLP violations to the list of reasons for an indef block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And let's not forget all the images uploaded with no copyright status? Surprised they lasted as long as they did. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Also also (also), I don't speak the language but according to Google Translate the titles they tried to move the userpage to, and the edit summaries they used, are personal attacks. Mild personal attacks mind you, but worth adding to the WP:NOTHERE list. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @PEIsquirrel: He is the only one making a personal attack. Not me. I've only reverted his revision in the article Carmina Villarroel because the information he added doesn't have a source, so I revert it, after that, he added it again, and I revert it again. For sure, that is the reason why he moved my userpage on other userpage. Many articles I've edited is full of unregistered users, like: Salbakuta, Ex Battalion, Andrew E.. That's why I request a rollback feature to revert faster. clipred (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Just in case anyone's confused by this, I was referring to the blocked user making personal attacks, not the complainant. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is @Clipred: has been removing content, by virtue of WP:SOURCE, when he could have just tagged it with {{cite needed}}. I recently restored a name he removed in the article Salbakuta. Some of these contents removed are even older than his account. The user does not even assume good faith and just readily reverts unsourced material. He's so stubborn and determined at enforcing sources, he resorts to biting new comers. And he's no different to the guy he got banned, checking his history, he has been reported twice very recently. Now, I assume he's been made familiar with the rules due to those incidents but sadly he's going at it the wrong way. Enforcing his recent learnings like a zealot. Crossing users old and new. How many more other users is he going to turn to the darkness? I hope the guys at WP:ROLLBACK; @Girth Summit:, @ToBeFree: et. al. consider these before giving Clipred an abusable ability. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a reason if the content is older than me. Since no one removing the unsourced information like in the member section, a lot of information on that article does not true, so I removed it, instead of leaving those false information. It's our responsibility to add sources for any information we added in an article. I added some sources to that article, is that fair enough? clipred (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to protect some Filipino related articles from adding unsourced info. Before I created an account, I have seen that article already, just sad because there are a few references. So now is the time to clean that article. And I noticed that many users are just making vandalisms on that article, and no user can stop them, so as a concern user, I remove all vandalisms they made. clipred (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: we have a policy that contentious information about living persons must be sourced inline where it appears, or it must be removed immediately. On seeing such info it's preferable to find a source and add it, but removing it is also entirely supported by policy; flagging it with {{cn}} is not appropriate. If someone removes unsourced information about a living person, and you restore it without also adding a source, you may be blocked from editing. I see that you haven't, but please keep that in mind. That being said, nobody needs to come down like a ton of bricks on a newcomer who doesn't fully understand that policy, but we have several polite notices (such as {{uw-biog1}}) that can be used to gently educate them. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

And what, exactly, was "contentious" here? Clipred removed 3 kB of rather plain-vanilla information which was basically the Villaroel's whole filmography in prose, and was rather easily verifiable just by consulting the linked articles. "Zealotry" is about an appropriate description for such removals. No such user (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: A list of names is not contentious. @Clipred: was removing names in Salbakuta and [[A2z News}}. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: Yes, because the names are unsourced. The members in Salbakuta hasn't removed because I've added new sources. —Clipred (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request by User:Iyo-farm

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

---

Original complaint by user:Acroterion, here [58] is nothing more than an insultingly disingenuous WP:GAMING of the system based on a deliberately dishonest & exaggerated misrepresentations my position & contributions, in a prejudicial manner. See WP:OM, & WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Block too soon & too severe, involving too few editors during a perfectly civil discussion from side.

Block, here [59] -Iyo-farm (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Make an unblock request on your user talk page in the usual manner. Be sure to read WP:GAB. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Block was not too soon. Block was not too severe. Block did not involve too few editors (what does that mean?). Original ANI thread was not "insultingly disingenuous WP:GAMING of the system based on a deliberately dishonest & exaggerated misrepresentations my position & contributions, in a prejudicial manner". I guess on the plus side, you made one truthful statement; the block discuss was indeed here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5, since there was no block notice, Iyo-farm may not have been aware of the existence of {{unblock}}, though at this stage, that's probably a minor aside. El_C 02:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just for the sakes of completion, note that I have now sitewide indeffed the user: WP:ANI#Indefinite_sitewide_block. El_C 13:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I endorse this block.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Need urgent help on a page where other uses won't listen and keep undoing the changes.

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

---

So I was editing a page on Wikipedia named Red Swan (song). I corrected the page as its a song and has 2 versions that are Singles released. So I added an album art and other album infobox just like any other songs/singles/albums are written on Wikipedia. but few users keeps undoing it by arguing and not listening to my point that it is indeed a Single and should be addressed as any other Single on Wikipedia. Please look into it Thank you! :)HimuTheEditor (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's a content dispute, which WP:AN does not have the capacity to intervene in. If the issue is the conduct of the other users, please provide diffs to indicate this.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• I note that Talk:Red Swan (song) is empty. Time to stop communicating via edit summary, and start communicating there. Also, this is not urgent. Please regain your perspective; thinking things are urgent makes you do unwise things, like edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Fake referencing, Edit warring and Misuse of rollbacking

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

---

Hi, I want to report a user User:UserNumber. While I have found 2 false references in the article I have corrected but the user rolled back. He had a history of falsely protecting fake references in the article Sylheti Nagri.

Further checking into his edits and user interaction I have found he is spreading a Conspiracy Theory about Sylheti language that those who are aware of Sylheti language they are linked to West and Christian missionaries.

He commented following in another editor's (User:Abu Ayyub) talk page that:

"hope that you understand that this dialect-language issue is not Sylhetis vs. mainstream Bengalis. Many of us Sylhetis are proud to be a part of the wider Bengali language and our writers have never considered Sylheti to be a completely separate language. This is a modern issue initiated by Western Christian researchers to separate us. I repeat, I admire you for your passion for Sylheti and hope we can work together peacefully." UserNumber, 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like he has an issue with Sylheti language and misusing rollback power. May not break 3 edit rollback rule but his rollback is concerning.

Slake000 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

POV push with unreliable source

Repeated inclusion of POV statements in Rudra Thandavam (2021 film) page by IP's 2409:4072:6c9f:42aa:2090:4f9:c6a7:5338, 2409:4040:d10:9170:a67e:11e0:8c57:fda1 2409:4072:6c9f:42aa:2ee5:7bce:f1b:2cb1 with unreliable poor sources. The intention of the user is clearly to degrade a movie on its release date. So please block these users immediately.--Universalrahu (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The intention of Universalrahu is call all sources as unreliable because of the poor crticism in the movie. He is deleting criticism and adding fan POV for one director in lot of articles. Examples...[[60]]--- He deleted content and national news channel sources by saying it is unreliable. 2409:4072:6C9F:42AA:3C60:AA0C:E631:AE6 (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is long term disruptive behavior by Universalrahu across multiple articles. I have given multiple (including final) warnings in the past but held off on blocking as they're a long term user and have had some productive edits. I'm not sure that needs to continue. They continue to remove content they don't like, and any opposing view is called vandalism. The original disruption was in caste related articles (around Vanniyars) but that has moved on to all their editing now. I believe that an indef block is called for unless they show that they can mend their ways (via a topic ban around anything relating to Indian topics). —SpacemanSpiff 06:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no disruptive behavior as Spiff noted. I have initially removed sources which are in another languages and that too from very poor sources. The IP users added again those news. I do not revert it again and proceeded with Administrator's intervention. I am aware that repeated revert is disruptive. So I did not disrupt any way the article. User Spiff is not verifying the history of the page.--Universalrahu (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I will be blocking the OP now, clearly doesn't understand NPOV or editing collaboratively. —SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. Bishonen | tålk 06:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC).

WP:ACERFC closers

Hi! Looking for 2-3 admins that did not participate in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021 that would be interested in closing that RfC this year. The closing really needs to happen quickly, and can occur on or after September 30, 2021. If you are interested, please drop a note at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#Closers?. There are currently 15 components to review. Thank you for stepping up to help the the ArbCom elections this year! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it needs admin closers so much as qualified closers. And unlike many panels I would suggest that this could be more a "division of labor" and "have someone to bounce something off of" rather than true group close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with @Barkeep49: - admin is not strictly necessary, would like at least 2 that can agree on the overall findings, even if the 15 subsections are individually closed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that would be best. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, Floquenbeam closed it in the past on his own, and so have others. I was planning on closing a few to most of them myself if I had time come 10/1 (in case anyone was wondering, 0 intent of every running for that again.) If multiple people want to close it, that's fine, but there's certainly no need for a panel or even "bounce something off-of" closing group. If someone beats me to it, more power to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tony, agree that a panel is not required - it was suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#Closers? so I relayed that along. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think that's a bad idea. I agree we shouldn't shoot the messanger . It wouldn't add any value to what is a fairly straightforward job. This is just long task, not a complex task. Panels risk complicating what has never been that big of a deal to close. Anyway, I'll close some/most/all of them depending on my time and the need as an individual. If other individuals want to help out and close some of the proposals themselves, I think that'd be fine. Let's not make this too complicated, though. ACE is already complicated enough without having a group of closers discuss the appropriate close of the pre-election RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Tony, it might seem like repeating these common sense points about panel closes is falling on deaf ears, but some of us are paying attention. To repeat my own view: I'm not against panel closes in principle, but creating this extra layer of bureaucracy for, erm, extra important discussion closes as a matter of course, that seems like something that needs a tentative consensus. I get that it's presented as a suggestion, but once invoked in any way... Anyway, maybe worthy of an RfC on panel closes to be closed by a panel (for the lulz). El_C 12:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's time!

• Closers are welcome! @TonyBallioni: who expressed interest. We plan to start the commissioner panel RfC tomorrow, I don't see any parts of the main RfC proposed that will impact the commissioner RfC until its closure (part 1.9). Please note there is a meta-question about closing the RfC in the RfC (1.10) that should be reviewed or closed early in the closure. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 09:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux and TonyBallioni: I'm going to address some of the simpler closes ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

TrueImperial

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

---

This user is definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. WP:NOTHERE. With his distuptive editing at Timur and List of Turkic monarchs. See this and this. Claiming sourced dates are Where Historians said It's the Original Sources and his reign 9 April 1370 its complete fake! and claims he knows better You Shouldn’t be care of Dates of History why revert ? Without Evidences. Another edit at List of Turkic monarchs with the edit summary Timurids were not Turkics its false and propaganda. and repeat, which is definitely false, you can see yourself at Timur. Also on the talk page, begins with the words: You Turkish Nationalists... and so on, and i Don't understand why ? People’s calling him Turco-mongol he have Turkic relatives/family or, no turkic genealogy his mother was Pishadadian Dynasty Princess from Iranian origin so he was not (Turco-mongol ❌) but probably (Farsi-Mongol ✅) it’s not my propaganda but it's fact. also claims he was Persian and Timur was Genealogically (Farsi-Mongol) also adding But Turk nationalist trying to Change histories of Mongols and they didn’t understanding the truth thats why there life i's failed fake feeling of proud/praised everything is not Turk they completely change Mongols history when i saw this i challenge them and told them Debate with me give me Evidence but non of layers could stand me in 5 minutes they just talktive & lie and forcing to say Turkic origin. There are a lot of sources on Timurid Empire that the dynasty was of Turkic and Mongol origin, and a consensus by the historians. No one even says the otherwise. So this is more than "content dispute" imo. This user is pushing his agenda by kinda saying "trust me bro, I know better". Beshogur (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources you needed from own making papers proove me Timur is Turco-mongol he have no Turkish Genealogy it’s 100% Fake Qarachar was a Borjigin Prince who was Great-Great-Great-GrandFather of Timur & and The Timur who was a Barlus Dynasty Prince and Foundation of Timurid Dynasty & Empire. in historically no where mentioned about his Turkic Genealogy and then Turks claiming Timur is Turk in origin his language is just Chagatai-Turkic and his origin nothing to do with turks he claim him-self the son of Chenghis Khan in his biography (Tuzuke-Taimuri) https://globalbooks.com.pk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=488418

Timur have his own sources which he said he was also lineage from (Menchuhir) the Manuchehr word is from Farsi

If Timur said him-self his mother was a Pishadadian Dynasty Princess then what's problem with YOU to grabbed me in discussion you need new discovery from me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueImperial (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Saw this the siege of Balkh in December 1369 not 9 April 1370 his Birth date from Wikipedia not my mouth making references ❌

Siege_of_Balkh_(1370) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueImperial (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Warned by way of WP:RFPP. TrueImperial, please tone it down. This is an aggressive start. Maybe work on something that you're less invested in until you at least acquaint yourself with some of the basics...? Thanks. El_C 11:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@TrueImperial: Tuzk-e Taimur isn't even his own book. It's a fabrication. I don't know what you are trying to prove here? Beshogur (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

TrueImperial's name, the way he speaks, and editing area is way too similiar to that of the banned user Imperialreal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Imperialreal: Good find. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Lcollante

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

This editor has been asked by his/her employer to edit Isabel Bucaram, which appears to be the only reason for his/her presence here. After the AfD notice was removed from that article for the second time I blocked the account as spam-only. That was a mistake that our interaction at that article and the fact that it was I who nominated it for deletion should have prevented me from making; I've unblocked for that reason. Would someone else kindly consider whether a block is appropriate at this point? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Pageblocked 31 hours, but given the repeated removal of the AfD template we may be on the way to an indef. All the best, Miniapolis 23:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

E-960 TBAN — Request for the lifting of sanctions

I'd like to submit a formal request to the administrators and the community for the lifting of sanctions imposed on me relating to a TBAN on subject matter concerning "Secular Politics in Europe" and "Christianity". The TBAN took effect on 14 August 2020.

Since then, I have refrained form editing articles covering this subject matter. Also, in order to maintain an open and objective account of the past year; there were a couple of stumbles along the way, relating to issues regarding what the TBAN specifically covered, which were raised by a couple of other editors, and on two occasions when editing history articles, I have inadvertently hit on subject matter that was connected to Christianity. In all those cases, these were not topics directly related to Christianity itself, but rather historical events between the 16th and 20th centuries in which the Church played some role in (as often was the case in European politics during the Middle-ages, Renaissance, etc.). Nevertheless, there was a connection to the TBAN, and I served out the two week block without objection. Also, I would like to emphasise that these unfortunate instances were just slip-ups on my part, for which I took responsibility, and they were never intended as a way to flaunt the TBAN, prove a point, or fight the power.

Also, I would like to emphasise that I take responsibility for what I did which resulted in the TBAN, which was to say that another editor's approach was "bolshevik" when discussing text changes in the Religion in the European Union article, and the ugly discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard, which ensued. Again, I would like to ask the administrators and the community to lift the imposed TBAN sanctions. Also, I can answer any questions regarding the original situation which resulted in the TABN, and also my current approach to editing. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would support that - Will elaborate later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocked three months ago for breaking ban, and understates their disruption above. See ANI link imposing the ban. They should also be blocked for breaching the ban in their very recent edits, which include [61][62] (and others) to Battle of Grunwald and [63] to Grunwald Monument. This was battle between the Kingdom of Poland and the Teutonic Order, otherwise known as the Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem which is a Catholic religious order and falls squarely in the middle of the Christianity and European secular politics ban. As they keep on breaking the ban, it should be widened to a more definitive scope.--Hippeus (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hippeus, have you interacted with E-960 before? Just wondering. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Hippeus soon after their appearance filed a complaint [64] that lead to this topic ban. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, right. Up until August 2020 Hippeus just ran up their edit count via automated vandal patrol to get past the 500/30 requirement which is in place for both Israel-Palestine topics and for Poland. Then they out of nowhere, having never interacted with E-960 (in a obvious manner) filed a report on them. Then back to running up that edit count. Then, also out of nowhere, Hippeus starts showing up to AE reports related to Israel-Palestine commenting with great insight on editors they've also never interacted with (in a obvious manner) and then files an AE on an editor active in Israel-Palestine area [65] that they've also never interacted with.

It is actually kind of mind blowing how naive admins on Wikipedia are. Volunteer Marek 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek - Thank you for the evaluation concerning the fresh Hippeus account. I don't desire to discuss anything else than the topic of this appeal hence small text size, but since you possibly encountered WP:NPA in this thread, I'll add that... Levivich, who is accusing you of tag-teaming, was just highly supportive of the very Hippeus here [66]. You may interpret this however you want, I'm just recording it for everyone to see. Quote - Damn, the hypocrisy. You tag team while--with your tag team partners--accuse editors who !vote a different way of tag teaming. Shameless. -->[67] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, who is accusing you of tag-teaming, was just highly supportive of the very Hippeus here - Lol, I didn't even see that. But yeah, Levivich jumps around noticeboards supporting (i.e. "tag teaming") a WP:DUCK account in its BATTLEGROUND reports then shows up here and has the nerve to accuse other editors of tag teaming. ... .... ... smack head again desk. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(And Battle of Grunwald and Grunwald Monument are most definitely NOT breaches of the topic ban - this is some really bad faith stretchin' of the scope of the ban. The battle had nothing to do with religion. Volunteer Marek 00:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic bans are meant to be "broadly construed", not tested to their limits. This, although not a substantial edit, is more clear-cut: adding a header called "The enlightenment and political turmoil" to an article about a European state is clearly about "European secular politics"... Given that they were blocked in June for a violation of this (their excuse back then was that they missed a reference to politics in a larger section: that at least seems credible. Outright adding "politics" in a header is less of an accident...); they should have figured by now that caution is more appropriate, i.e. a topic ban is "if you're not sure, it probably is under the topic ban, and if you're really really not sure, ask for clarification before violating the topic ban". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous. By this interpretation any edit to, say, medieval history in Europe would fall under the topic ban. Because, you know, people were very religious back then. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, block for breaking the ban, and expand ban to Christianity and European politics broadly construed. E-960 said way more than just the Bolshevik comment, his commentary included: [68][69][70][71]. E-960 had issues with the ban to begin with, which led to warnings and a block. Most of his recent edits are in violation of the ban. Any edits to topics pertaining to European Monastic states, and specifically a battle between the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order and a secular kingdom in the Battle of Grunwald pertain both to Christianity and to European secular politics. The edit RandomCanadian brought up above is also within the ban, the Enlightenment section contains “The latter's conversion from Lutheranism to Catholicism awed the conservative magnates and Pope Innocent XII, who in turn voiced their endorsement.” As the ban is repeatedly flouted it should be widened to remove the possible ambiguity around “secular politics”. @Wugapodes: who implemented the ban.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Astral Leap, RandomCanadian and Hippeus, if you don't mind I'd like to respond to your comments regarding the TBAN, and quote another user who commented previously during one of the debates about me regarding this issue: Elemimele said: ...the phrase "broadly construed" only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response "but construed broadly", that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times. the full comment can be viewed here [72]. Also, other users such as Dawid2009 wrote to me separately voicing their reservations about the TBAN, to which I simply replied that I'll try to appeal after one year. Just as well, you can argue that since Poland was a Christian kingdom, so I broke the TBAN there, or when I edited the page on Helmut Kohl, because he is a European politician, enlightenment, well that's science and art, so I'll be breaking the TBAN if I edit the articles on Isaac Newton or Michelangelo. Also, I would like to highlight a couple of important facts for your consideration, that the TBAN was imposed for a VERY specific incident regarding a text I added which covered the marginalisation of Christians in the EU on the Religion in the European Union page. Never before that, was there an issue with me and topics related to Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe. If I was a serial offender, constantly getting in disruptive arguments regarding the topic of Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe, I could understand your arguments of a very broadly construed TBAN based on several incidents. However, because this was a very localised flare-up, I simply do not understand why you would want to expand the understanding of the TBAN to such a wide scope. Please remember that the TBAN is not a punishment of some kind, it's a tool to prevent disruptive editing and it serve as a cooling off period. So, why would you want to expand the TBAN to areas which were not an issue before? Also, I did not edit text about the Teutonic Knights specifically, in the Battle of Grunwald article, just about Silesians and Vlachs who fought on the Polish side, so again you are stretching the understanding of the TBAN to about as wide as it possibly can gets. --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I shouldn't really be commenting. But since I stuck my nose in last time, and have been mentioned again: my concern was (1) that the TBAN, as worded, unfortunately meant the exact opposite of what was intended. I believe it was a ban on "European secular politics, broadly construed". Pedantically, this would allow E-960 to edit on religious (as opposed to secular) politics, and anything non-political. I believe the ban was intended to cover something much narrower: "The politics of secularisation in Europe", which is actually religious politics. This wouldn't matter, except that people have been using the phrase "broadly construed" to stretch secular politics to encompass more or less everything. And that's problem (2): if you are going to ban someone whose primary interest is European history from writing about anything that could possibly be construed as European politics, you may as well admit it's a site-ban. Overall (3) I was unhappy that E-960 should be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins. It seemed to me best to write off the whole rather sorry saga, start again, look at E-960's current editing (is it good, is it disruptive?) and if, based on this, it's felt that a ban is appropriate, create a new one, worded with less ambiguity. Elemimele (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Astral Leap Given your weeks of inactivity and status of a relative newcomer, can you tell us how did you find out about this discussion? And why are you interested in this? Did you and the user who requested this ban to be lifted interact before? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Damn, the hypocrisy. You tag team while--with your tag team partners--accuse editors who !vote a different way of tag teaming. Shameless. Levivich 13:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Since this is AN(I), and you should know better, I ask reviewing admins to consider the above in light of WP:NPA/Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. TIA _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich:, it is almost as if these three accounts are a single account for past three months. At Honchy Brid massacre these three, [73] [74] [75], attempted to remove all trace of the crime.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia - you took a month-long break, I see. What are the odds of running into you here, huh. Perfectly innocent coincidence, right, Levivich? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The evidence is in this thread: the posts by you, VM, and GCB. I've previously provided evidence of the tag teaming I'm talking about at ANI in August and on my talk page. On my talk page, I offered to provide more specific examples of you, VM and/or GCB tag-teaming, and I asked you to tell me how many examples would be enough examples to overcome any defense that it's all just a coincidence. You have not yet given me a number, but the offer stands. This thread is just the latest example of you, GCB, and VM tag-teaming. GCB casts the first support. When an editor opposes, VM shows up to question the editor, along with GCB. When another editor opposes, you show up to question the editor (and support). This is exactly the kind of tag-teaming that people have been complaining about for a long time... at least since the days of WP:EEML (to which you and VM were a party), if not earlier. And, you were TBANed for canvassing last year. And it came up again in that ANI thread in August. This is not an aspersion, it's a sustained complaint. (And BTW: I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not.) Levivich 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich - consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. I follow the same pages as those editors since I'm interested in the same topic area. Occasionally, I also reflect on edits of editors interested in my topic area. Is this clear for you? So quit accusing me of the rule violation and BACK OFF. I'm not going to take it lightly if you continue.

PS - This thread is about something else, so please stick to the topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've already stopped taking your tag-teaming lightly. When this appeal was posted I wasn't gonna comment. When you supported, I wasn't gonna comment. When VM questioned an opposer, I recognized it as yet another example of the tag-teaming, but I wasn't going to comment. When Piotrus questioned a second opposer, that's what crossed the line for me, and now I'm commenting, again. There are many examples of the three of you doing this, and if you'd like me to provide more, just say how many. The next time I see you three tag-team, I will comment again: this is what I told Piotrus on my talk page last time: I will be speaking up about this; I'm not gonna waste time bringing it to a noticeboard, but I will speak up. Levivich 17:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh please. You’re acting faux-outraged that editors who are involved in the topic area and who have commented on this user/sanction in the past several times are commenting again and trying your darnedest to pretend like it’s some great conspiracy and yet... at the same time you got exactly ZERO to say about all the sketchy accounts popping out of nowhere here and hijacking the discussion yet again (nevermind the first responder who spent their time on Wikipedia running up their edit count with mindless vandal patrol to get past the 500/30 hurdle so they could file reports against editors in both Israel-Palestine and Eastern Europe topic areas). Right right. As long as these editors fit your POV you’re quite willing to turn a blind eye to their shenanigans yet you think it okay to invent WP:ASPERSIONS and make wild accusations against long established editors. Got it. Your double standards are clear as day. Par for the course Levivich. Par for the course. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In which case, this being AN, I repeat my request to the adminstrators regarding whether the above personal attacks, which Levivch refuses to withdraw, can be dealt with here, or if this should be taken to a higher instance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@VM and Piotrus: to be clear, the thing I am accusing you of is improper coordination, i.e. tag-teaming. An example is that you will "tag-team" to badger participants in a discussion who disagree with you, usually with sea lioning questions insinuating they're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or that they are hounding or that they are, ironically, tag-teaming. We see this on display here: first, GCB !votes support. The first oppose !vote, VM shows up to badger. The second oppose !vote, Piotrus shows up to badger. This is by far not the first time I've raised this complaint, nor am I the only one who has. I don't take it to a noticeboard because this happens at noticeboards like AN, like right here, and also because you've all been sanctioned before. So, the admin know about this. They see what I see. They can choose to do something, or not, it's totally up to them. I see no point in starting a new thread about it on any page. If anyone wants me to provide more examples of this behavior, they only need to tell me how many. Because I evidence my accusations, they are not aspersions, nor are they personal attacks. I can't block or ban any of you or do anything about this, other than use my voice to call it out when I see it: that's all I can do, so that's what I do. It's the same approach I have to incivility: call it out when I see it. Levivich 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

VM already elaborated better than I could, and as for admins, they should be able to see who is being civil - or not - here, as well as who is supported by WP:DUCK low-edit count accounts that were inactive for weeks and then suddenly found themselves at AN. I wasn't going to comment here until I realized this thread is being abused by suspicious acounts whose names I recalled from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. You can entertain us with irrelevant ancient history of how I and VM "tag teamed" ~13 years ago, years before E-960 or GCB were active; but the recent (~2019) Icewhiz incident and his ongoing socking is a current and relevant problem that reviewing admins should certainly be aware of. This has been pointed out to you clearly yet you have nothing to say about those new accounts that suddenly activated here. Let me end by quoting your post just above: "Damn, the hypocrisy". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, if you think an admin is just gonna step in and sanction any major EE participant, of either camp, you haven't been following along. A full ARBEE2 case, or it didn't happen. No admin is gonna do anything without Hurricane winds in their sails (something happening of an especially egregious nature), because why would they? If either side wants to establish an incremental buildup of problems that are felt to have gotten too much for whatever reason, ArbCom is that-a-way. The other option is for both sides to keep waiting for Godot, who is generally busy. El_C 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of what I wrote leads you to believe I want or expect admins to do anything (especially since I wrote the exact opposite). At the risk of sounding like a broken record: what I'm doing is calling it out when I see it; everyone else can do whatever they want. Levivich 17:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, howling to the wind then, got it. In opposite land, you writing "the exact opposite" was understood by all. El_C 17:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like the lesson has been learned. No need for further punishment, but the ban remains part of the record, and if any problematic editing resurfaces, next one will presumably be much longer, so please be careful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Close without prejudice until the allegations of tag-teaming can be reviewed by ArbCom. I don't think E-960 is party to it and I'm sorry it has to be on their backs, but we can't have one group of editors and their controversial POV dominate the TA. I will support bringing E-960's appeal without prejudice once everything else is settled. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. First you show up here to tag team with Levivich and brand new accounts that just scream WP:DUCK (like Erin Vaxx) and you do this to ... accuse others of tag teaming. At same time you say, quote, “I don’t think E-960 has is party to it” yet... you have absolutely no problem trying to punish them on the basis of (false) allegations YOU make against OTHER editors??? How the funky does that work??? You’re basically saying “I’m going to oppose this appeal because there are people here who supported it that I don’t like”. Seriously? That’s your justification? That is why another editor should be punished? Because you and Levivich hold a grudge against me and blame me for getting your wiki buddy Icewhiz banned??? (Guess what, he actually got himself banned by making violent threats against other editors) This is a low even for ANI on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And oh yeah, your comment here is pretty much a violation of your interaction ban with GizzyCatBella [76] (which makes this a repeated infraction since you were just blocked for violating it in July [77]). If you had shown up here and opposed E-960's appeal on merits and focused on E-960 then you would've been fine. But then you just couldn't help yourself and you just had to cast some ASPERSIONS about "group of editors and their controversial POV", which is a very obvious reference to GizzyCatBella. Stop stalking their edits. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Similar applies to Astral Leap who showed up here right after GCB and who they are also I-banned with, but at least AL stuck to the topic rather than going off script). Volunteer Marek 20:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mud slinging aside, tag-teaming is a serious issue, and one that's been been raised repeatedly over the last three years. If you and Piotrus are faultless, taking it to ArbCom is probably a better idea than blindly attacking anyone who makes it. François Robere (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mud slinging? Mud. Slinging? Seriously? You show up here, make a lot of false and completely irrelevant accusations against a bunch of users, you plainly state that you are going to Oppose this user's appeal for NO OTHER REASON than that you don't like some of the users who support it (and I didn't even support it!)and on top of that you violate your interaction ban and THEN you have the nerve to accuse OTHER editors of "mudslinging"??? Holy cups of tea. Like... how ... why... how ... can anyone do this and keep a straight face? Volunteer Marek 22:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not believe this user has properly addressed the reason for their topic ban, and I don't actually see a need to remove it.--Jorm (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If it's not lifted, then it should at least be clarified because right now no one knows what the hey it's suppose to cover. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Elemimele above (who I think is like the only "outside" editor here, and User:Elemimele you can certainly comment and !vote if you're not an admin) - if the ban is not lifted it needs to be reworded because currently it's just impossible to understand what it actually covers. My understanding is that it was suppose to cover explicitly "religious stuff" or disputes related to religion (including religion vs non-religion) but now people are pretending that any thing medieval is covered. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, I would ask that you re-consider and strike down your OPPOSE statement. I believe that it is very unfair to me that you are opposing my request based on an unrelated dispute with other editors. At this point, that whole tag-team dispute has taken over my request. The irony is that it appears that on both sides here there are editors who follow the same topics or issues. Users Piotrus and Volunteer Marek often get involved in the same topics, as do you FR follow the same topics as Levivich or Icewhiz before he got banned for doing some funny stuff. I'm not implying that there is some nefarious connection here. Seriously, we all primarily edits Wikipedia articles related to history and current events, so I would not expect some Polish editor or whoever — someone who primarily edits pages related to astronomy or botany — to jump into this discussion, because we would have never interacted before. Most of the user here will be folks we interacted with in the past. --E-960 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's unfair to dismiss your request because of the involvement of third parties, but that's exactly what was done four months ago with this complaint, and with many other complaints before it. Both "tag teaming" (which is suspected here) and "socking" (which was suspected there) are types of WP:GAMING, and the community should be able to sift them out and consider only the merits; but in practice it doesn't, and when either is suspected the entire case is usually thrown away. Again, I do not think it fair and I'd rather your appeal proceeded all the same, but under the circumstances it might be better to close it without prejudice so it can be re-filed and re-considered later, and this time only on its merits. François Robere (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FR, this is a DEEPLY problematic statement here from you. Just like the last one. First you say you will oppose the request by E-960 because of how OTHER editors !voted. Then when this is pointed out to you you invoke... some completely irrelevant discussion from like 5 months ago, where you didn't get what you want (neither Piotrus nor anyone else commenting here participated in that discussion - so much for "tag teaming") in which E-960 didn't participate. In fact it had nothing to do with them! What in the flying chelubinsk does this have to do with this request? Let's review:

1. You first choose to "oppose" this appeal request because of how other editors !vote. This is nothing but spite and the crazy thing is that you admit to it freely.

2. You then amend that to effectively opposing it with the rationale that... there was some other discussion five months ago which had nothing to do with this one where you didn't get what you want to so you want to screw over someone else now. This is even worse! And the crazy thing is you admit to it freely.

If there is a picture perfect, quintessential, archetypal, representative, characteristic, emblematic and demonstrative example of what "WP:BATTLEGROUND" means then I haven't seen it in my 11 years on Wikipedia. This right here? THIS is why this topic area is a total mess. Because of attitudes like this one. Someone who expresses opinions such as these and approaches editing in a topic area in such a way needs to be removed from it ASAP. This here is grounds for a topic ban FR. Volunteer Marek 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian administrative actions

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

---

Clarification needed: RandomCanadian is relisting AfDs and pontificating in the relists. The relisting comments appear to be a form of participation in the AfD. I have come to their talk page but they simply revert and reiterate their position in edit summaries. I am here because either the RandomCanadian or myself have a problem with WP:IDHT. It is my understanding that a Non-Admin should not become involved in taking administrative action regarding controversial decisions. The main issue I have is with the biased participation/statements while relisting. I will not refer you to all of the relists from Random Canadian just a few. The RandomCanadian is quite active with closing and relisting. Here are a few recent relists.

1. Diff.

2. Diff

3. Diff of a second relist

4. Diff

Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisting a discussion is not taking part in it; and there is nothing which prevents a non-admin or anybody from relisting discussions, in the same way that nothing prevents somebody from closing a discussion if it doesn't require admin tools to implement the result. Providing a comment as to how the discussion could be "more thorough" or achieve a "clearer consensus" (which is the explicit purpose of a relist) is also perfectly allowable. Lightburst is annoyed that I relisted a discussion which had no clear consensus and few policy based arguments (hence perfectly eligible for a relist); and has now decided to file a complaint here instead of trying to provide more thorough arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

TLDR: complaint baseless and OP should be trouted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment I did place a notice on the editor's talk page as required, but it was also reverted. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That's entirely allowable; by reverting your notice I've obviously noticed it; go read WP:TPG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your talk page is your domain. I did not want other editors to think I failed to notify. I also would like to hear what administrators have to say. We already know what you an I have to say. One of us does not get it, and if that is me I will move on. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If RC isn't an administrator, then he should be. Whether I agree or disagree with his actions. I do appreciate his 'get things done' approach. PS - Can we be mindful of WP:INDENT & also avoid 'bullet pointing' posts? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I have to fairly strongly disagree with your first sentence. A 'get things done' approach is harmful if the editor taking that approach is aggressively pressing views contrary to policy. I recently felt stalked and harassed by this editor when, following an unrelated content dispute, they nominated a draft I had created on a state supreme court justice for deletion, on ill-informed policy grounds (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William B. Gunter). They stated in their nomination that justices of state supreme courts are not inherently notable (clearly in contradiction of WP:NJUDGE, which is part of WP:NOTABILITY), and that they were unable to find coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I am not going to sugarcoat this. The second statement was a flat-out lie incorrect. It is rather inconceivable that a person can serve on the supreme court of a U.S. state in the twentieth century and receive no coverage of this service. It is specifically false in the case of the nominated subject, William B. Gunter, now an article, for which sources were trivially easy to find. Either RandomCanadian did a competent search, found sources, and lied about finding them, or, more likely, they lied about doing failed to do the search in any meaningful way in the first place. When it became clear that the MfD was going to fail, they withdrew it, with the snarky self-serving statement, "If only this hadn't required an MfD" – which it never did. The instances Lightburst points out indicate that this editor has a tremendous amount of work to do to attain the knowledge and maturity to back up the airs of authority that they are projecting. BD2412 T 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As I understood it. The nominator may withdraw his nomination. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The withdrawal of the nomination is not the issue. Filing it in the first place was stalkerish, and flawed on policy grounds and at best a very poor search for sourches (at worst an outright lie about searching or not finding them). In light of this, the manner of withdrawal, which sounds like a declaration of victory, was immature. BD2412 T 17:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

But there were 'only' two possible outcomes, if the MfD remained. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In that instance, the issue I objected to, in addition to the fact that I couldn't find any sources at the time, was the "keeping drafts from being deleted via once-every-six-months non-substantial AWB edits" (that is a valid reason). Obviously, that issue (or the fact that, no, notability is not inherent or automatic; as constantly upheld at AfD and as pointed out in the very first paragraph of the "Additional criteria" of the WP:NPEOPLE notability guidelines) has not been understood or resolved, but that's for another place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I.e quote: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you learned anything from this experience? What would you do differently in the future to avoid this sort of time-wasting exercise? BD2412 T 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisting a discussion by a non-admin is allowed and generally encouraged. Furthermore, non-admins can close deletion debates as described in WP:NACD (subject to certain rules) so non-admins are allowed to assess consensus in deletion debates. I see that in the provided diffs RandomCanadian relists in a appropriate and useful way. The comments presented IMO are useful suggestions based in policy and don't read to me as being biased. Furthermore, WP:RELIST describes how users relisting should leave a comment as to why they relisted if there is already large amount of participation. As such, I see these comments addressing this statement and therefore appropriate and useful. As such I don't think any action is needed here, but my participation here is just as a passing editor who is not well versed in AfD relisting. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To the extent that an editor relists a discussion and appears to be stating in the relist that they hope this leads it towards an outcome that they would prefer, that editor should not then be closing the discussion, or making statements implying their intent to close the discussion. There is a line that is too close to being crossed here. BD2412 T 17:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The complaint here is that I relisted a discussion and stated that arguments for one side or the other were not convincing (which they weren't), and provided clues as to how a more thorough discussion could be had. I have not closed any discussion, nor do I intend to do so, nor are my comments indicative that I would do so. Making this into a violation of WP:INVOLVED seems like making a hill out of a mole. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I used to spend a lot of time at AfD. I don't see any particular issues with any of these relists. They all seem like variation on, "I tried to close this, didn't see any consensus, but I'm hopeful that another week of discussion might prove fruitful". Most relists aren't this chatty, but that doesn't mean being chatty is a bad thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Roy - this one that got my attention and it is more than you describe above. Ignoring the pure votes and other similar arguments; the keep arguments are not convincing (since many commentators note that notability is not inherited), or fail to recognise that even if it applies (there is controversy over whether a group award counts for this purpose), ANYBIO is not an absolute. The arguments for deletion or merging are more convincing, but there is no consensus (yet) as to whether deletion or merging should be preferred, so I cannot impose one option above the other. Relisting in the hope of a positive outcome. Seems like a participation in the debate and picking a side. And admin may have closed as a no consensus or relisted without a pontification Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And which side am I picking? I'm merely giving a summary of the discussion, listing the most important points touched upon by participants, but find that there is no clear consensus once those arguments' basis in policy is factored (one of the purposes of relisting is fixing this - see also WP:RELIST: "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." - this is exactly what I have done) and that the proposed solutions have not been explored thoroughly enough. It could, yes, have been closed as no consensus, but given the AfD is only one week old; that closing as no consensus is basically putting off the issue until another time; and that debate was still ongoing, it seems entirely appropriate to not close it and relist, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem with the relists at issue. Leaving comments like these when relisting is helpful. The complaint is unfounded and reflects a lack of proper collegiality and a lack of understanding of the deletion process. Sandstein 17:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You and I have had a bit of friction lately. I am also considering that you closed one recently as a redirect and picked a non-guideline based rationale after a no-consensus debate. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

All the examples provided above seem to me to be accurate readings of consensus, and helpful comments to focus further discussion. I see no problem here whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is not standard practice for people to include thoughtful summaries of the discussion so far when relisting, but it seems like a nice idea -- I also see no problem with any of these relists. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Fascism

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

---

Please see the talk page for Fascism. Administrators Acroterion and Generalrelative are clearly using their administrator rights to delete others' comments and lock discussions. It's a talk page. People are allowed to express their opinions, aren't they? I have provided TWO verifiable and reliable links (Merriam-Webster dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica), neither of which mentions 'far-right' in their definitions of fascism. If we want to keep Wikipedia apolitical and objective, then we should not allow certain Administrators to simply make up their own facts nor to crush attempts at discussions. The problem of over-reaching (power-abusing) administrators in Wikipedia is a glaring one and unless those in the upper echelons stop these administrators from ruining Wikipedia's reputation for being unbiased, then Wikipedia as an encyclopedia will lose value all together. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

NoWikiNoLife, I'll offer a few points in response:

1) I'm not an admin, though Acroterion is.

2) WP:SOAPBOX clearly applies here since all you are doing is using the talk page to (repeatedly) express your dissatisfaction with a very robust existing consensus, without supplying any new sources. Everyone is already aware of what dictionaries and other encyclopedias say.

3) You are free to use your user talk page to express dissatisfaction with the way Wikipedia operates, so long as the goal is clearly to improve the encyclopedia. But using article talk pages in this way, especially after being explicitly warned not to [78], is disruptive.

I hope this makes sense, and that you can find ways to contribute more constructively from here on out. Generalrelative (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No issue seen. Talk Pages are about discussing content, not your personal opinion or the opinion of other editors nor your feelings about wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, collaboration and consensus. It also doesn't care what the dictionary definition of a topic is.

In short, find reliable sources and discuss without making it personal. Otherwise, yes your comments can and will be removed. Slywriter (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Our reputation relies on the use of reliable sources. Your persistence with these simplistic edits are the quintessence of what we call "I don't HEAR you!" behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to thank all three of you for your input. You are all just proving my point about where Wikipedia's at. Thank you also for confirming that you don't care about dictionary definitions. That's a statement worth keeping as a screengrab to attach to my reply message the next time I receive a 'please donate' message from Wikipedia. Luckily, you can't delete history of any page, so your inclination to censor people only goes so far. Enjoy the little cocooned, woke environment you have created for yourselves. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Rather than trying to ask the other parent when you don't get your way, at least try to understand what an encylcopaedia is. You're trying to peddle a dictionary definition which omits some words as though it expressively refutes something; a dictionary definition of grass that doesn't call it green doesn't change the reams of literature which do. Pestering different venues with the idea that somehow everyone else, and not yourself, are in the wrong is not going to change anything; as the saying goes, the mountain is not going to come to Muhammad. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, article history can be deleted, or hidden at least. —El Millo (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"I'm correct, everyone else is wrong" view, usually doesn't get an editor very far on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patronizing input. I am well aware of what an encyclopedia is. It's a book or a set of books (or a website and a subset of webpages) which lists FACTS about many different subjects in a NON-BIASED manner, and arranged for reference. I have only referred to one talk page, but over the last two years, I have run into the same problem (Administrators’ over-reach) at least 50 times. For instance, on the page that lists largest earthquakes in each country, there was one Administrator who kept reversing my edit because he was adamant that this earthquake could not be listed for that particular country because this was not yet an independent country at the time. We went back and forth for months over such a stupid detail and, finally, an Administrator stepped in who realized what the other Administrator was doing was silly and a clear attempt of a power-trip and recognized my edit which now stands. On the page ‘rags to riches’ I added Hilary Swank and provided at least five links to media reports about how she used to live in a trailer before she became a huge Hollywood star. The edit got deleted and the Administrator claimed I didn’t provide sufficient evidence, so even today she is not included on that page. And the list of such cases goes on and on and on. It’s all about a few people taking their Administrator privileges far too far. And clearly, this page is not much different. You have successfully eliminated all opposition and all different-thinking persons from your circles so you can run this website the way you see fit. Congratulations. I’m sure this took a lot of time and effort. Well done, you. After being a strong supporter of Wikipedia for the last 15 years, I think it's clear it's time for me (and most) to switch back to Encyclopædia Britannica because Wikipedia has clearly been hijacked by wokism and by cancel-culture which promote censorship and pretty much destruction of anyone who doesn't toe the line. Thank you all for helping me reach this conclusion. All the best. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered going the RFC-route, when proposing such additions to articles? GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Concerns about User:GoodDay

• Note: Original section title changed for neutrality[79]. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The User:GoodDay has been edit-warring and harassing me. First he reverted my edits on Hasan Akhund without giving any explanation at all, all removing parts of them instead of undoing them all in one go [80], [81]. He did the same to my edit on Abdul Ghani Baradar: [82], [83]; and Abdul Salam Hanafi: [84], [85].

This removal of my edits in parts seems conspicuous as it can prevent a user from being alerted at times that their edits have been removed. Regardless, him removing them without giving any reason as to why is a clear violation.

My edit consisting of adding "Acting" as part of the "|status =" section to their political offices in the infobox and changing the title of Hibatullah Akhundzada as the "Supreme Leader" because he is the Supreme Leader of Taliban [86]. I haven't seen any source saying he has the title of the "Head" of Afghanistan government.

When I asked why he was reverting me on the talk page of Hasan Akhund, GoodDay claimed it was because Akhund is the Acting Prime Minister and not Prime Minister. [87] Even though Acting (law) clearly says that acting means someone filling that position on temporary basis.

After I pointed out to him that the "| status = " section in the infobox was used to represent someone as acting and "Acting Prime Minister" simply means Prime Minister in an acting capacity [88], he started claiming "we no longer do it like that" and match it to the content of tye intro of the articles [89]. Nevermind that a few people doing things differently than others doesn't make it a rule

He later told me that I was edit-warring (despite having the same number of reverts as me) and promised to take revenge on me for reverting him by going against my edits in future which is a clear violation and harassment [90].

You can see more of his reverts here: [91], [92], [93].

I told GoodDay about his own reverts which too will count as edit warring, and warned him against his personal comments of taking revenge against me being against the rules [94]. However he instead started canvassing another user to take their side [95].

After I told GoodDay about his behaviour [96], he harassed me again by leaving a mocking message on Talk:Afghanistan stating they should ask me why Hibatullah Akhundzada is not called the "Supreme Leader of Afghanistan" [97]. Even though I had already told him before on Talk:Hasan Akhund that I never called him the "Supreme Leader of Afghanistan", only as "Supreme Leader of Taliban" [98].

Please warn him or take action against him. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't want anything more to do with the reporting editor, or the 3 bio articles we recently had an infobox content dispute over. As for Afghanistan's infobox? it's currently out of sync (now) with the 3 related bios. Maybe others can do 'better' with those articles. I no longer want anything to do with them. PS: Gets tiresome being pinged multiple times on the same talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You're talking to me even after I stated that I would be complaining you, continuing the same conversation of asking my permission about Supreme Leader of Afghanistan [99]. It's clear you actually still want to continue to argue and harass me. And btw nothing is out of sync. I again suggest you look at what Acting means. Here's the definition from Cambridge [100], Acting- "someone who does a job for a short time while the person who usually does that job is not there:". And as for Supreme Leader, you already know "Supreme Leader of Taliban" is Hibatullah's real title and I never called him "Supreme Leader of Afghanistan" [101]. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• LéKashmiriSocialiste, if you are making edits to a previously stable article and they are reverted, per WP:BRD you need to go to the talkpage of the article and open a thread to discuss your proposed edits and gain WP:CONSENSUS. Do not edit war. You made a WP:BOLD edit(s), they were reverted; now you need to discuss and gain consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. Don't report someone at a message board when you have unclean hands and are edit-warring against consensus. Someone should close this thread as a content dispute that needs talkpage discussion. LéKashmiriSocialiste, the status quo ante remains in effect if you are reverted, unless you have achieved talkpage consensus on the articletalk page. Do not edit war. You've already been blocked twice for edit-warring so you should know this by now. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Actually no I don't since GoodDay violated the rules and didn't provide any explanation at all which is required while reverting. For WP:BRD he should provide a reason for his reverts.

See WP:FIES which states "Always Provide an Edit Summary" and: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit...

Also WP:REVTALK: Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary.

And blaming me for being blocked in past isn't going to make that fact go away. Especially by ignoring GoodDay's harassing behaviour. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A lack of edit summaries does not negate WP:BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It does. See WP:3RR: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Because I want it this way" is not an "overriding policy". An overriding policy would be something like a severely libelous BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the specific exemptions on the page you linked. Edit summaries are not one of them, and are not even required. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I did and they are. You must provide edit summaries especially with controversial changes. See WP:UNRESPONSIVE. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Which of the specific exemptions for edit warring does that fall under? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Enforcing overriding policies. Also if one is not even going to be constructive and just do what they want without even explaining their edits, don't expect a person to waste their time on them. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warrring is: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Certain, meaning the specific exemptions provided, not whichever things you decide you want to edit war over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said all. Are you trying to tell me Wikipedia editors shouldn't follow Wikipedia's own policies on how to edit? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that "someone didn't use edit summaries" is one of the highly specific list of the certain reverts that exempt from edit warring policies? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I very much am. Because not explaining your edit either in an edit summary or even just a simple comment on a talk page shows that the user is disruptive and does not care about Wiki policies or an actual discussion, they just care about what they want. And you can see that by GoodDay repeatedly refusing to acknowledge my explanations to him about what an "Acting" PM means. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Which of these specific exemptions does it fall under? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warrring is. The exemptions are actually in multiple sections and not just the one you keep linking to. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons; see below for details. That links to the exemptions, which are the only exemptions. There is no exemption for Whatever LéKashmiriSocialiste thinks is bad. I checked the exemptions specifically for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid mocking me, that is against the rules and it's troublesome you do that while suggesting I be blocked but are assuming bad faith yourself and insulting. Again those aren't the only exemptions. You can read WP:3RR carefully. Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste, ScottishFinnishRadish has offered you clear advice. Time to stop now, I suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder which certain policies you can break 3rr to protect. If only there were a list of exemptions to the 3rr policy, so there would be no confusion about breaking 3rr over edit summaries. Oh wait, there is a clear, concise list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There already is. And it's not just in Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. But also Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.. What I quoted is from WP:3RR right? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to assume you're being intentionally obtuse about this. It says certain policies, then explains which policies they are. It is not up to each individual editor to decide which policies you can break 3rr enforcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Since you claim I'm being obtuse please tell me which policy page this line is from and what does it mean: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. It means there are certain specific but not explicitly named or stated overriding policies that are exempt from 3rr. They are then outlined in the "exemptions" section, as they are specific, per the definition of certain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me where is that specifically mentioned on the list and any proof that Wikipedia editors need not follow its own policies? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It's actually one of the 5 pillars, WP:IAR, but that doesn't change that there are certain, specific, exemptions to the edit warring policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 ScottishFinishRadish is just ignoring WP:3RR having multiple exemption lists. And he's badgering me. I don't take that. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that your edits are covered by any of those exemptions. I fear you may suffer a boomerang block if you persist here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Those links are just "Help" essays. They are neither policies or guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS is a Wikipedia policy, and if you don't abide by it your time here will be very short-lived, especially if you continue to edit-war and to proclaim that anyone who reverts you back to the status quo ante is wrong or is harassing you. It is your responsibility to gain consensus for your preferred WP:BOLD edit, and if you cannot, then the status quo ante prevails. Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Help" can be used to guide someone about how they should operate. And if you need more proof see WP:UNRESPONSIVE which is a policy: Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. Yes edit summaries are required. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Try to use != Are required to use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Try to use" is there because it is one of the ways to explain an edit. That's why Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Yes you are required to use, or leave a comment explaining it elsewhere. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: I didn't promise to go against the reporting editor's future edits. I promised to not support him, should he get himself into any future content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I meant by going against, not as in opposing my edits but not supporting out of personal vendetta as stated in your own statement. You even started it off with "I'll remember" and state: "So, that's you're approach to Wikipedia then. Edit-warring. I promise you, you'll not get my support in the coming days, when you find yourself again in a content disputes." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• LéKashmiriSocialiste, you're not going to be able to wikilawyer your way out of this, no matter how many links or acronyms you dredge up, because you are simply flat-out wrong about all of the things you believe are "required" on Wikipedia. The only applicable things that are required in the entire scenario involved here is WP:CONSENSUS and avoiding WP:EDITWARRING against consensus. You have failed on both counts, and if you keep WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion, you'll very likely receive a boomerang sanction of some sort, up to and including a possible indefinite block. If I were you I would quit while I was ahead (and ideally withdraw this entire report) rather than risk more admin eyes on your disruptive behavior. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No one's trying to get out of anything. Only you are trying to assist GoodDay get out for some reason. GoodDay is a disruptive editor who should be blocked. There's no reason to revert without explanation here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

And btw I already started a discussion on Talk:Hasan Akhund long ago before this. So your claims that I am not bothering about consensus or discussion are entirely false. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you are lying and making up your own rules. You edit-warred over your BOLD edits [102], [103], and then afterward opened an articletalk thread not to establish consensus but to falsely accuse GoodDay of wrongdoing: [104]. You then continued to attack the other editor [105] while continuing to edit-war against consensus: [106], and then instead of creating consensus you jumped here to post another false attack and false report on the editor who reverted you. All of your actions after your initial edits have been wrong and against policy. You've done the same thing edit-warring against consensus on Abdul Ghani Baradar: [107], [108] and Abdul Salam Hanafi: [109], [110]. Softlavender (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A related note: An RFC was held about 2 or 3 years ago, concerning where to place Acting in the infoboxe of office holders. The number of participants wasn't overly huge, but the consensus was to place Acting next to (not below) the office - Example: Acting President or Acting Prime Minister. Anyways, since it wasn't an overly attended RFC & some of the editors have since retired or drifted away from the topic. I'll hold another RFC on the topic some day & hopefully a much larger number of editors will give their input. At the moment, there's inconsistency across the project, concerning the location of the description GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste has a partial block right now for editwarring made by User:El C and had a one week block a bit over a year ago by User:Yamla. Despite warnings they continue to fail to leave edit summaries. I've warned them about AgF after their statement about User:Softlavender. I'm of the opinion that a block may be needed. Doug Weller talk 06:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The IDHT and (poor quality) wikilawyering behavior above makes my opinion match yours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, RE: RFC [...] held about 2 or 3 years ago — link? (Though that makes sense.) It also feels like that's something you ought to have pointed out much earlier on. That said, seeing LéKashmiriSocialiste edit war while my partial block of them for edit warring (exceeding WP:3RR, by a lot) is still in effect, that's highly concerning. Full disclosure: in an RfPP request two days ago (perm link) concerning the page from which I partially blocked them from (2021 California gubernatorial recall election), they felt that my (admittedly lame) humor amounted to "trolling," which I found to have been a bit harsh. But whatever. Also also, looks like I conflated 2020 with 2021 in my block notice. Will amend. El_C 13:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll continue to look for it. IF only I could remember the location. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If only you had Ochi's blade, you'd be able to Mary Sue your way out of that one (but in a super-convoluted way). Oh well, one can dream. El_C 14:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and El C: I actually do always leave edit summaries except when edits are uncontroversial as the rules do not require it there, or if I forgot. Also GoodDay has been edit warring himself. Regardless two reverts is not a big deal. And I actually would have avoided reverting had he given an explanation and wasn't disruptive. I already started a discussion shortly after anyway.

I'm always ready to accept my blame but for some reason the only person who ever gets blamed is me. This is becoming a pattern. I don't see what's the point of complaining then. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: so you forgot yesterday when you changed " considered by independent veterinary surgeons" to " considered by veterinary surgeons advising her" which completely changed the meaning of the sentence?[111] Doug Weller talk 15:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If every time you you complain the consensus is that you were in the wrong, perhaps you should examine your own behavior, rather than blaming that pattern on others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that a person cannot be wrong every time, you are badgering me. Please stop replying every time I respond and attacking me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste, it's criticism, not an attack. ScottishFinnishRadish is entitled to express that view about your behaviour, just like you're entitled to express your view about theirs. El_C 14:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If a person takes every turn to speak negatively about someone that is not criticism. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that's what you believe, but I don't think that's the case here. And, obviously, making that determination isn't up to you. Anyway... El_C 15:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I found the RFC-in-question, related to this report. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Four users is certainly not what Wikipedia practices can be based upon. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Read my post at 06:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC), concerning the RFC & a future RFC. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Icewhiz: noo! El_C 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no minimum mumber of users for an RfC? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no such statement that there are no minimum numbers. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Over 2 years since he was banned? My goodness, time flies. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martinevans123, question mark question mark? El_C 15:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps LéKashmiriSocialiste believes there is a statement somewhere about minimum numbers for an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, seeing as a couple of comments above, LéKashmiriSocialiste said that: There's no such statement that there are no minimum numbers, it looks like their assertion is that the absence of an RfC minimum participation number being expressed in policy means that such a minimum number exists. Or not not exists...? But proving a negative isn't logically sound, of course. El_C 16:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: DE block for edit-warring and endlessly wasting the community's time

LéKashmiriSocialiste has abundantly demonstrated that he is not here to learn or to follow policy, but is here merely to make up his own rules and abide only by them, to edit-war against consensus, and to troll people who try to reason with and educate him. Since that is a very clear form of disruptive editing, and since competence is required to edit Wikipedia, I propose that LéKashmiriSocialiste be blocked for disruptive editing and per CIR. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Edited to add: Support indef block. Softlavender (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support, IDHT, CIR, wikilawyering, DE, probably a few more acronyms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've already suggested a block might be appropriate, and I'm certain now given the discussion above and below. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I suggested you strike your proposal below, but you instead chose to continue and to describe another editor's contributions as "nonsense". So am adding my name here, regrettably. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, due to trolling below.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support The proposal below removes all doubt that LKS is nothing but a troll. No objection to making this a full CBAN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In view of the section below I've blocked LéKashmiriSocialiste for two weeks sitewide for personal attacks, attempted retaliation against those perceived as opponents, IDHT and battleground behavior. This has gone on long enough. There is no prejudice against further restrictions or a longer or indefinite term discussed here. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: LéKashmiriSocialiste was indeffed in May 2020 after this ANI report: [112], and was unblocked mainly on the requested condition of "no edit-warring and no personal attacks" (a condition/promise he has violated multiple times since then). He also lied that "I didn't bother to read my talk page at all until I was blocked" [113], when he had clearly already responded to a comment on his talkpage three days prior to his block [114]. In June 2020 he was blocked for edit-warring for which he had been warned several times by two different editors [115], [116], [117], [118], and in the unblock discussions he was strongly warned to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. His response was "Yamla should apologize and this block must be lifted without conditions. If not get off my talk page and decline the request." [119]. Afterwards he went onto Yamla's talkpage to harass him and call him a dictator: [120]. I'm not sure this editor is redeemable at this point, as despite all warnings and attempts at rehabilitating him, rather than improving he seems to be regressing, as shown by his behavior in this thread. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per what I have seen here, and especially below. Reinstate the indefinite block, and let's carry on building an encyclopedia.--Berig (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block. This battleground behaviour, which has been demonstrated before, is not compatible with a collaborative project. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite, as a bystander who happened onto this trainwreck, I've looked at his talk page and this conversation. He's been given more than enough chances and is defiant. No good will come of unblocking him, ever. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support has had more than enough ROPE and wasted our time with it. Star Mississippi 00:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per CIR on those purposefully and repetitively flawed arguments, and the trolling both below and above this proposal. —El Millo (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yes, given that this is already their second chance I don't think we owe them any more community attention. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block after seeing the retaliatory thread below. LéKashmiriSocialiste 's battleground attitude and non collaborative approach make them not compatible with this project. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Adding WP:CBAN after reading the monumental BS from LéKashmiriSocialiste in this thread. Noting they were indef'd before and are back doing the same things. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Indeffed. In view of the comments above, and the section below, and the user's history on Wikipedia, including a previous indefinite block which was lifted by a frantically good-faith-assumin admin,[121] I have extended Acroterion's block to indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: Hey, "frantically good-faith-assumin' admin" is my job.🙄 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Block Softlavender and ScottishFinnishRadish

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

---

Softlavender and ScottishFinishRadish have badgered me while ignoring GoodDay's edit warring and harassments, bullied me and repeatedly ignored the fact that WP:3RR says: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.. Regardless I have discussed and sought a consensus and resolution. They should both be blocked for harassment and false claims. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• LéKashmiriSocialiste this is now beyond a joke, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a joke. If those harassing me can try to get me blocked, they should get blocked instead. I've had enough. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you care to strike this proposal now? If not, I'll be adding my name above, regrettably. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Doubling down on your trolling like this is just going to get you indeffed and therefore site-banned. Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

First not trolling. Second I had enough of your nonsense. I'm just doing what I should have much earlier right after you started harassing me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, pure trolling.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Related bios

Being frustrated, I had decided to walk away from the 3 bios, which are related to this report on me. Seeing as the reporting editor has been given a 'two' week block. Would it be alright for me to restore the longer standing edits to those 3 bios? or would that only be taking advantage of the currently blocked editor. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe I've already done that (plus instituted talkpage discussions), but you can check and restore if I haven't, as long as you aren't violating 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait until 02:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC), to complete the restoration at the two acting deputy prime ministers' infoboxes. That will safely avoid a 3RR breach. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I already did that over an hour ago. Softlavender (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ya missed the Supreme Leader bit, which was originally Head, though ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've completed restoring the status-quo ante of the two acting deputy prime ministers. PS: I was bold & moved the 'Head of the IEA' above the acting prime minister's entry in the acting deputy prime ministers' infoboxes. I've done this, as the IEA head outranks the acting prime minister. This matches the IEA head being placed above the acting deputy prime ministers in the acting prime minister's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Good Lord! I've gone cross-eyed! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ELECTCOM2021 self-nominations are open!

Hello, just a reminder that editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2021 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2021 (UTC). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Exclaim! El_C 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, again? [Bishonen hastily dispatches Bishzilla on an errand to the ends of the earth, lest she nominate herself again.] Off you go, Bishzilla! Don't come back until you've picked the golden apples of the Hesperides for me. I could just fancy an apple. Send me your votes for the arbcom election on a postcard and I'll mail them in for you. For 2022 and 2023 as well, that's right. Go on! Good girl! Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

quick advice please

If someone comes to an article and makes several rapid changes to it and I revert them and ask them to take it to the talk page am I over my revert limit to revert say 4 seperate edits? Thanks Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm the editor who sent you a 3RR warning, but I'll explain myself (someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.) The WP:3RR is a red-line rule; you mostly can't make more than three separate reverts on a page within 24 hours (outside of a few exceptions spelled out on the 3RR policy page I linked above, which don't apply here, like clear WP:BLP issues and unambiguous vandalism.) This is true no matter how strongly you feel that you are correct. Two edits with nothing between them only count as one (so these edits of yours only count as one revert for you), but that doesn't help you because you got into two revert-wars in one day on the same page. This, this, this, and this, plus the one linked above, put you at five reverts on that page. And just as a personal note, while I can understand your first revert (even if it was already your third for the day), you really should not have reverted the "failed verification" tag I added afterwards - not only was it your fourth revert, the existence of a tag like that just indicates that there's a dispute; there's plenty of time to resolve that much on talk, and you did it (as far as I can tell) without any effort to show that the text in question had actually been verified. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion You are going too fast for me. The second edit was an attempt to put back in an unsupported piece of original research that had been removed ages ago after many attempts by mulitple editors to explain that it was original research to the editor who put it in. I referenced that revert to the section on the talk page. Does that count? more... Cheezypeaz (talk)

Aquillion to clarify that's the second edit you listed above not your second edit. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion Your first delete referenced above was seen by Professor Martin Johnes and he corrected the second part from desire to policy. I meant desire of the parents, he thought I meant government policy so he changed it. He did not change the first part. You deleted the whole statement? Sorry I am now lost in your edits. I will look more...Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment of my edits and the talk-page consensus, but to be clear, it doesn't matter; the reason why you violate the WP:3RR isn't important (for the most part; there are a few exceptions, but they don't apply here.) You're just not allowed to make more than three reverts on a page within a 24 hour period, fullstop. I kind of didn't want to report you at WP:3RRN because it's clear you didn't know about the relevant policy, but at this point I feel like I have to just to make sure this doesn't happen again, since it's the only way you're likely to get someone else to explain how seriously this policy is taken in a quick timeframe. EDIT: I made a proper WP:3RRN report here; someone else can explain the relevant policy to you there better than I. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion I'm so sorry, I apologise. I was simply trying to answer your question. I will revert all my reverts on you. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion Is the page now in the state you intended? You wanted to delete the Martin Johnes part? Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion So let's go through these one by one in the order of your edits. I your addition of a failed verification tag was added to a statement that I had added (though I believe his name and 'argues' was added by someone else (let's not go into that). I believe it correctly summarised his views and as I have stated above because of the recent image kerfuffle Professor Martin Johnes visited us, left a nice message and actually changed one word in that summary. So Martin Johnes didn't think it was incorrect (after he had edited it) and I don't think it was incorrect (though I am happy to discuss as offered in the notice just above where you added your comment), more... Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, here's some quick advice: No matter how right you are sure you are, not matter who asks you to "fix" an article, no matter what that person's expertise, no matter how fast an article is being edited, Don't Engage in an Edit War. You should be worried about how to address the article talk page to make your arguments, not worried about how many reverts you are up to. The three-revert rule is not an allowed number of reverts. If you're trying to figure out if you're in technical violation of that rule, then you're almost always in substantive violation of the broader rule. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn I am sorry. I didn't know. I thought it was a vandal. I will revert my reverts and provide a full explanation. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn I was under the incorrect impression that the revert rule was over the same edit. I now have a better understanding. Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC started on track listing sections

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from User:Nuraini1011958

User Nuraini1011958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not provide any edit summary for any edit published including [122], [123], [124] and [125]. The user is uncommunicative; I have tried to engage in the Talk page Talk:Sepak takraw#August 2021 but the editor did not reply to the discussion. Instead, the editor decided to write on my page “Blocked” [126]. Please help me resolve this issue MrCattttt (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible promotional use and distuptive behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked 16 times over. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Shaban Roman Petrovich is a Ukranian educational sciences graduate and entrepreneur. He is launching the Edupro platform in which he sells access to online education-related courses. Aside from his original Ukranian account Шабан Роман Петрович, since August 30th, he has created several account in other languages. One of his activities with the most blatant purpose of self-promotion, has been the uploading in several occasions of his own pictures (including the logo of Edupro expert, [127]) [128] [129] [130]. This pictures were used in his first attempts of self-promotion on enwiki [131] [132] and eswiki. Although on enwiki he was very polite with those that pointed out what he was doing was wrong, on eswiki he threatened with legal action for the deletion his user page [133], [134], [135], [136], [137]. After all this, he attempted to create a new user page, one that is on most of his sockpuppet accounts, on this, he proposes that Wikipedia users should use their full name, contact information, pictures and more personal info; to allow to creation of blank placeholder articles and the need for users to have some academic degree or license of sorts in order to edit so we wouldn't become, I quote: "self-confident amateurs" [138].

The selfpromotion is evident, with the images upload and his user pages. Also, there's this recent attempt of editing pages directly related to Wikipedia and the new edits on his user page in which he "denounces" stalking on my behalf and from others that have questioned him for his actions [139], [140] [141] [142]

The following is a list of the cross-wiki sockpuppets I've found so far:

• Шабан Роман Петрович
• Shaban Roman Petrovich
• Shaban Roman Petrovich. Educación innovadora.
• Shaban Roman Petrowitsch
• Shaban Roman Petrovich. Makabag-ong edukasyon
• Shaban Roman Petrovich. Innovativ utbildning
• Shaban Roman Petrovitch. Éducation innovante

I don't have as much experience here as I do on eswiki, so I don't know if posting this on this noticeboard is correct. However, the admins should know about the behavior of this user, his apparent goals and the actions that have been taken against him in other sister projects. Thank you for your time.--MexTDT (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• MexTDT, thank you. CU proved to be rewarding here. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Marton

I have to notify that the user Drmies deleted almost all the information, stating it is not veridic.

Sadly i have to remark that is veridical information, as it comes from the Italian Wikipedia article and it was verified information. So please, i demand to add all the information that the user Drmies deleted, as it's veridic information from the Italian Wikipedia article, and it's covered with a lot of links and information from diverse Italian and European media and verified authors.

Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makaan 89 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, that's fascinating. Note to admins, since we're on AN--I meant to request protection but misclicked in the template, and when I saw that I'd actually protected it, I overrode myself to make it a bit longer. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Makaan 89 it is not clear exactly what you are referring too. I suppose I could dig through your contributions and figure it out, but your position that you are "demanding" a certain outcome does not inspire me to effort. Perhaps you can make more clear what you want and approach this with a collaborative attitude, you may get a better result. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is Sandy Marton, and you can see what's been going on from its history. I was myself on the verge of at least semi-protecting it shortly before Drmies did, so I have no problem with Drmies' actions. More eyes on the article would probably be useful. There's a discussion on the article's talk page, which is where it currently belongs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Block request

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

---

Hello, this may be kind of an odd request, but please block my account indefinitely. I feel like I haven't left a lot of room for myself towards exploring other activities and blocking me will better help me get a chance at exploring different activities. However, I may come back to editing one day. 54nd60x (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@54nd60x: I'm more willing than most people to do these kinds of blocks - they're harmless - but I note the use of {{discouraged}} on several of your pages, and the fact you haven't really edited since August, and wonder if this is what you really want, or if this is just a symptom of malaise. It's been my experience that blocks you can just ask to be undone are not much better than using the wikibreak enforcer; have you considered that? I could also block you for a set period of time - 3 months? a year? - but with no talk page access, and no email, so that you would be forced to ask for an early unblock at UTRS (which presumeably might be more embarrasing, and so more likely to stick... but would also be more annoying for the admins patrolling UTRS, which I hesitate to do). However, I'm willing to block with any duration and any restrictions you want, if this is really what you're after. Think about it, and let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I want to use the wikibreak enforcer instead, but am worried that I may change my mind about the expiry date during my wikibreak and that I won't be able to edit during that time if I change my mind. Any suggestions? 54nd60x (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@54nd60x: Well, that's the thing about both the Wikibreak Enforcer and a self-requested block. If you're trying to force yourself not to edit, then not being able to undo it is a feature, not a bug. You've been able to resist WP editing for more than a month and a half until today; if you want flexibility, maybe just go back to whatever you were doing? Or set the WBE to a short time, and reset it for longer if you want to, once it expires? You can't really both force yourself not to edit, and have flexibility to keep editing if you want to. They're opposites. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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