Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 14 | 18 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 20 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 10 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 71 sockpuppet investigations
- 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 16 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 6 requests for RD1 redaction
- 80 elapsed requested moves
- 0 Pages at move review
- 17 requested closures
- 60 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 17 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes
|result=
guidance, and unsourced additions to those infoboxes. When reverted, the user responds brusquely (eg Do not delete my additions) and instantly uses undo.
This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done., I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice. Edits of this character include the following articles:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1210776403 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars&diff=1211069421&oldid=1210732707 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&diff=1211101487&oldid=1193607582 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains&diff=prev&oldid=1210545883 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Gravia_Inn&diff=prev&oldid=1211181760 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_the_Ottoman_flagship_off_Chios&diff=prev&oldid=1209533110 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1209585624 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1527)&diff=prev&oldid=1211053965 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1084)&diff=prev&oldid=1211054955 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mithridatic_Wars&diff=1213687999&oldid=1195385904 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_War&diff=1213687451&oldid=1209447021 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Lycus&diff=1213505424&oldid=1136474359 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Syracuse_%28213%E2%80%93212_BC%29&diff=1213348990&oldid=1212984291 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Amorium&diff=1213347461&oldid=1212450445 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Heraclea&diff=1213346517&oldid=1212907329 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=1213302248&oldid=1210923833 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate&diff=prev&oldid=1213177830 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_War_(535%E2%80%93554)&action=history (1, 2) r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caucasus_campaign&diff=prev&oldid=1213129109 r
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_%281735%E2%80%931739%29&diff=1213127193&oldid=1209365034 c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Crusade&diff=1213037088&oldid=1211314336 r
These edits systematically disrupt the quality of these articles. I ask for a topic block – probably history of antiquity, the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey – with mass rollback. Pings follow for persons previously involved: @AirshipJungleman29, Kansas Bear, Padgriffin, and NebY. Ifly6 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see much alternative to a topic block absent a change in behavior. Talk:Mithridatic Wars#Revert, March 2024 is not encouraging. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are they still going? AIV should suffice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- My reading of progressive activity, the reverts relating to Mithridatic Wars occurred today; I doubt, from timing, the believability of claims of discontinuation. Ifly6 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)]
- My reading of
- Should we consider banning them from edits to infoboxes, in an attempt to let them edit in other areas and prove they are here to build an encyclopedia? Or should we figure they're not here? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)]
- If people believe Emrah's claim's viz
I am a researcher and I really want to contribute to wikipedia and improve it
, the former would be more productive. Whether that claim is believable given an apparent inability to understand simple requests (Read what?) is not up for me to decide. Ifly6 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)- Would you say their inability to understand what you posted for them to read indicates lack of competence in the English language? AirshipJungleman29, did Emrahthehistorist17's inability to understand what Ifly6 wrote seem like a competency issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Perhaps ping? Ifly6 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29:
- After reading through everything, Emrahthehistorist17 should be banned from editing infoboxes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I think they are able to understand, they just don't want to follow WP:CONSENSUS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- No, I think they are able to understand, they just don't want to follow
- Perhaps ping? Ifly6 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Would you say their inability to understand what you posted for them to read indicates
- If people believe Emrah's claim's viz
- Should we consider banning them from edits to infoboxes, in an attempt to let them edit in other areas and prove they are here to build an encyclopedia? Or should we figure they're
This discussion has gotten pretty twisted. Fred Zepelin opened the RfC and one person responded before Springee changed one of the options (leaving a note about the change). It ran for a few days and garnered 17 or so !votes before FZ noticed the change and closed the discussion. Those of us who are involved are now quite torn on what to do next. We could leave it closed, and hope the edit war that preceded the RfC stays cold. We could re-open it and continue until consensus is clear. Maybe consensus is already clear, and an uninvolved editor could assess and summarize it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the Fred Zepelin doesn't want to re-open the RfC, and there's still an open question about the consensus for the wording of the first sentence, would the simple solution not be to just launch another RfC with the same options as amended? That said, from a quick read of the survey and the change made by Springee doesn't appear to be that substantive other than explicitly stating the pre-RfC state of the lead, there's a pretty clear consensus so yeah an uninvolved editor could theoretically just assess and summarise it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in the discussion, Its very clear that from the votes in the RfC that there is no consensus in favour of the change to describe Murray as "far right", and whether or not the RfC is invalid doesn't matter, because the consensus in the discussion is clear. There is no need to run the RfC again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there anyone other than Fred Zepelin who shares their concerns that the change in wording has made it biased enough that it was likely to lead to certain outcome? Because if not, then it seems perfectly fine to respect the outcome of the RfC. Personally, I don't feel the wording change has biased the RfC and it obviously didn't change what the outcome means.
The other respondent can be notified of the wording change and reassess their !votes if needed.RfCs belong to the community not to any particular editor so ultimately if the community is fine with the wording of an RfC, one editor's disagreement with it is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)- Also will editors please, please, please sort out wording disputes before opening RfCs? I'm not suggesting an RfC on an RfC, but at least some brief mention of 'I'm planning to start an RfC with this wording, anyone have any problems with it' should be considered if it's something which is highly contentious or where the wording might be a problem. I'll be blunt that this is even more important if you're very particular that someone should not tamper with your words, indeed it might be better to let someone else open it in that event of don't bother to include your name. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see the other respondent has already been notified so there's no issue with that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- One final comment, if editors feel the RfC should be reopened because it hasn't run long enough, I'm perfectly fine putting my name to it if people feel it needs a name, and no one else wants to. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, I think this discussion has died down. Would you mind reopening as an uninvolved? Thanks, Springee (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose opening it again. I !voted for B, 9 minutes after Springee changed the wording, but now I wonder: why did I do that when I am in fact against having it in the lead? My memory is imperfect but quite possibly it's because I had read the pre-change wording before I composed a reply. I've already said that technically it seems the OP had a right to close early. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan:, can you better explain your concerns? In particular, do you feel the new wording somehow unfairly leads readers to a certain option which Fred Zepelin seems to feel but no one else does? As noted by other respondents, the wording change makes zero change to the result of either option A or B. A will call him far-right in wikivoice, B will not. If you wanted to propose removing the long term mention of his links to the far right, you needed to have either started a second RfC or proposed an option C.
And to be clear, you always needed to do that, with or without the wording change since there was never any suggestion of removing them. The RfC started and remains solely about whether to explicitly call him far-right in wikivoice. The fact you didn't propose an option C early on means the chance of an option C getting consensus in the current RfC is quite low from my experience. But again that was always the case with or without the wording change. And I don't think it's fair that get to ask to restart the RfC because you're not happy you didn't notice that the RfC does not deal with something you feel needs to be dealt with and so sort of lost your chance to deal with it.
A second RfC proposing to remove any mention could have more success although I find this unlikely since no one else seemed to feel similar in the existing RfC. Still it does not seem to me that whether this RfC is reopened affects that other than possibly providing further evidence there's little support for such a change so calling into question the need for a second RfC. (I mean whether this RfC is reopened, people are still going to read whatever they read into the earlier comments as to whether there's merit for a second RfC suggesting to remove the long term mention of links to the far right in the lead.)
All that being the case if you feel the new wording is actually clearer or at least it's a neutral change in terms of what the RfC is about i.e. whether to call him far-right in wikivoice in the lead, I don't see why it's a problem.
It's unfortunate if somehow a respondent came to a different conclusion despite a neutral or better change, but since that cannot be blamed on the change then that's not a concern. Importantly, the next respondent was over 30 minutes after the wording change and [1] and while it's always possible they opened the page then took a while to respond, it seems unlikely but we could always notify everyone who replied within 2 hours of the wording change if you really feel that's a concern.
If you want to re-word your comment after it's reopened, well that's one advantage with reopening it. Importantly IMO, while not perfect, there seems to be some sort of consensus with the current RfC so whether we re-open it the result is likely to be the same, that we do not describe him as far-right in wikivoice. (But do mention his links which were never part of the RfC.) I mean there's a slight chance a new consensus will emerge, or at least consensus will become less clear when reopened, but I don't think that should be a reason against reopening as acknowledged by most supporters of the current consensus.
Actually this the sort of weird situation we're in since it's largely supporters of the outcome of the RfC who want to re-open it. Yet the only thing that can happen is their current consensus is lost. Fred Zepelin who proposed it would prefer a different outcome, but them closing isn't going to help that.
As mentioned by others, if they try to re-add far-right to the lead without somehow getting a new consensus, that could easily be seen as disruptive editing.
If anyone wants to reopen a new RfC, that might be slightly more acceptable with the RfC closed early but that there does not seem to be much appetite by many participants for that regardless of the close. And any new RfC would definitely need long discussion on the wording so we don't get any of this mess any more. Plus there's no reason to expect a different outcome with a new RfC. So this really feels all a bit pointless.
P.S. To be clear, I can sort of understand why Fred Zepelin isn't happy that their signed comment was change without them being sufficiently made aware. However the complexity here is while their comment was signed, the signature is mostly irrelevant. It shouldn't have affected anyone other than perhaps if someone was confused by some aspect of the proposal and relied on Fred Zepelin's other comments to help clarify, but that seems incredibly unlikely in the situation.
As I noted, RfC opening statements don't even require a name in their signatures anywa. They really should be thought not so much as signed statements but something the community is using as part of the consensus building process. And so if the new RfC wording is neutral or better, then it's IMO largely irrelevant it was changed even if Fred Zepelin feeling aggrieved about their signed words being changed is reasonably. But still, if they do not want their name to be under the current wording that's fine hence why I suggested I could just put my name to it although frankly we could also just remove any name.
Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I changed B because the original question implied the status quo lead didn't say anything about far right. As I recall the current lead ("links to far right" at the end) was a compromise between those who said the claims of far right were weak/poor and shouldn't be in the lead at all vs those who said it should be in the opening of the lead. B without that notion could be taken to mean remove far-right entirely. Thus an editor who supported the status quo lead might think this RfC was proposing to remove it entirely and thus might vote A because they feel it needs to be in the lead somewhere. I'm ok keeping the close in place if the close assess consensus (status quo vs change to the lead) rather than just says never mind. I think a consensus had emerged and it can be used to avoid arguments the next time someone tries to put far right in the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Autopatrolled RFP page backlog on March 2024
I am observing for few days on this RFP page that no admin has observing this page for a long time, creating a backlog of some 10 or more requests pending. Kindly see that this backlog issue is solved as early as possible. Thanking you, ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 03:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- The last admin intervention was made by Femke on March 10, 19:49 UTC. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- What's the rush? It's not as if you're fighting vandalism without rollback here. Hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. I don't have any interest in "Hat collecting", nor I had referred about gaining my rights immediately here. I can wait for that. Most of the requests are pending for likely more than 14 days. So I thought an admin would intervene at it's convenient time by notifying here and reduce the backlog and not clear it in one day. Assessing and reviewing takes time, you know it well. Just be chill and kudos! ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- PCR 4 March, Rollback 5 March, AfC 7 March and requesting autopatrolled 16 March exactly after 25 articles? Are you sure you are not hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you see that whatever I'm doing just to be getting those rights to make my status increase, then I don't need it. I didn't know that Hat colleting is wrong, when I'm trying to inform backlog that others have requested long time ago. This conversation has run it's course. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- PCR 4 March, Rollback 5 March, AfC 7 March and requesting autopatrolled 16 March exactly after 25 articles? Are you sure you are not hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. I don't have any interest in "Hat collecting", nor I had referred about gaining my rights immediately here. I can wait for that. Most of the requests are pending for likely more than 14 days. So I thought an admin would intervene at it's convenient time by notifying here and reduce the backlog and not clear it in one day. Assessing and reviewing takes time, you know it well. Just be chill and kudos! ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- What's the rush? It's not as if you're fighting vandalism without rollback here. Hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Idiot Savants (game show):
Could someone please move
- Idiot savant (singular) points to Savant syndrome and the plural should probably be pointed to that as well, rather than the game show. I would imagine more people would be using that term (singular or plural) as a search term when looking for Savant syndrome than looking for the game show. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Agree, sounds reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- The game show needs to study up on grammar – the plural of idiot savant is idiots savants. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- But it's a common mistake. Ask any of my former mother-in-laws... Common enough to justify the redirect. As I write, Idiots savant is a red link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The game show needs to study up on grammar – the plural of idiot savant is idiots savants. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, sounds reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:ADMINACCT demand from Rajeshthapaliya
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Rajeshthapaliya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Draft:Arianna Thapaliya
User has been blocked for promotional editing after recreating (now thrice) deleted biography of his daughter, Draft:Arianna Thapaliya. It has been WP:oversighted. And for creating promotional content on his talk page. Portions of which have been oversighted as well. Considerable extended discussion was attempted to explain the deletion and the block, to no avail. (Please peruse it at your leisure at User talk:Rajeshthapaliya.) I redacted part of this discussion as it looked promotional and in case it too needed oversight. I carried over the last two paragraphs below--
(omitted Primefac's reply}
- Not an admin, but had tried to help this user try and understand how Wikipedia functions and they continued to stick their fingers in their ears and tried to hold the fact that they donated to Wikimedia and that should give them the ability to add whatever they want to the Encyclopedia. I don't think any admin or user so far has done anything out of line and at this point TPA should be revoked from Rajeshthapaliya and we carry on using our time on more important things like making an encyclopedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure what action should be else taken here. The user is already indefblocked, I can not see oversighted edits but judging from the discussion this was a right action to take. They do not have any other edits. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the point was to "review the administrative actions", but I do agree, pulling TPA is pretty much the only thing I see happening as a result of this thread. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- They want to hold us accountable. And so here we are. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- 'Constitutional right'? To edit Wikipedia? What a bizarre notion. If Rajeshthapaliya wants to make being wrong on the internet a hobby, that's their choice. Since we are under no obligation to facilitate it here, we need to withdraw talk page access and be done with it. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the block, and this ill-informed rant does nothing but demonstrate how justified it was, even without the implied legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a case of what I call the "spam fallacy": Someone strongly desires to add promotional content to Wikipedia, but this desire only exists because of the restrictions that are now being complained about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- The more of these blocks I make (which is many thousands at this point), the more convinced I am that a lot of people genuinely don't realise that Linkedin-type behaviour is undesirable on Wikipedia. I would love it if we could make this clearer to people when creating an account or a userpage/draft/article but I suppose many people wouldn't read it and those that did wouldn't think it applied to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- And even more so when the editor in question is a proud father. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I have tried explaining that very point in my deletion notices. With varying degrees of success. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- And even more so when the editor in question is a proud father.
If Rajeshthapaliya wants to make being wrong on the internet a hobby, that's their choice.
- I thought that was my job! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- 🙃 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is so much wrong to be done, it's a good thing there are lots of wrong-doers to wrong-do it. So, in short, "you're wrong". :) DMacks (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ahhh, "to do the wrong thing for the right reason." or, "Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The more of these blocks I make (which is many thousands at this point), the more convinced I am that a lot of people genuinely don't realise that Linkedin-type behaviour is undesirable on Wikipedia. I would love it if we could make this clearer to people when creating an account or a userpage/draft/article but I suppose many people wouldn't read it and those that did wouldn't think it applied to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've revoked TPA, as it appears they will not change their behaviour if unblocked, and they are not listening to the advice they are being given. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also the worst parent ever since they apparently had some edits oversighted due to personal info about their daughter! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I was one of 3 admins who deleted that draft so I guess I'm one of the 5 administrators being questioned in this notice and why I received a talk page ANI notice. Admins can disagree so I think if an editor has 5 different admins pointing out that they, or their work, is not in line with the purpose of the project, that's a big red sign saying "You're doing it wrong". Talk page access has been removed so I guess, Deepfriedokra, that they made this appeal through UTRS? I might have have differed on the block or removing TPA but I can also understand why these actions were taken. My question for the editor is that they talk about the constitution and rights of citizens but Wikipedia is a global platform, not a national one. Which country? Which constitution? Wikipedia abides by U.S. laws because of where its headquarters and servers are located but treatment of editors doesn't follow national boundaries or at least, it shouldn't. There is a determination in these messages that I find worrisome but Wikipedia has faced real and veiled threats before and handled them successfully, as far as I know. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see these posts were made before TPA was removed. I need to read all messages in a thread before posting. They should receive a UTRS notice though to inform them of this or we are just feeding the fire. I'll look for that template which I never can seem to find. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, endorse WP:G11 deletions and block for promotional editing. I saw the promo edits on the talk page. And the draft was deleted x 3. User remains adamant in their purpose to use Wikipedia for promotion.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Oh, and what ToBeFree said above about the spam fallacy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- TPA has been removed, so is there any need to keep this open? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Yes. To decide if the community supports the block and the deletions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- The deletions were well within the bounds of G11, so it's safe to say the community endorses them. Promotional editing is grounds for a block (especially when you do it three times) so I can't see any possibility of this not being endorsed. This sort of thing happens dozens of times a day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Trouble is, the proud father seems a mite deaf. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- The deletions were well within the bounds of G11, so it's safe to say the community endorses them. Promotional editing is grounds for a block (especially when you do it three times) so I can't see any possibility of this not being endorsed. This sort of thing happens dozens of times a day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. To decide if the community supports the block and the deletions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) They appear to be wrong on every single point in their posting, and clearly don't understand (and don't seem interested in understanding) the nature of Wikipedia. The deletions, block, and talk page access are all warranted and within the normal operation of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose abusive admin actions and forwarding to WMF and Arb. People who donate cash to our glorious leaders at the Foundation are supposed to get free passes on creating articles. </sarcasm> Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, block, and revocation of talk page access. No point in wasting any additional time here. --Kinu t/c 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse both the deletion and the block. This person clearly does not understand that Wikipedia is not an unregulated free speech forum. It is a neutrally written encyclopedia funded by a private non-profit foundation, and we have every right to regulate, restrict and even block editors who have a glaring and obvious conflict of interest, and to impose mandatory core content policies. As for me, I strongly support the US First Amendment where it applies, but it simply does not apply to this website. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I am a little bit concerned by a few comments here that seem to treat the first response as something the blocked editor has written themselves or even read before posting. It's true that the references to constitutional rights, etc., are nonsense, but the blocked editor hasn't actually come up with those arguments themselves. They've just copy-pasted Primefac and Deepfriedokra's messages into an LLM, had it generate a response, then copy-pasted the output on to their talk page. Making a comment refuting these garbles takes much more time and effort than it took for the blocked editor to generate the bogus argument in the first place, there's no point. – Teratix ₵ 04:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- He's already told us how wonderful LLM's are and how wrong we are for rejecting the output. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I told him such was not acceptable and that we wanted to hear from a person. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- He's already told us how wonderful LLM's are and how wrong we are for rejecting the output. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Endose - CIR, promotion issues for which we see the result. If I was in the admin's place, I would do the same thing. Wikipedia is not liable for allowing such editors who without reading our community guidelines, speak nonsense.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- And I literally mean it. Using AI, is a clear indication of editor's lack of communication in English as per CIR guidelines. And kindly protect the page creation just in case of any sock issues or recreation attempt. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Duck blind -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)]
- See the rise of AI/LLM powered users creating promotional articles here . Most/all of them seem to be from India (in my encounters at least). Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- You know, it's really time that WMF Legal issued guidance or provided assistance for dealing with threats to use the Indian courts against WP and individual editors, AI-generated or not. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Guidance I'm not sure about, but I do know that Legal is/has/will help out with the Indian Courts if necessary. I'll see about adding that to the agenda for the next time ]
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- And I literally mean it. Using AI, is a clear indication of editor's lack of communication in English as per CIR guidelines. And kindly protect the page creation just in case of any sock issues or recreation attempt. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)