Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:06, 1 March 2023

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization: Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Open Letter to the Board of Trustees concerning the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I would like to inform you about my Open Letter to the Board of Trustees concerning the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages.

Why we have a Universal Code of Conduct?

In German Misplaced Pages the Universal Code of Conduct is not respected. In German Misplaced Pages the WIKIMEDIA Terms of use are not respected.

Inside the German Misplaced Pages there is no control of the

• Abuse of power: Abuse of office by functionaries as administrators or the members of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages
• Misuse of administrative tools as Involved admins

This is not respected:

• Mutual respect: Engage in constructive edits
• Civility: Recognize and credit the work done by contributors

Administrators and the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages are tolerating Unacceptable behaviour as

• Harassment and Hounding
• Engaging in False Statements: Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation

The Misplaced Pages:Five pillars nor the Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines are respected as

• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources
• Misplaced Pages:No original research
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

Administrators and users who want ot eliminate authors - who are contributing for years with articles to German Misplaced Pages and photographs to commons - by defamating and houndig their work are harmful to the project.

Therefore I request these Office Actions by the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION:

• Interaction ban against users who are hounding and defamating constructive/productive authors
• Removal of advanced rights of administrators who decided irregular and unjustified blocks
• Removal of advanced rights of all members of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages because they are not willing or not able to fulfill their duty in an adequate way.

And I also demand the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION to cancel and overrule the irregular and unjustified decisions of these administrators and members of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages. Sincerely--GFreihalter (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The above is an expected outcome of a WMF code of conduct. The code will be used to waste the time of volunteer admins who engage with troublemakers. See the block log. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean. Serially blocked users wasting the time of volunteer admins has always been a thing, and always will be. The UCoC should help minimize it by reducing the among of pointless lawyering about the rules themselves. Of course people will always lawyer about whether they are the victims of an unjust campaign - no matter the organizational structure of the rules. But perhaps you can explain the specific problem that you have in mind?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean that the meta:Universal Code of Conduct may be used as a weapon of retaliation by anyone whose contributions have been removed. I'm not opposed to there being a UCoC but, speaking with regard to enwiki, anyone engaging in harassment or vandalism will quickly be removed with no need for the WMF. Abuse of power would be more slowly handled but the only such cases that I've seen have eventually been correctly processed by Arbcom. The difficulty is that the supply of unhelpful contributors is never ending and the hope that there is an infinite supply of good editors to replace those who might be driven away by retaliatory UCoC complaints is not correct. Many unhelpful people will feel insulted when their work is criticized or will feel threatened by mentions of noticeboard reports or blocks. It is very easy to claim that someone checking contributions and reverting problems is harassing a particular contributor. An insightful comment regarding what is actually needed from the WMF was made by zzuuzz in this 2021 consultation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The question is really how active the WMF will be about taking action based on the UCoC itself. I'm reminded of something I said way back during the Fram debacle about how the reason the WMF stepped in that is because they believed they'd uncontroversially assigned themselves various rights and therefore didn't expect backlash when they were used. Similarly, the UCoC is vague on enforcement - if it's going to result in the WMF frequently stepping in and overruling community-appointed administrators based on their interpretation of it, that's going to cause serious problems. We've always had users who waste time with frivolous appeals or calls to remove someone they're in a dispute with; the risk of the UCoC is that now it's possible the WMF might sometimes respond to such appeals in a top-down way that goes against the normal community consensus or the usual way an administrator would handle it, leading to another collision when the WMF basically says "welp, you agreed to this when you agreed to the UCoC." --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

WMF could help a lot by improving some small details of the software. For example:

• Enable Admins to see the deleted edits of an IP-Range. So far you can only see live Edits of a Range or live and deleted Edits of a single IP
• Enable global block for accounts: So far you can only lock accounts globally and g-block IPs.

Both are easy to implement but nobody does it. And these are just two out of many examples.

Back to UCOC: It doesn't contain enforcement stuff, because that is in a separate document. We'll see about how it will work. Whenever you introduce any new rules or policies, where will always be some persons who test it, who find loopwholes, strange interpretations of the wording..... You gain experience with new rules and then adapt the details.

Also, as I am one of those "Administrators and users who want ot eliminate authors" according to GFreihalter, here's my summory of the conflict: I doubt this is related to the UCOC. GFrei. would have written this open letter anyways, with or without UCOC. The conflict is basically just about two questions in her (church) articles: The exact wording in the introduction and how many pictures to use. GFrei can not accept that she is in a minority / that she doesn't own the articles. Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

1) To User:Der-Wir-Ing (A/CU): "Administrators and users who want ot eliminate authors"

I would have answered to you in Germnan Wikipeda, if I had not been blocked there (talk pages, discussion pages, my own user talk page etc.) You wonder here why I plead for your deadministration.

• You know the block and you did not overrule it, why? There were no personal attacks ("KPA"), no violation of "WQ" (Misplaced Pages:Etiquette) and no violations of any restrictions of the arbitration committee - or can you show them? Otherwise it is not really elegant to be asked this defamating question "Warum bitte lügst Du..." (Why are you lying) at 00:37, 22. Jan. 2023 by ThüringerChatte (SG-A) and not having any chance to answer because I was blocked by Nordprinz (A) at 22:31, 21. Jan. 2023. This is not fair!
• As your colleagues you neither had the courage to overrule this block (decided upon a non-existant Editwar ) in spite of the evident Misuse of administrative tools as Involved admins see here .
• You are not bothered by irregular and unjustified decisons of other admministrators in German Misplaced Pages and that is why I am convinced that you should not be an administrator.

2) Do you call this majority concerning the Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt Christentum/Entscheidung zur Patroziniumsformulierung (two users had been excluded from the discussion by decision of the Arbitration Committee):

• only 4 (four) members (Mitarbeitende) of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt Christentum which counts 21 (twentyone) Mitarbeitende approuved the decision - 17 (seventeen) Mitarbeitende of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt Christentum did not vote
• the opposite statements of users here as Enzian44, Brodkey65, Quinbus Flestrin, Turpit, Hardenacke and others have been ignored as:
  • : „...In der Tat sollte die Diskussion damit beendet sein: die Formulierung ist korrekt, zu Änderungen an den bestehenden Artikeln besteht keine Berechtigung, sie sind als Versuch der Etablierung eines wikipedianischen Sondersprachgebrauchs abzulehnen und daher zu unterlassen.“ (User:Quinbus Flestrin 11:53, 4. Nov. 2020)
  • : „Was WP:KORR angeht - dagegen verstößt übrinx regelmäßug Lutheraner, indem er seine Gustoformulierungen in GFreihalters Artikel zu drücken sucht, obwohl es eindeutig Geschmackssache ist...“ (User:Elop 09:31, 6. Aug. 2021)
  • : „Ist das nicht das Problem, daß ihr eine Rückwirkung des aktuellen Ritus auf die Beschreibung von Vorgängen postuliert, die zum Teil viele Jahrhunderte früher stattgefunden haben?“ (User:Enzian44 01:41, 11. Nov. 2021)
  • : „Das Ergebnis, zu dem das Projekt Christentum gekommen ist, ist in meinen Augen ein Skandal....“ (User:Hardenacke 12:41, 6. Jan. 2022)

3) Is this minority? (user comments to "how many pictures to use"):

• • Ich habe im Gegensatz zu anscheinend vielen anderen eher wenig Probleme mit vielen Bildern in einem Kirchenartikel: „... Ich bezweifle, dass der hier vielfach gezeigte Dogmatismus hier nicht den Bedürfnissen der Zielgruppe entspricht. In vielen Kirchenartikeln ist das nicht möglich, weil die Kirche kaum zu besichtigen ist oder die Innengestaltung noch kompletten Urheberrechtsschutz genießt. Seien wir doch froh, wo eine aussagekräftige Bebilderung möglich ist. Viele Grüße Altſprachenfreund (A)“ (User:Altsprachenfreund 21:40, 2. Okt. 2020)
  • „Vandalismus“: „...Was da in der sog. QS geschehen ist, nenne ich Vandalismus! ...“ (User:Matthiasb 22:15, 1. Mär. 2021)
  • „Cyber-Mobbing“: „Ich frage mich, ob das nicht schon an Cyber-Mobbing grenzt, wenn eine Person in die Artikel einer andere Person so extensiv QS-Bausteine setzt. Das hat dann nichts mehr mit reiner Qualitätsverbesserung zu tun, sondern da soll jemand bewußt geärgert werden...“ (User:Sinuhe20 10:56, 3. Mär. 2021)
  • „massive Projektstörung“: „...Daß von der Qualitätssicherung aber seit langem massive Projektstörung ausgeht, dem stimme ich zu. Wer ualitativ einwandfreie Artikel in die QS einträgt, weil sie dem Gusto des QS-Bausteinsetzers widersprechen, mißbraucht die Qualitätssicherung...“ (User:Matthiasb 00:34, 4. Mär. 2021)
  • „Störung und Eskalation“: „Und ja, nach meiner Wahrnehmung des Konflikts ist es Benutzerin:Nadi2018, die hier das höchste Eskaltionstempo vorlegt. Es täte der Kollegin auch gut, mal einen Bogen um GFreihalters Diskussionsseite zu machen und nicht halb-hämisch mit dem SG zu drohen. Für mich ist das Störung und Eskalation...“ (User:Matthiasb 11:58, 10. Mär. 2021)
  • : „Da sind viele Bilder drin, aber sauber in Galerien verpackt. Wer nicht den Wunsch haben sollte, der Autorin hinterherzustiefeln, sollte gut damit leben können. (...) man sollte a) tatsächliches Interesse am dargestellten Objekt haben und sollte b) die Hauptautorin als Kollegin respektieren...“ (User:Elop 21:04, 5. Aug. 2021)
  • : „...Leider erwecken die Beispiele den Anschein, dass es mindestens nebenbei darum gegangen sein könnte, GFreihalter mit ihrer Art der Kirchenartikelgestaltung zu düpieren...“ (User:Barnos 19:05, 6. Aug. 2021)
  • „totale Eskalation“: „Nadi, Du sprichst allen Ernstes von "Verhinderung weiterer Eskalationen"? Hast Du seit dem 18, Juli auch nur irgendwas gemacht, was nicht eine totale Eskalation zum Ziel gehabt hätte? Wobei ich es zumindest Jakob, ehrlich gesagt, nicht zugetraut hätte, (gezielt?) etwas Wahrheitswidriges zu behaupten, um dann den Hinweis ebendarauf zu melden...“ (User:Elop 13:00, 9. Aug. 2021)
  • deleted/: „Die Sperre ist aufzuheben. Es lang ein Adminfehler vor. Eine solche Sperre hätte breiter diskutiert werden müssen. Man schliesst nicht um 6.55 eine Sperre von Spätabend am Vortag, ohne Beteiligten und Interesenten die Chance zu geben sich an der Entscheidung zu beteiligen. Wir sind eine Community!“ (User:Valanagut 17:29, 9. Aug. 2021)
  • : „Die unterdessen anscheinend bedauerlicherweise notorischen beiderseitigen Animositäten samt entsprechenden Äußerungsformen sollten nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass GFreihalter für ihre jüngste Fassung von St. Vitus (Kottingwörth) mehrseitig partiellen Zuspruch erfahren hat, den Der wahre Jacob womöglich nicht wahrhaben wollte...“ (User:Barnos 09:53, 10. Aug. 2021)

4) Who does own her articles or what is the purpose of an Encyclopedia?

The purpose of an Encyclopedia should be to provide articles based on reliables sources for a big number of readers and not a manifest of personal convictions and sensibilities (Befindlichkeiten) as : „Nur weil jemand etwas kann, was ich nicht kann, soll er es noch lange nicht dürfen.“ (free translation: Only by the fact that someone is able to do something that I am not able to do he should not be allowed to do this User:Magiers (A)). Authors of articles who use reliables sources/literature and who prove and have already proved their interest and their know-how in special domaines by the creation of hundreds of articles should have more influence in these articles (created by themselves) than users who never showed any interest in these domaines and never contributed with any substantial work in these domaines. These are the limits of a community project: the cleaner does not interfere in the work of the surgeon and the janitor is not teaching mathematics - but they all build a team.

The purpose of an Encyclopedia is not to create edits in meta or in Misplaced Pages competitions as Misplaced Pages:Cleanup.

These edits , , , , , etc. etc. do not "improve the quality of the project or work". Best regards--GFreihalter (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer to Jimbo Wales and Johnuniq

Dear Jimbo Wales,

at first, thank you for reading and answering - unfortunately, administrators in German Misplaced Pages don't do (in order to be not bothered anymore, they prefer to block and ban and make mute).

(to Johnuniq): This block log shows that some administrators (Benutzer:He3nry and Benutzerin:Itti) are very often involved, the same (Benutzer:He3nry and Benutzerin:Itti) are also very often involved in VM/Wikipedia requests for investigation against me. Perhaps you should examinate the reasons of these blocks, for example:

1) Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as here : Is it a personal attack, if a user defamates you and you prove with links and citations of other users that he is wrong?

2) Misplaced Pages:Edit warring as here (16. Okt. 2021): Is it editwar to add in an article two citations of literature/weblinks which are referenced in this article - these citations made evident the Content vandalism: unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources.

Otherwise this block is Misuse of administrative tools as Involved admins (the administrator Benutzer:He3nry was involved (mainly concerned) in this Request.

3) Is this conflict escalation per Kurier: Das Schiedsgericht und die Grundrechte and Edit warring: The Kurier/Signpost is a place for freedom of speech of the users and not concerned by Edit warring.

4) and 5) This Sechste Sperre durch Benutzer:He3nry ("sixth block by Benutzer:He3nry") is not a unzweifelhafte Falschaussage ("undoubtable false statement") nor a erneute wiederholte Falschaussage ("renewed false statement"). These are six (6) blocks by Benutzer:He3nry

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 – and later 7 und others...

and not a „Falschaussage“ ("false statement") by me.

6) This is in not erneutes Auflisten aller sinnlosen und sachlich falschen Behauptungen mit erneuter Ad-personam-Nennung aller "Kontrahenten" ("renewed list of senseless and false statements/six blocks by Benutzer:He3nry and renewed Ad-personam") - see above (to 4 and 5).

7) Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as here and here (censured version): Is it a personal attack by me to refer to „Cyber-Mobbing“ here , a citation of another user : „Ich frage mich, ob das nicht schon an Cyber-Mobbing grenzt, wenn eine Person in die Artikel einer andere Person so extensiv QS-Bausteine setzt...“ (Benutzer:Sin 10:56, 3. Mär. 2021), a statement of this user in reference to the editing/hounding by Benutzerin:Nadi2018 concerning articles created by me.

8) : Missbrauch des URV-Bausteins (alleged "misuse" of Template:Copyvio) here (Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism of my text and violation of Misplaced Pages:Korrektoren)

see also URV/copyright violation 24. September 2022)

The procedure was not correct (Misuse of administrative tools Admin only).

9) This is completely imaginative - there were no personal attacks ("KPA"), no violation of "WQ" (Misplaced Pages:Etiquette) and no violations of any restrictions of the arbitration committee; see my appeal (23 January 2023) to Benutzer:Luke (SG-A)081515 (he did not answer).

and so on...

Hounding is not "correctly processed by Arbcom" in German Misplaced Pages as you can find here: A few examples of hounding and here . The list is much longer and this is an appointment for hounding.

Irregular and unjustified decisions should not be used to justify further irregular and unjustified decisions. The verification of the facts (editwar? personal attacks? false statements or defamation) would have been very easy if any adminstrator or member of the arbitration committee would have made any effort to do it. Unfortunately, there is an obstination to confirm by goodwill or tacit consent all decisions of their colleagues.

The decisions of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages are based on false allegations; see also my My Objection to the decision of the arbitration committee. The proceeding of the Arbitration Committee in this Request is not impartial and is not corresponding to the Misplaced Pages rules and the Terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation. Kind regards GFreihalter (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer to "users wasting the time of volunteer admins" and "users who waste time with frivolous appeals"

To Aquillion

Why do administrators waste so much time and spent their nights to block authors as me; ex.: monday morning at 06:55 or saturday evening at 22:37? Would German Misplaced Pages be in danger if they would allow a discussion about the reasons of their blocks. Would the quality of the project be in danger with articles which are illustrated with a certain number of photographs of Renaissance stained-glass windows as here or gothic frescos as here ? Would the quality of the project be in danger with articles where is used a term/an expression that is also used in reliable sources as LThK - even if this is not the "exact wording" (Der-Wir-Ing) following the personal conviction of four (4) members (majority?) of the 21 members of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt Christentum?

"frivolous appeals" or frivolous blocks of "volunteer admins"

I have been contributing since 2009 as an author - also volunteer - to German Misplaced Pages with over 700 articles (and somme others overviewed) and I am not one of them "lawyering" users. I spent/perhaps waisted a lot of time to create articles, to visit the places, to look for reliable sources and to take and to upload photographs. I am not an edit counter, I am an author and it is the content that interests me. I worked in peace untill 2020 when the harassing/hounding against me begann (see this appointment for hounding in October 2020) and continued (even in French Misplaced Pages in february 2021 and by IP in April 2022) and was persued until 2023 like here .

• My appeal to this block is not "frivolous". There isn't any reason or justification for this block. It is not fair to post false statements and defamation as "Why are you lying" against me and to let me no chance to answer.

• My appeal to this block was not "frivolous".
  • This was not editwarring, to add in an article two citations of literature/weblinks which are referenced in this article. The citations made obvious the Content vandalism: unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources.
  • This block was an evident Misuse of administrative tools as Involved admins (the administrator Benutzer:He3nry was involved (mainly concerned) in this Request.

• My appeal to this Decision of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages (renewed until 29 october 2024) is not "frivolous". The decision is based on unproved allegations as "argumentum ad hominem", unfounded accusations, false statements and defamation.

The fact that the evident misuse of administration tools is tolerated by the Arbitration Committee, that these blocks have never been overruled by any administrator of German Wikipeda, that even the Arbitration Committee od German Misplaced Pages uses unfounded accusations, false statements and defamation and bases its decisions on irregular and unjustified decisions of administrators is a proof that in German Misplaced Pages "well-established local community processes" do not exist as RStephenson (WMF) does suppose here .--GFreihalter (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

To Open Letter to the Board of Trustees concerning the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages (2)

Should this also be valid in German Misplaced Pages: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles: "Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity"?

See this discussion and my block decided 21:51, 23. Feb. 2023 by Der-Wir-Ing (A/CU) valid until 21. Okt. 2023 (six months) for my contributions on Meta-Wiki .

Should this also be valid in German Misplaced Pages Human and legal administration: While consensus is the key method for making decisions, a consensus amongst a small group of editors cannot override community wide policies such as "Neutral point of view"?

See this decision taken by 4 (four) members (Mitarbeitende) of a Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt - disregarding Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

These are the reasons why I request these Office Actions by the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION:

• Interaction ban against users who are hounding and defamating constructive/productive authors
• Removal of advanced rights of administrators who decided irregular and unjustified blocks
• Removal of advanced rights of all members of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages because they are not willing or not able to fulfill their duty in an adequate way.--GFreihalter (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  You're taking this way too seriously. Perhaps you should take a wikibreak. LilianaUwU 11:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Quote from someone of dewiki: "sie schadet sich nämlich jetzt langsam selbst mehr als uns, weil ihr Verhalten auf Unbeteiligte wahrscheinlich eher peinlich wirkt" ("she's starting to hurt herself more than us now because her behavior is likely to be embarrassing to bystanders"), and quite right too. All I can see is a privileged editor who has been given a lot of behavioural leeway because of substantial content work, who was rightly called out, and proceeded to have a huge tantrum. As above, embarrassing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denialism at Romanian Misplaced Pages

Holocaust denialists are whitewashing ro:Radu Theodoru. Time for the ban hammer? What happened at Croatian Misplaced Pages for ten years should not be repeated.

I support indeffing for everyone who denies that the Final Report of the Wiesel Commission is WP:RS. I'm not saying that it is absolutely true and accurate, bereft of any possible mistake, I'm just saying that it is WP:RS. Denying that it is WP:RS is antisemitic hate speech.

The admins of ro.wiki are not opposed to me, but their possibility of blocking that editor according to the policies and guidelines of ro.wiki is rather limited. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can't read Romanian but the Google translate of the page at this moment looks pretty ok. To speak to the general question, yes, I would say that in most cases, editing to support Holocaust denialism is sufficient for an immediate ban.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press