Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Systemic Reviewer Incompetence Threatens Wikipedia Reputation

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. Closing as invalid. Per Requests for comment/Policy the initiator does not have at least 250 global edits nor an account that's at least 2 moths old. Furthermore, such content related disputes should be resolved locally – on the English Wikipedia in this case – especially as the community has well implemented various dispute resolution venues. Initiator blocked for disruptive editing. --A09|(pogovor) 21:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Letter to Wikipedia Leadership and the Wikimedia Foundation

Subject: Systemic Reviewer Incompetence as a Threat to Wikipedia's Reputation: Request for Official Evaluation of Reviewer Actions

Dear representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation, administrators of the English Wikipedia, and coordinators of the Articles for Creation project,

I hereby declare the presence of a systemic issue in the actions of certain reviewers evaluating the draft article “Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev.”

The draft contains information about an original proof of the Riemann Hypothesis—one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems. The work:

is officially published with a DOI on the international scientific platform Zenodo;

is secured via SHA-256 hash to confirm authenticity;

has received independent expert evaluations from global AI systems, including open verification by ChatGPT from OpenAI.

❗ Current Situation: Despite the transparency, verifiability, and uniqueness of the material, reviewers:

allow themselves derogatory language (“laughable content,” “hallucinate”);

ignore the substantive content of the work, providing no scientific counterarguments;

deny the significance of expert evaluations issued by AI systems from OpenAI;

thereby implicitly question the reputation and competence of OpenAI itself;

and consequently undermine trust in Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia.

📎 Direct Question to Wikipedia Leadership: Does the leadership of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation support the actions of reviewers who:

mock internationally recognized scientific experts and AI platforms with multi-billion-dollar capitalizations;

refuse scientific analysis in favor of emotional or sarcastic remarks;

use Wikipedia as a barrier rather than a bridge for disseminating verifiable knowledge?

If such actions are not officially condemned, it implies that the leadership shares or tacitly supports editorial arbitrariness, incompatible with the project's core principles.

I demand an official evaluation of the actions of the reviewers, specifically:

user @Theroadislong for systematically ignoring content and making derogatory comments;

user @CoconutOctopus for the unacceptable use of the term “hallucinate” regarding a confirmed expert evaluation.

All actions, statements, and inactions in this matter will be publicly documented and used as indicators of Wikipedia's institutional accountability to the global scientific community.

Respectfully, Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev --Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the RFC tag at the top. Please also notify the users involved @Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев: on their English Wikipedia per Requests for comment/Policy. This has a low chance of succeeding since it's a content dispute. —Matrix (user page (@ commons) - talk?) 16:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix,
This is not a simple "content dispute" — this is a documented and systemic case of:
inappropriate reviewer behavior,
dismissive and sarcastic responses to scientifically verifiable information,
and refusal to engage with publicly available, cryptographically verified material.
The RFC is not about editorial disagreement, but about the competence and accountability of the AfC review process when confronted with extraordinary scientific claims backed by transparent evidence.
Labeling this as a mere content conflict is misleading and ignores the gravity of what has occurred.
If Wikipedia reviewers mock or reject such documentation without review, this is a systemic issue — not a personal quarrel.
Respectfully,
Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev
--Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the community and users for you at enwiki. —Matrix (user page (@ commons) - talk?) 20:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this broke containment, meta folks. I've indeffed for disruption on en-wiki and suggest a meta admin close this RfC. As far as the systemic issue goes, it's true: English Wikipedia is only interested in things that have significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I'm happy to take personal responsibility for this systemic failure. -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the 'expert' in question that I said has "hallucinated" is ChatGPT. I have responded at en-wiki and will not be responding further as I believe this to he a waste of community time. CoconutOctopus (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this AI-generated "RfC". User was correctly blocked for disruptive editing on enwiki, and is trying to forum-shop now. JavaHurricane 20:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have tbh but Requests_for_comment/Policy#Closure of RFCs is pretty clear. —Matrix (user page (@ commons) - talk?) 21:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no failure of process here and no "Systemic Reviewer Incompetence" that threatens the reputation of the project; rather on the contrary, the English project has rules regarding original research and notability to ensure its reputation and they were applied adequately and correctly in this instance. This has been forum-shopped to the help desk, ANI and now here, and I think there is AI chatbot or LLM behind the writing but the end result is clear, there is no issue with the process, the project does not want this user's autobiography. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft of whch they speak is w:en:Draft:Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev and is well outside the standards for acceptance on enwiki, and has been rejected after some reviews. en:w:WP:BOOMERANG is likely to apply Timtrent (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Systemic_Reviewer_Incompetence_Threatens_Wikipedia_Reputation&oldid=28820201"