Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

A plethora of drafts

I am bothered by Immanuelle's approach to draft space. First of all, they have created a truly amazing number of drafts--3,946 and counting. But their talk page shows that tons and tons of those drafts are lingering, and many were signaled as such, to which the editor responded, in a number of cases, by staving of deletion by adding nonsense categories, such as here. After I called them on that, they made edits like this followed by this, which is just as pro forma. Just now, I noticed they are still adding one-sentence drafts, but now at truly astonishing speeds: a half a dozen of em per minute, making me wonder about automated editing. I really don't know what to do about this; their answers are evasive but they claim to be working on them--I wonder how that's humanly possible, when they're still creating them at lightning speed. Pinging Firefly, whose bot has been working overtime. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any issues with this. I'm making drafts of things I believe are notable so I can work on them over time and eventually either afc submit them or let them expire if they either consistently fail AFC or I decide they are not notable. I have been letting quite a bit of them delete, and you will see a large amount of deletions after a week or two. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not wish to do so as I feel it will make us lose potential articles, but if it causes the bot issues then I will stop bumping the ones I see as having a lower probability of success or am unsure about.

My previous approach has been one of bumping articles if I was unsure about them since as I saw it, such reminders would give me a later opportunity where I might deem it worthwhile Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You're skipping over an important one: how do you create six such drafts per minute? Drmies (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's... a lot of drafts. But also I'm seeing that most of them are 1-sentence articles on specific characters in the list of Jōyō kanji (see list here), which makes me wonder... WP:NOTDICT? See here, here, here, and here for some examples. We're always glad for people creating articles on notable things, but then I'm a bit worried about the quality of the drafts, and it might cause congestion with bots and users, like @Drmies said. My problem isn't really about the time frame of the creation, because how long should it take to copy-and-paste what was here, and put it into here, change the name, and press publish? Under a minute, apparently. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle, can you briefly explain what's notable about a single Kanji character? TarnishedPath^talk 01:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath single kanji often have notable etymological things to them. It is such that French and Ukrainian wikipedia have many articles on kanji like this. I believe I went way overboard and intend on letting the majority of them g13 delete though. Most of this is covered on articles about radicals, and I hadn't realized this when I first started making the drafts, but I don't believe all of the notable characters are.This character, the character for man Draft:男 is an example of one that I think may be notable as it relates to gender a lot, although the draft isn't well developed. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"Interesting to me" is what you seem to mean by "notable" above, but notable has a very particular definition on Wikipedia and a lot of these drafts do not seem to qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle, a lot of the time it seems like what you're doing is finding articles that exist on other wikis but not here, and trying to create those articles on en-wiki even though you don't have the sources to show notability. It looks like you will be handed some kind of draft-making restrictions so this may not be relevant for some time, but I would really recommend avoiding "translation" of any kind, even under the very loose sense of "creating an article that exists on other-language wikipedias", until you're no longer getting AfC declines for sourcing issues. -- asilvering (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering that is correct. So your thought is more that I should make articles based on things I learn about from reading books and such instead? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle you shouldn't be starting new articles until you have a better idea about what makes a topic notable, whether you're doing so from reading books or not. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While this is certainly odd, likely a massive waste of Imamanuelle's time, and probably at least technically a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, the process of deleting these old drafts is, by my understanding, fully automated. Is this actually placing a strain on the bots resources? I would be surprised. If not, this seems… probably harmless. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Compassionate727 Alright, I guess it won't hurt the bots. But still, we would have to decide if some of the drafts were to be deleted, if there would be a ban from draft-making, etc... ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

A "ban from draft-making" might as well be an indef, since the user is already under editing restrictions due to concerns over machine translation, ability to assess sources and claims, and related issues. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo I was not able to defend myself well in that past issue. I am making a lot of drafts because I figure since I can only make articles with AFC, it's best to have a draft on everything I conceivably might want to make an article on and whenever I learn something new on the topic add to the article so I can eventually put it through AFC and hopefully get an article on it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I know this might be a bad time to bring it up but I would very much like a second chance. If I was not so source starved from editing restrictions then I would fel no need to work on so many drafts, since I'd be able to fairly easily and reliably find the necessary sources instead of keeping up an article in the hopes I may someday get the requisite english language sources necessary for getting past AFC.This would be an example of such a draft that I could easily get past AFC if not for the restrictions Draft:Tainan Shrine. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: To be blunt, this encyclopedia doesn't need more editors citing sources they can't actually read in order to add content they can't actually verify. Something other people do in this situation is contribute in areas where they can speak the language and verify sources. Which, for an English speaker on the English Wikipedia, is most areas. Dekimasu and other editors spent a lot of time trying to craft restrictions that would allow you to contribute constructively. Creating thousands of draft articles in areas where problems were already identified seems like a step backward. But others may have different opinions, and I look forward to seeing those. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I am of the belief that I am able to interpret sources a lot better now than I used to be, especially since making drafts like this has made me more cautious.

I do not think a full reversal is necessary, but I'd like to be free with draft sources, perhaps a probationary period or something. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

A few hours ago you started Draft:Dannozuka Kofun as "Dan's Kofun", repeating that translation in the first sentence. How did you come up with that original translation? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I did originally find it on Japanese wikipedia and used a placeholder translation. I see no issue with that as it was just a draft title and not like using a Japanese language source. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"it's best to have a draft on everything I conceivably might want to make an article on" is completely wrongheaded. What you should be doing instead with these one-liner ideas is creating a list in your userspace of topics and your initial sentence-idea about them, not creating page after page after page that entails a lot of cleanup work for others. The sensible approach is "It's best to have a draft on something I am going to committedly work on, starting now, until it is ready for mainspace", and probably also "I could also create a draft on something to which I can contribute, now and in a concerted fashion, a lot of sourced content, but might need help from others to get it mainspace-worthy." No one has any sensible rational for creating 4,000 drafts. Aside from wasting a lot bot and some human time, it's greatly diluting the ability of anyone who wants to help improve a draft to get up to mainspace quality to find one that is worth working on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Compassionate727 in the event that this actually does cause strain on not resources then I will let most of the future ones I get expire. But @Firefly seemed to indicate what I was doing was acceptable earlier so my impression is it did not cause any resource issues for the bot Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle I'm not so concerned about User:FireflyBot running overtime as I am concerned about the quality of the drafts. We can't just have mass amounts of one-sentence drafts that will likely never end up in mainspace created without some sort of repercussion. I don't know if there's anything more serious than wasted time that will happen as a result of this, though. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well aside from the Joyo Kanji I believe most of my drafts are almost certainly notable topics, and I have been letting drafts expire and deleting ones I deemed not notable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You've said that a few times already, but how do you create six such drafts per minute? Drmies (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure, copy-and-paste. But who knows? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah copying and pasting Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Okay, never mind. You could be right. How is there stuff like this there? (edit conflict) You can't copy-and-paste that quickly. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just worried about stuff like this. Then afterwards, the same thing is created— no citations, nothing but that single sentence and a template. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Compassionate727 & @Relativity: Drafts are not automatically deleted after 6 months. This task is carried out by admins manually in most cases. The automated portion of the process would be Firefly's bot notifying users a month in advance that their draft creation will be deleted if left unedited for 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Also as an aside @Drmies Those two ones you described as Pro forma were at the request of @Anomalocaris in order to fix lint errors. I stopped adding nonsense categories as a method of bumping, although there were a few times I accidentally introduced a misspelled category and may not have fixed it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, I’m not an admin but as a fellow editor I’m going to request you stop making more drafts and work on ones you’ve created already. Whether bots can handle this or not, our goal is decent articles, not 4000 tiny draft articles. Don’t become the metaphorical cat lady of drafts. Go take some of your drafts, flesh them out and get them properly referenced. That’s what we need.

Otherwise, if you’re only using them as a sort of collective work list, then just consolidate these 4000 drafts to lists of article ideas in your user space.

Thanks, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@A. B. I believe that there's also the problem of possible automated editing now, not just the sheer amount of drafts @Immanuelle has created. Although, I personally agree with you. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have not been engaged in automated editing. I have been strictly using copy and paste. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle But how are you supposed to create 15 drafts using copy-and-paste in one minute?? Even though the drafts are pretty much the same thing over and over (with a different subject), you would have to be really, really, really fast to be able to do that. It takes a while to create a draft, even if it's just copy-and-paste. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Relativity By opening a bunch of tabs already and doing it all relatively quickly. That's completely within human dexterity levels. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I can see that happening. I'll WP:AGF. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To re-iterate what I mentioned above, deleting the G13 drafts is an admin task, not one carried out by bots. The bot notifies users that their drafts are a month away from being G13 eligible. Expiring drafts are typically deleted by Liz, Explicit, and myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all the kanji in Jōyō kanji link to wikt. So creating them locally is not a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan Yeah I do not think in retrospect it was a good idea. I believe some need articles such as Draft:男, but it was a mistake overall. I do very much like the kanji project on French and Ukrainian wikipedias, but it is a lot more limited on each, and the amount of kanji I'd consider noteworthy but not already covered by our radical articles to be limited. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the point of Draft:Immanuelle talk staggering, Draft:Immanuelle/Japan trip, Draft:Immanuelle/tt, ...? Fram (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, would you voluntarily agree to a six month editing restriction on creating new drafts? In that time, you can focus on transforming the best and most promising of your drafts into actual policy compliant encyclopedia articles about notable topics. That's why we are all here after all, to write encyclopedia articles, not brief sketchy unreferenced drafts. I admit that I have lots of unfinished sandbox pages in my userspace, but they are well referenced and, if I die tomorrow or next week, other editors could easily write policy compliant articles based on my sandbox pages. I have nowhere near 3,946 such sandbox/drafts in my userspace, which is a staggering number that is indicative of a serious problem. Far less than that. What motivates you to create such an astonishing number of uncompleted drafts? Are you willing to rethink your approach and work on improving your drafts for mainspace, instead of creating more drafts at a rapid clip? Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 yes I'd be happy to go with that restriction. It's roughly what I was planning on doing anyways. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Six months will be a good time period for me to focus on improving my drafts instead of making new ones. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 10:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Since this I made one more article, which I judged as the last article in the list that I wanted to make Draft:Okamisanzai Kofun, and have deleted many other ones. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle I didn't take any position really on whether what you were doing was acceptable or not, as I'd not looked deeply into the issue. Nearly 4000 drafts, created at a rate of around 6 per minute is definitely not a good idea. I would support Cullen's idea of a six-month editing restriction, preventing you from creating any new drafts. firefly ( t · c ) 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(not an admin) - I think, based on the mention of the mention of the editing restriction up-thread, that Immannuelle has a major problem with figuring out what should and should not be an article on wikipedia, and I don't think that's going to have changed in six months. I also see a dangerous desire to take shortcuts in this process for the sake of speed. I don't believe that the drafts-only editing restriction has made you any more cautious. Caution is impossible when you're making a dozen articles per minute. You simply can't read that fast. Immanuelle, I think we should limit you to a certain number of drafts you can be working on at a time, say, 15. You should discuss these with an experienced editor, so you can make sure each one has enough material about it to be fit for Wikipedia before you start working on it. After that, you're only allowed to pick/make a new draft when one of those fifteen has become good enough to pass AFC. That way,you're forced to work more slowly and you have to actually complete the tasks you've set yourself before taking on new ones. That means you can't take the kind of shortcuts that bring you to ANI anymore.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this assessment is basically correct, and I would support such a restriction. I also note that, at least with Japan-related topics, Immanuelle does not seem to take any more care with (lower-case) contentious topics involving right-wing Japanese nationalism (e.g. articles about shrines commemorating Japanese war dead) than they do with, say, articles about beginner-level kanji. Same haste, same copy-paste text approach, same rush to make all the entries on a list or template turn blue, same difficulty reading and using sources. So I would also support a broader topic ban that limits potential disruption, however inadvertent, in Japan-related topics. Not sure how to navigate all the current draftspace squid ink to tailor that more narrowly, however, so the strict numerical limit seems particularly sensible. The benefit to Immanuelle is that any good work would also become easier to see, which would help support future petitions to remove restrictions. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo I have since actively deleted a large number of drafts yesterday as @Fastily can attest to, as they seemed to be the admin that deleted all of them Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I probably could get rid of a lot more, but I don't feel a rush to actively delete them vs passively deleting them Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Since we're discussing recent contributions: Your most recent AFC submission was actually someone else's in-progress draft of an article on textile arts in Japan, which contained text like Records from one dye workshop in [], the [], show that [prior to its closing/within X time frame], cheaper dyes such as madder and [] were being used in the adulteration of red safflower dye, bringing down its total cost and For men, colour was used to show rank. [Forbidden colour etc etc] in the version you submitted for review. Maybe you can see how that level of attention to detail would make someone particularly nervous about, say, your recent copy-paste of verification-needed text from Neo-Nazism in Russia (with Russian-language sources) to expand your draft on a Russian skinhead group. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo someone was demanding that I make it so my drafts become things that any other user could conceivably expand if they found it. I thought it was you but I am unsure who it actually was in this thread. It was one of the early people, and I have been going through my drafts to achieve that, and deleting bad ones accordingly Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks What I make drafts on should not be seen as representative of caution. My increase in caution should be taken in what I choose to submit, which I see as way above what I put in article space before restrictions were in place. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 14:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You have so many drafts that you have to use your talk page as a running log of bump edits. You separate your talk page with edits like this because there's too many warnings for you to keep track of otherwise. You've made more drafts than you can ever hope to maintain, let alone improve. That is not a situation you end up in by being careful. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This says nothing about me being careful about making sure drafts are coherent and as best sourced as I can make them before submitting. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that the only thing you believe you should be careful with? --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think me making a dumb decision of making too many drafts is something that should be held against me as far as an issue of misrepresenting sources or similar would be. However one person made the point that drafts should be of a form that if another editor finds them they will be able to easily understand the topic and be able to contribute to it. I have failed at that for a lot of my drafts and have been trying to rectify it recently, which the bulk of my recent editing has been. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm very concerned by this statement: it's best to have a draft on everything I conceivably might want to make an article on. No, that's not best. That's not best at all. If you get bored of editing here, or just lose interest in some of them, there are volunteers - actual real people who donate their time for free to this project - who will have to go around clearing up after you. You are entirely free to maintain drafts of everything you might conceivably want to make an article on on your own computer. Then, when you muster the enthusiasm to actually write the articles, you can move them over here and work them up into articles. I can imagine someone having a dozen-or-so drafts on the go at any one time, but hundreds would be silly, and thousands is just ridiculous. Stop, now - work on the ones you've got, create no more until you've finished those. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Makimuku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a violation of their topic-ban from March? Daniel (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel I've accidentally made pages in mainspace and moved them to drafts before. And do not currently have an editing restriction on creating drafts. I'm not actually sure whether redirects count as pages but for safety I've made redirects through AFC. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

When I posted this, it had been created in namespace and hadn't been moved to drafts. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I think that is a good idea and something I want to pursue. Currently all the issue for me is me being afraid that many of my drafts may be deleted without my input. I have been working a lot on improving my drafts and deleting a lot of the ones I considered bad ones Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You say that you're deleting a lot of the ones you consider to be bad, but you can't delete drafts - someone else has to do that for you. Every draft you create that does not result in an article creates work for other volunteers. That's not a problem if it's just a few drafts that end up not going anywhere, but if you are creating thousands of them then you are making a lot of work for other people to do. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I came across this thread while lurking ANI (sigh). At this point, I personally would have indeffed Immanuelle if I were an admin for WP:CIR. Edits like [1] [2] are not helping this situation at all. Plus, a look into this user's contributions show a lack of competence and ability to assess sources - most of their drafts' sourcing isn't very good and are often sourced to tourist sites and blogs, not reliable sources. The community has enacted editing restrictions in the past, but they have not helped Immanuelle improve their editing at all. #prodraxis ^connect 15:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Notification. For the past week or so Immanuelle and I have been chatting off-site about articles and such, and she agreed that I would let the discussion know that she'll be taking a bit of a break from the site, for at least a week. Remsense聊 14:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it not be better, to take it one page at a time? Make a draft, get it past by AFC & then work on it? Quality over quantity. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In a perfect world, yes. But some people have erratic thinking patterns and like to jump around on what they're working on (myself included). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's also pretty unreasonable to expect someone to stick to making a single draft at a time when the AfC queue was four months long until the backlog drive this month. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering yeah it is unreasonable. That was one of the initial points of objection against the earlier 20 draft cap proposed by @Indignant Flamingo. I've gotten a lot of drafts accepted recently and I hope the backlog will not get as bad in the future, although I think it will kind of go on a yearly cycle.

It might be the case that even 20 at a time is unreasonable, but at the very least based on this restriction system, we will have a lot of time for me to reduce my draft count and see if it is reasonable or needs to be revised. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Massive OR and CIR issues. As noted above by Asilvering, far too many of these "don't have the sources to show notability", and those that do are often very poor sources. This indicates we're dealing with a massive OR situation. All editors (in this case especially Immanuelle) need to remember verifiability and keep in mind that we do not start adding content, much less creating articles, based on what's in our own heads, whether it's our own "beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." (And "add it" obviously includes article creation.)

The editor adding such material has the burden to prove it is verifiable in RS, and that's nearly always done by including inline citations with the content. That is not happening here, so we can assume that 99% of the time we see her articles without any citations, it is OR originating in her own head and can be summarily deleted. In this case, because of the huge burden imposed by the volume, tagging isn't good enough. The article should be exiled to where all OR belongs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Do you have examples of issues with their articles that have made it to main space? I don't see an issue with works in progress that have not established notability existing in draft space, that's exactly where it belongs. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible to create six drafts per minute without violating verifiability. All ideas for content "must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it", and "add it" obviously includes article creation. The sources must be in the draft. See my next comment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: I'm not sure you understand the purpose of draft space. Drafts are works in progress, they do not need reliable sources or to be verifiable just to exist as an unfinished article in draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but shouldn't the very idea of a proposed draft come from RS? I would think anyone would want to establish notifiability before expending any energy toward the creation of an article, but maybe that's just me. Whatever the case, how can anyone create six drafts per minute? Something's fishy there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Drafts can exist as a sentence or two to revisit later on and that's perfectly acceptable. Ideally, yes, you would include references in a draft, but sometimes people just want to make a note to revisit later on. I'm aware of several people who start their drafts off that way and add sources and expand later on when they have more energy. I say whatever way people want to contribute, let them, so long as they've trying to do so in a positive way (no evidence this user is not trying to positively contribute). As for the six drafts per minute, they mentioned making drafts in batches, which I don't see as fishy. I myself often have dozens of redirect creations in tabs that I'm just waiting to hit save on. I do it that way for a matter of personal ease and because I find it more efficient at times. Though I will say, it is unusual to create drafts in batches, but it doesn't set off red flags for me personally since Immannuelle has deleted or moved several hundred to main space since this discussion started. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Josh. Sorry about the delay in replying. It seems to me that this is what userspace can be used for. There is no requirement that articles or other content has to go through the official "draft" process. User drafts in userspace are a common thing, and maybe we should recommend that Immanuelle do that instead of overloading the draft process. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I just discovered this page which might be of interest to this discussion Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I will note that I used to make articles in batches. Imo that was one of the major issues of my earlier contributions in that I’d get a lot of not so good articles made which caused the encyclopedia issues.

I imagine once I’m down below the free draft creation limit (20 most likely) I’ll still do that. Making a group of 5 or so drafts going from 15-20. That’s just how I perceive Wikipedia. I think of interrelated things.

Now I think RS in drafts are needed to avoid issues with blatant hoaxes or BLP violations. Very few of my drafts are about living people (I think I have 10-20 which is a tiny portion of my drafts, mostly on historians)

blatant hoax needs to be blatant hoax not just incorrect information. none of my drafts meet that criteria but I did once look through drafts about to be deleted and speedy delete nominate one about a battle in 2020 Japan which I think came from an anime or something but was presented as historical. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• ec (Not a reply.) To the best of my knowledge, we don't have an absolute minimum number of RS for establishing notability enough for article creation. Maybe we should. If I see a a stub with no less than three independent RS, I'm inclined to say "You're at the wrong place. Wikipedia requires sourcing. Create your own blog." If there are less, it might qualify for Wiktionary. (Keep in mind there are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't mean we don't create them.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  A minimum number of sources is unnecessary for quite a few subject matters and I think this suggestion isn't really relevant to the ongoing discussion. If this is a suggestion you're interested in making you would be better off at WP:RFC. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, is there a reason you can't save drafts on your computer? You could have as many as you want there, and no one here would care. If you thought a draft was ready to be submitted, you could try out the formatting in your sandbox, and decide whether or not to proceed. Then if something else suddenly seemed more interesting ("Ooo, look, shiny!"), move on to the next thing ("Squirrel!") as often as you liked. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Editing restriction

In addition to any existing editing restrictions, Immanuelle is further restricted to editing no more than 20 article drafts, whether in user space or draft space. If a draft is accepted at AFC and moved to article space by a reviewer, Immanuelle may edit an existing draft in its place. This restriction does not apply to requests to delete drafts, for example under CSD G7.

Support as proposer. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait, do we delete all of the other drafts that Immanuelle doesn't want to edit other than the selected 20 if this proposal is put in place? Or are all of the drafts kept? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 23:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Indignant Flamingo:. I'd forgotten to earlier. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 23:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any special solution is required beyond our current deletion criteria. Any drafts that remain unedited by a human after 6 months or thereabouts will be handled under G13, and the restriction explicitly allows Immanuelle to request deletion of existing drafts (e.g. U1 or G7). The purpose of the restriction is to get Immanuelle focused on editing more constructively and producing quality articles in mainspace, rather than whatever it is they're doing with hundreds/thousands of drafts right now. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: So, Immanuelle would create a list of drafts they want to work on, and they can't edit the rest of the drafts they currently have? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 00:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A formal list is not required by the proposed restriction, though that would be helpful for them, probably. Practically speaking they could just start editing drafts, and after editing 20 different drafts they can't edit any others until one of those successfully passes AFC. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo, I support, then. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 00:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Striking my above comment because if Immanuelle agrees to a voluntary (what I call) draft-making restriction, I'm alright with that. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo @Relativity I think the issue you two are missing is just how destructive an overnight implementation of such such a restriction would be, and how likely I would be to run into problems that break the system. An overnight 200-fold decrease is effectively demanding the deletion of 1980 drafts without being able to look at them. The scenario I envision myself ending up in, in a best case scenario is one where I end up editing 20 drafts, ten pass, five are ones that insufficient reliable English language sources exist to get it through AFC, but are notable, and five are ones that aren't really notable (which right now I would delete and delink in the article as I did in Isonokami Shrine), and then even at a good rate of success with article submissions I end up stuck with all 20 articles being taken up, while more promising drafts get g13 deleted. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle, do you think that you shouldn't be allowed to create any more drafts, but not have any deleted, then? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Relativity yes, I believe either a moratorium on draft creation, or a cap on the amount of drafts I can have with existing drafts grandfathered in would work to achieve the same goals without being destructive. It will take longer but my draft count will go down to a reasonable level where these desired results can occur. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Your existing drafts would not be deleted unless they were not edited by any human after six months, or unless you requested deletion. This restriction would simply push you toward making edits that improve drafts to mainspace quality on a regular basis (i.e. the mission of this encyclopedia project), rather than making small edits to keep hundreds/thousands of drafts going indefinitely (NOT the mission of this encyclopedia project). I presume that if you get drafts successfully through AFC on a consistent basis, you might well get this restriction lifted after a while. 02:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact I have to allocate slots really does not encourage the good behavior you think it does.

If I were to work on the drafts I wanted then I would work on the Kofun drafts, but I am actually encouraged to drop the drafts I am most currently interested in in favor of whatever I was working on in may, since those are the ones that will pop up for me and require editing or deletion risk.

Because AFC often takes up to 4 months it means that I could easily just be paralyzed in this system with 20 submissions submitted while promising drafts get g13 deleted. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Paralyzed" meaning that you have improved 20 drafts to a high-enough level of quality that they could be brought into mainspace, as opposed to what is happening now? That seems like a step in the right direction. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• support as kind of co-proposer, I guess. The reason I support this over the option below is that unlike a six-month moratorium, this sanction directly addresses the problem. I agree that it's a way harsher sanction than it seems, because the majority of these drafts will run out of time while the first twenty are being finished, but then, it took a vanishingly short amount of time to create most of them in the first place, because they're on average one sentence long and in some cases even less than that. I'm willing to up the number of drafts somewhat if you're able to provide a list of articles worth preserving based on their current state that I agree is longer than twenty. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  asilvering's proposal below is a much kinder method of reaching the same goal. I think it strikes a better balance between making sure no further disruption occurs and not being unduly punitive than this iteration, and it provides a good solution of what to do with the current sea of drafts. I've crossed out my support vote for that reason. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I have been watching over user Immanuelle for long time. I think they are fundamentally in good faith, and I have the impression that they are a young person pretending to be an expert in some field. However, their behaviour and contribution methodology are certainly very strange. While over the last year or thereabout (the number of their contributions is enormous and it is very tedious to navigate them) they have been focusing on this massive production of extreme low quality and badly translated drafts, in the past they tried to create some "good" articles (listed here), which, however, if you look into them you find that they are mostly either copy-pasted, forked sections from other articles (e.g. cobalt in biology, Chidi (god)) or patchworks of material copy-pasted from other articles (e.g. Religious Confucianism, criticism of modern paganism), either from the English Wikipedia or from Wikipedias in other languages, or from both, often de-contextualised and reassembled quite haphazardly, and originally written by other contributors (e.g. "Religious Confucianism" contains huge chunks of text which were actually written by me in other articles, "Confucianism" and "religion in China", and copy-pasted by Immanuelle in their fork article). In the past they also exhibited some odd attention and behaviour towards my contributions, and specifically towards some articles I contributed to: first they tried to report them as fringe topics on the fringe theories noticeboard (now they have proven to be decidedly not fringe given that they are about a system of ideas which is at the core of at least some forces at play in what is happening in Eastern Europe, on both sides), while later, and once again recently, they insisted on changing their titles (1, 2, 3). In August 2022 I already had the opportunity to instruct them on how to contribute appropriately to Wikipedia, at least according to my own methodology, but I can see that the advice has not been followed. So, despite some odd behaviour, let me repeat that I still think that Immanuelle is a good-faith user, and there probably still is room for improvement on their part, but I also think that their overall contribution methodology has, to date, been detrimental to Wikipedia. I am sorry, but I support the proposed restrictions.--Æo (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Addendum: I agree with asilvering's comment below. If the restrictions proposed by Indignant Flamingo are considered too harsh, then I support asilvering's proposal. Nonetheless, I think it is impossible that Immanuelle will be able to improve all those 4,000 drafts in time before mass deletions. Another good idea would be that they focus exclusively on the field they seem to be most passionate about, Japanese Shinto, with supervision from other users who know Japanese or are experts in the field. Æo (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Æo, if you can find some of those users who would be willing to help, that would be useful. I don't mean to be snide, it's just that those editors aren't exactly common, and editors involved in the previous ANI thread pointed out that there isn't a lot of bandwidth for dealing with such a volume of problematic or potentially problematic articles. Having said that, it occurs to me to tag in @Eirikr and @Dekimasu from that discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• SupportOppose With a 1-year autoexpire. I've had some interactions with them. A good faith editor and even with the flaws in articles, a valuable contributor. But they need to wiki-evolve into more emphasis on quality and other aspects and less on quantity. This could be a nudge in that direction. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed from support to oppose. My same comments apply.....she needs to shift from quantity to quality but upon further thought 20 is too draconian of a limit for this editor. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@North8000, would you write a formal support/oppose in the section below ("complete moratorium on new drafts"), so it's easier for the closer to see consensus or otherwise there? Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with everything that North8000 said. An editor acting in good faith, but needs to focus on getting articles ready for mainspace before creating anymore. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would support asilvering counter proposals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on the particulars. I think this is unnecessarily punitive (see discussion below) and I do not think it will encourage Immanuelle to take more care with drafts, because of the drastic nature of the proposal, which would cut them down to fewer than 1% of their current drafts. I think that is far too much of a sudden shock for a creator who is working in good faith - if you want Immanuelle indeffed, just say so. I would suggest instead a complete moratorium on new drafts, until Immanuelle has fewer than 20 drafts. Thenceforth, new drafts can be created, but only ever to a maximum of 20. I think this would be a better option because it leaves Immanuelle in more control over their work; additionally, it encourages them to improve or CSD their drafts, since they cannot create any more until they have reduced the number to something manageable. Additionally, and with regret, I think a topic ban on Shinto, or perhaps even religion in general, may be warranted. Immanuelle has struggled with the distinction between, for example, "a god did such-and-such" and "the legend as recorded in this text says a god did such-and-such", and continues to do so on their newest drafts. Far more importantly, this is a subject closely related to nationalism, and I do not believe that Immanuelle's edits show cluefulness on this subject, which is a WP:NPOV issue we need to be especially careful with. I know many of Immanuelle's current drafts would fall under this restriction, so I suggest a grace period - some time for Immanuelle to get the Shinto-related drafts up to the best possible standard and submitted to AfC. If they're declined, well, then they've missed their chance. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• @Asilvering: Grandfathered in articles for a cap would be a lot more reasonable than an absolute cap. Especially following my more recent edits (past couple AFC submissions) I can see myself focusing more in individual articles. I could see myself spending a while to get a couple finished until all of mine are either deleted or accepted and never going over the 20 threshold. I am confused about your cluefulness issues, particularly related to nationalism. Do you see this as an issue affecting Draft:Kunitama for instance? And if so do you have some good examples of articles that address these topics well or books that I should read to get a better context for addressing these topics? I did see your comment on that draft and this might be a bit too off-topic but I only found significant sources covering the topic as it related to overseas shinto shrines. Respond to me at the article if this is too off topic Sorry about the bad formatting as my editor was really heavily laggingImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it certainly affects Draft:Kunitama. The article even has a quote by Motoori Norinaga, a kokugaku scholar, right at the top! Basically every part of the draft has something to do with nationalism. But someone reading this draft without the background to recall topics like Japanese nationalism, Korea under Japanese rule, State Shinto, the broader history of the Empire of Japan, and so forth, would have no idea. The government of Japan, like that of many colonial empires, used religion variously to legitimize conquest and occupation, to engender patriotism, to define an in-group (ie, who is "Japanese" vs who is "Other"), and so on. Editors need to be aware of this context to write articles that are WP:NPOV and do not accidentally parrot or gloss over various political talking-points. (See also Uyoku dantai.) For a book to read on Japanese nationalism, you might try A History of Nationalism in Modern Japan: Placing the People by Kevin M. Doak; I haven't read it, and judging by the review I found I would personally find some things to object to in it, but to quote that same review: "His is the most comprehensive analysis of Japanese nationalism that exists in the English language." That's a pretty good endorsement. -- asilvering (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Asilvering thank you for the elaboration, that explains things better. I will try to keep more in mind that a higher degree of context is needed in such articles since a lot of people do not know about these things.

  In the future do you think I should treat the Encyclopedia of Shinto more critically than I have been treating it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 09:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Immanuelle I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by treat ... more critically. I don't see any particular reason to doubt this source, what do you think is the issue with it? The issues other editors have raised recently have more to do with how you use sources, eg what you render in Wikivoice. By the way, you may want to have a look at Shinto: A History, by Helen Hardacre. She spent some time doing research at Okunitama Shrine in Tokyo. -- asilvering (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support asilvering's approach to the draft issue. It's a more forward-looking approach, and also achieves a compromise including a complete moratorium on new drafts until fewer than the suggested 20 (either via AfC or deletion), rather than a simple time-based moratorium. —siroχo 03:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, asilvering proposal is much better for Immanuelle who is contributing in good faith and does not need draconian measures to get them on the right track. Lightoil (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify I support the complete moratorium on new drafts not the Shinto topic ban. Lightoil (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, I also echo and support asilvering's view and new draft moratorium suggestion. Remsense聊 17:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Give them a chance to work on their drafts now that they know others view it as an issue. No need for formal restrictions at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Assuming that around 3,500 unworthy drafts were to be CSD-ed (whether by the author's hand, or by time expiry), and assuming it takes a minimum of 15 seconds to check and delete each one of them, it'll still require around 14.5 hours of administrator effort to remove them one at a time. Then if we factor in the time it takes at AFC to assess and respond to this plethora of inadequate drafts, that's an even greater amount of time. All that's pretty disruptive in my book. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Nick Moyes I have been manually going through my drafts, bumping ones that I'm unsure about (so they don't all pop in at once and I can check a few a day in the future) and csding ones I'm certain are not worth keeping.

  Due to a category edit I believe I will have a thousand drafts expire in a single day. None of those drafts I believe are good enough to keep. Is it your opinion that I should somehow stagger those drafts? I'm not quite sure about the point you are making.

  Is it better for administrators for me to let my drafts expire or manually CSD them? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Immanuelle: @Liz, @Explicit, and myself usually handle most of the G13 deletions. While I don't want to speak on their behalf, I think it'd be best for you to G7 tag the pages yourself when you decide they're not worth keeping. There's usually somewhere between 100-250 drafts a day that appear on User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and it does suck when there's suddenly a tidal wave of 800+ drafts (I've seen this a number of times). I think it'd be easier on all of us if you tagged the pages yourself as you go so we're not hit with a tidal wave when they simultaneously expire. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  would G7 still work if someone else adds the tag? i presume not. i was wondering, since I have AWB and it would be relatively trivial for me to do so. Remsense聊 14:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  No as the administrator would check who placed the tag, see it was not Immanuelle, and would then have to declined, and give a warning when it happened hundreds of times. And an AWB run that put 1000 articles up for deletion with G7, would just hit admins with a tidal wave anyway. Though Liz and friends could probably use AWB to do a mass deletion based on a criterion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this seems a bit too restrictive as well as ambiguous. Limiting to, say, 30 or 40 ongoing AfC submissions, and requiring they otherwise draft in userspace would make more sense, since the disruptive aspect here seems to be all the drafts hitting the 6-month-mark. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is unnecessary micromanaging of a contributor whose work is in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: complete moratorium on new drafts

In addition to any existing editing restrictions, Immanuelle is completely restricted from making new drafts, until they have fewer than 20 drafts todal. Thenceforth, new drafts can be created, but only ever to a maximum of 20. (This is a formalized version of the proposal I made in my Oppose above.)

Support as proposer. asilvering (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I read @Licks-rocks, @Æo, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Siroxo, @Lightoil, @Remsense, as supporting based on their comments above. I read @Hey man im josh as opposing, likewise. Others (@Elli, @Relativity, @Nick Moyes, @North8000) I read to have stated no opinion. I am tagging everyone in the hopes that we can move towards closing this thread, because I think this remaining open is causing Immanuelle undue stress and I do not wish that to continue. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with winding the thread down. Remsense聊 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose this moratorium for the same reason as above. Limiting them to a certain number of AfC submissions, and requiring that otherwise their drafts be in userspace, would solve the disruption here. Also agree this thread should be closed soon. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Elli would you make a formal oppose statement in bold, please? Just to make it easier for the closer, since this thread is pretty unwieldy. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I've added bold to my original comment. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I fully support closing the thread, and for the sake of an easier close, now formally: Support the suggested measure. Thanks for moving this along! --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think Immanuelle has been receptive to feedback and they appear to be making a genuine effort to clean up their active drafts (their deleted contributions show quite a few CSD G7 tags). They've also submitted a number of drafts, many of which have been accepted. I think this type of sanction is unnecessarily restrictive and and I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh I want to say for reference this is the change in my draft count since the thread started. The first one being the number cited in the opening and the second being the number now. I am not quite sure how many redirects were counted for misspellings or whatever, but it is potentially hundreds less drafts now.

  • October 20, 2023: 3,946 drafts
  • November 7, 2023, 3,500 drafts

  Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's pretty good progress @Immanuelle, thank you for putting the work in. I notice that you're not just deleting all of the drafts either, as your user talk page shows that in the last 7 days you've had 21 drafts accepted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Just to confirm and per my comment above. This would be my preferred option out of the two options. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would add that if this doesn't get obvious consensus in a short time, then this whole thread should be closed down. It started over two weeks ago now, and that's to long to be under scrutiny. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with an added recommendation to clarify the status of WP:REFUND requests under such a restriction. Immanuelle has recently set admins to the task of undeleting a bunch of drafts that are nearly identical in content. See this version of the page for around a dozen, with the ones I checked being copy-pastes of Onmyōji, so this isn't a theoretical issue, and a regular refrain in this discussion has been something like "I don't see that as a problem", so it's worth clarifying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps we can just say "Immanuelle, please don't ask for your drafts to be refunded, as it creates extra work for admins and is against the spirit of the restrictions". @Immanuelle, I see you're still popping in from break to watch this thread, can you confirm that you understand why this is being brought up? I do think we should allow for the caveat of "it's ok to ask for refunds on drafts that expire while on full wikibreak", so that Immanuelle doesn't have to keep interrupting what should be a more restful experience. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue that a restriction on refunds is entirely unnecessary until it's been shown that it's an issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, my intent with my phrasing of it as a request is more to make it clear that asking for refunds does actually create additional work for admins, and to be mindful of that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  These types of things should be reserved for when an actual issue presents itself. We don't typically implement restrictions, blocks, or protect pages pre-emptively because there might be an issue down the line. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Asilvering that's all quite reasonable. The only reason I refunded those drafts in the first place is that they were deleted in a way which didn't give me the opportunity to properly look over them.

  I'd say most reasonable is when on a wikibreak or perhaps if for some technical reason I get no notification then I can refund, but otherwise any refund will count as an addition to my draft coun below the limit. I agree with that. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  As you stated @Immanuelle, you had a good reason for the refund requests. You were not out of line in making them and, based on your explanation here, you wouldn't expect to request the undeletion of the number of articles you've added A7 CSD tags to. As such, your activity at WP:REFUND doesn't sound like it will be an issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh also as you can see on my userpage I have actually put a big deal of effort now to track my drafts and when they will expire, and stagger them out in such a way that I will not be accidentally mass deleting, particularly when I might want to keep some. I have notes present for particular days where a lot of drafts may expire, and have periodically gone through my drafts and randomly bumped some so that I do not end up swamped.

  I presume this will also help admins when g13 is happening since having say 5 drafts from me expire in a day is a lot more reasonable than say 30. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor needs to make the fundamental changes to shift from quantity to quality. But 20 is too draconian of a limit for this editor and this proposal is just a part of implementing the "20" limit. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @North8000 Do you oppose any number on the principles of it, or would you be happy with a bigger one? I used 20 because my intent was to modify the earlier proposal (which specified 20), but I don't care for 20 in particular. It does seem an easy number to monitor, but it's no easier than, say, 50 drafts. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that you are working towards the right goal but the math format is not good. My idea (and rationale) is below, the core of which is a limit of 5 new articles per week. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I personally would oppose that one because it doesn't help to reduce the overall number of drafts, it just slows their accumulation. At that point I think we're better off taking no action now, since Immanuelle has obviously learned from this experience that having thousands of drafts is not a good idea and that there is general opposition to them creating hundreds more. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Remsense聊 20:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is unnecessary micromanaging of a contributor whose work is in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lights and freedom. Editing that is for the purpose of Wikipedia is not disruptive and merits no sanction. Voluntary behavioural adjustments are more than enough here. DFlhb (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Six month moratorium on making new drafts

@Cullen328: proposed a six month moratorium on me being able to make new drafts. I agreed to it. I have already deleted a large portion of my drafts which I judged as unworkable. @Girth Summit: suggested similar. Do you two support it?Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You've already agreed to it, so your goal here is to make a voluntary restriction into a community restriction? In any event, the proposal above this one addresses an additional concern, and the two proposals are not exclusive. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo I am proposing it as an alternative to your proposal, which I see as brazenly destructive. I could probably get my draft count down by a thousand by the end of the month, but an overnight imposition of 20 is not something that could happen without a lot ot potential loss. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the proposed restriction above does not require you to delete anything, I'm genuinely confused by your comment here. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It would effectively impose deletion on a lot of my drafts. They would g13 delete while I am unable to edit them due to my 20 drafts being used up. There are many drafts I intentionally let g13 delete (although most of them have not yet reached the deletion point), and also many I personally consider promising but am unable to complete for one reason or another at the time. Imposing the editing restriction would make it up to chance whether I have a draft slot available when a promising one comes up, or not. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo Immanuelle's drafts often stick around in the AfC queue for the full four months. I checked my AfC log: I reviewed 27 of their drafts over July-September, and declined every single one. If your restriction was imposed, I expect Immanuelle would be down to under 100 drafts within six months, with almost all of the reduction coming from G13 and very few accepted to mainspace. It would solve the "Immanuelle has too many drafts" problem, certainly. But it's a much harsher restriction than it looks like at first glance. -- asilvering (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering to add a bit onto this I’m of the impression that most of the drafts you rejected were the best they possibly could have been based on the editing restrictions that have been placed on me. I’m not sure if I’m just bad at searching for books, but my general impression is the only available English language sources are these.

It’s left me rather despondent with Wikipedia. Rather than being given a chance to demonstrate any kind of improvement in interpreting sources, I’m just blocked off from using non-English sources.

If I was given that editing restriction I’d probably just submit what I thought were my best 20 drafts, and then leave. I wouldn’t be given an opportunity to prove myself, as they are convinced would be the case. I’ve already been relegated to a place where proving myself is impossible. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Now to add on to this I would gladly accept having five userspace drafts with no editing restrictions and a giant warning for reviewers to check sources very strictly, and I would take a full removal of normal draft privileges for that in a heartbeat. I could even try to make the warning template to be used there. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And if review takes eight months so be it. I think my problem back then was more one of rushing with my articles rather than not understanding per se. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, and I do mean that, I do not believe that your editing restrictions are the problem here. Your use of English-language sources is often spotty, and many of the drafts I reviewed were sourced exclusively or mostly to tourist websites and blogs, whether in Japanese or not. If I may, I think it's time to step back. I think you've given yourself editcountitis, or de-redlink-itis, or something, and that you will become a better editor simply by taking a deep breath and letting this all go. Easier said than done, of course. Go outside, play some games, read several books. Find something joyful, and give it to someone else. Become chill. Then try again. -- asilvering (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering definitely de-redlink-itis. tbh I have gotten a lot more recent enjoyment with my switch to citing books more thoroughly over trying to find online resources, which I hope you did notice as a shift. If so do you think it has been an improvement?

There are definitely some shrines I think are just too highly ranked for them to not have articles. Watatsumi Shrine and Kanasana Shrine being the big ones. For these in particular it is really frustrating that they seem very notable but English sources don't cover them much. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This editor needs to make the fundamental changes to shift from quantity to quality. But the specific proposals are too draconian of a limit for this editor. Something like limiting her to 5 new drafts per week and going only through AFC, with an autoexpire of these restrictions in a year would seem to be workable, reasonable and effective. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This would gracefully evolve the situation to an AFC workload of 5 articles a week, or a little above that with re-reviews. Also evolve her to a new norm of more quality and less quantity over the next year. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's still far too few (and still entirely unnecessary based on the effort that Immanuelle is making). FloridaArmy has a restriction of (I believe) 25 submitted drafts at any given time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh what is the story of FloridaArmy's restrictions? I know they have draft related restrictions but do not know much about them otherwise or why they were imposed. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

First, just clarifying, that is 5 new ones per week Maybe this is too few. But please note that in the above proposals this number is zero. But IMO that max total drafts format is a bad idea. If there is a 6 month backlog, 25 total means 1 per week, 52 per year. If there is a 1 day backlog, 25 total means 175 per week or 9,000 per year.

Proposal: Topic ban from Shinto

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

---

Immanuelle is indefinitely topic banned from Shinto, broadly construed.

• This formalizes the other part of asilvering's oppose argument above, which several editors have already found convincing. Independent of any handling of drafts, multiple editors above have expressed specific concerns about Immanuelle's handling of sources, claims, and context when writing about religious topics, particularly but not exclusively Shinto, even when citing English-language sources. Shinto-related topics are often a battleground for nationalist claims and counterclaims, and the potential for disruption and WP:NPOV violation is high. With regard to the encyclopedia's content, WP:DE identifies degrading its reliability as a reference source as disruptive, and also points out that (t)he fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. To prevent disruption in this area, even if inadvertent, and to prevent NPOV material from being introduced accidentally due to carelessness or lack of understanding, I support this topic ban. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

People having such issues in recent times is news to me. As far as I am aware I have not had anyone notify me about such issues. The most I can remember is a disagreement over whether to have an infobox on the Odin article. I haven't really seen any examples pointed out either so I don't exactly know what you have issues with. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Has my approach improved with the recent submissions? I am honestly confused. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, so I looked for a representative example, and found the most recent substantial draft of yours about a kami, though I may have missed a more recent example: when I read Draft:Yamato Okunitama, while the narrative is noted to be 'mythical', there is very little else that makes the article sound like a tertiary or even secondary source, compared to say, the much more 'zoomed-out' and contextually-concerned tone of Amaterasu—which is perhaps something to keep in mind. Would you like further elaboration? — Remsense聊 23:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that would be helpful. I read through the Amaterasu article and I get a bit of it. I didn’t know anyone took issue with that style. I thought it was desired even.

Are there other articles that you think demonstrate it well? I’d prefer one on a more minor kami . Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, I think the points are rather general, but if they're not coming across I can try to find another kami. Since I'm more familiar with China, is it okay if I gesture to Shentu and Yulü instead?

• There is one inline mention in your draft of a source document, and it's in the lede. In typical articles, the specific sources are mentioned throughout, even if there's only one. I feel this serves to reinforce the fact that a source is relating the details, and not the article itself, regardless of whether they 'actually happened', or to what degree.
• Similarly, there is a consistent mention of non-mythological elements in the other articles (say, political history, linguistic elements, related philosophical and cultural theories that secondary sources have connected to the subject) When I read your draft, I get a sense that I am being told a story in an anecdotal rather than encyclopedic tone.

I hope that makes sense! I suppose the word I'm looking for is: your drafts are very tonally homogenous, focusing on a narrative or localized place, whereas encyclopedic tone reaches for different sources of information and contexts throughout the text. — Remsense聊 01:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ll look at those ones and try to get a better idea of how to write articles. Do you have any particular thoughts on the political issues also pointed out? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, the plague etc. seem to be related inline as part of 'telling the story' of the internal narrative of the myth, which in a sense is backwards: an encyclopedia should be presenting the myth as an item amid a greater context, not as the item itself, with the context serving the internal purposes of the subject. — Remsense聊 01:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you like me to tag you on the page after doing work on this so you can check if I have been going in the right direction? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

sure thing! I'm happy to help. — Remsense聊 01:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you asked, I took a look at what I think is the most recent submission (Draft:Shinko-shiki), one of them at least, and immediately found a paragraph taken from the Ashkenazi source and added to the article with only a few minor tweaks. There's room for interpretation on WP:CLOP issues sometimes, and we all make mistakes, but this is pretty clear-cut and just shy of copy-paste. I removed that paragraph, but given that you added that content after the previous editing restriction that explicitly called out your responsibility for copyright violations was imposed, the fact that this was part of your most recent submission isn't encouraging. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have up until this time not faced any criticism on that area since then. I tried to reintroduce the information without that issue, but I feel it's kind hard to change it past a certain point witout saying something else entirely. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, Ultimately, you should be reflecting sources, and in theory it's worth reimagining an article if that is what required in pursuance of that goal. — Remsense聊 22:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think what Immanuelle means by "saying something else entirely" is that they were unable to paraphrase the source without causing their paraphrase to say something the source did not - nothing to do with needing to reimagine an article. Unfortunately, this trouble with reading and interpreting sources continues. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose (at present), I think Immanuelle is very receptive to critique, and with some more directed feedback she'll be better able to contribute to a subject she has a lot of interest in contributing in good faith in. Remsense聊 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference, here is the earlier ANI thread about machine translations and AI-generated drafts that resulted in a number of editing restrictions for Immanuelle: [3]. The focus was on errors introduced by machine translation and AI, so broader issues got a bit lost in the shuffle, but the concerns raised are still relevant. -- asilvering (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Remsense. Lightoil (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think a topic ban is warranted or useful here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: At this point we should just give Immanuel the benefit of the doubt. They've heard the feedback and they are willing to cut back and work on their existing drafts. We should end this already and allow them to do so and only re-examine possible sanctions if it becomes a problem. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: See my comments under the first proposal for restrictions. As an alternative proposal, I think that Immanuelle should focus exclusively on Shinto (I think their bungles in other topics, e.g. Confucianism, modern Paganism, have been even worse than those in the Shinto topic), and on a relatively small number of drafts, with a very close supervision by experienced users.--Æo (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Remsense. NotAGenious (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think it is warranted. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This would be excessively broad and not helpful. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Violations of prior editing restrictions

I believe there have also been (perhaps minor, depending upon your perspective) violations of the editing restrictions put in place during the previous ANI discussion. I simply have not had time to respond here, or to take care of that. One of the previous official editing restrictions put in place was "Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion." A few hours after Draft:Ōagata Shrine was declined by User:Asilvering on August 30, Immanuelle added the declined information to the preexisting article at Aotsuka Kofun here, noting it was a merge from a draft but not stating that the draft was declined. This was followed a minute later by moving Aotsuka Kofun to Ōagata Shrine here and thus changing the article topic, a move which I reversed two weeks later without having looked deeply into what was going on (because the kofun is more notable than the shrine, for one thing). After I reverted the merge, which I found to be faulty independent of any consideration of AfC, Immanuelle then readded the information with the edit summary restoring content in own section. AFC decided that these are in fact the same topic contrary to my opinion. This restoration, which I did not have time to go through or reverse or anything like that, actually causes a few identical sentences to appear twice in the same article. I have not been able to look through this ANI thread closely but will leave this here in case others decide anything needs to be done about it; I also have not had time to find out if similar violations of editing restrictions were performed elsewhere. Dekimasuよ! 07:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. My decline did say "already covered at Aotsuka Kofun", not "merge to Aotsuka Kofun"... I've also noticed that Immanuelle has submitted drafts created using AI, one section of which I removed here: [4]. The AI-generated content was added before the editing restrictions were put in place, but the draft was submitted recently. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. Remsense聊 16:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's the only one I wouldn't recommend any further action, since with literally thousands of drafts, forgetting to remove one AI-generated part isn't that bad. But I mention it here just in case it's part of a wider pattern. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

One more: Draft:Ichinoyama Kofun. This uses Japanese sources, against what I believe to be the spirit of the editing restrictions of March 15. The exact wording is Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft. They must also ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright., and I think it's very possible to interpret this as "do not put machine-translated text into articles" rather than "do not use machine translation at all when composing articles". I do believe the previous ANI discussion was equally concerned with the latter of those two, but it is true that this draft does not appear to violate the restrictions as literally written, so again I post this here more as a warning and a record than as something that demands further action at this time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering I did not use Japanese sources directly. Rather that was taken with attribution in edit history from the article Emperor Ingyō. Here is a quote of the original from that article attributing it to who added it.

While the actual site of Ingyō's grave is not known, this regent is traditionally venerated at a memorial Shinto shrine in Fujiidera Osaka. The Imperial Household Agency designates this location as Ingyō's mausoleum/kofun-type Imperial tomb. Formally, this tomb is called Emperor Ingyō's misasagi (恵我長野北陵,, Ega no nagano no kita no misasagi), but is also given the name Ichinoyama Kofun (市ノ山古墳（市野山古墳). Another burial candidate for Emperor Ingyō's is the Tsudoshiroyama Kofun (津堂城山古墳), which is also located in Fujiidera. Ingyō is also enshrined at the Imperial Palace along with other emperors and members of the Imperial Family at the Three Palace Sanctuaries.

— Knowledgekid87

I presume User:Knowledgekid87 did the proper verification. I do not interpret using someone elses interpretation of a Japanese language source as being in violation.

I will continue with my break, but I consider this to have been important enough to warrant an immediate response. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

Im not sure what this whole discussion is about, but the information/references regarding the Kofuns were already present in the articles before I started working on them (See: Emperor Yūryaku#Legendary narrative). I've been fixing up the Emperor of Japan articles to include what is and isn't known about them (see: Emperor Chūai) according to the references already provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You're fine. User:Immanuelle was claiming that rather than using AI to translate Japanese sources they didn't understand (which they are expressly prohibited from doing), they were using the source you provided. Seems like this was just a passing reference of your edits. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Draft amount restriction, plus amount of content in a draft restriction

Here's my proposal:

• Immanuelle cannot create any more new drafts.
• They are given 1 month. During that time, any existing drafts that need to be WP:G13'd will be deleted.
• After the month's up, all of the drafts will be deleted, unless the drafts have a prose size of at least 300 words, make sense to be added into Wikipedia, (i.e. must follow notability guidelines, not be something that Wikipedia is not), are properly cited, and overall would possibly pass AfC or could with a bit more work to it. (I'm going to call this Immanuelle's Draft Criterion for a shorthand.)
• After the month is up, if one of Immanuelle's drafts does not fit Immanuelle's Draft Criterion a month after it is created, it can be deleted at any time by an admin if it still does not fit Immanuelle's Draft Criterion. For example, let's say Immanuelle creates a draft. It only has 150 words in it. A month goes by, and it still only has 150 words in it. An admin spots it, and deletes it. Another possible scenario is that Immanuelle creates a draft with only 200 words in it, and a month goes by and it still only has 200 words in it. Two weeks later, they work on it and they get the draft up to 600 words. A week later, an admin spots it, but they can't delete it. The admin could have three weeks ago, but can't now because it does fit Immanuelle's Draft Criterion (assuming the draft was properly sourced, etc.)
• Immanuelle is still limited to 50 drafts, unless consensus changes. If one is AfC'd or deleted, they can create a new draft to take the old one's place.

This proposal could work because: a) It addresses the problem of the enormous amount of drafts that Immanuelle has. b) It gives Immanuelle a push to work on drafts to make them at least inclusion quality. c) It gives Immanuelle a bit more wiggle room with a 50 draft cap instead of 20. I know it's a very complicated plan, so if there's any other way of addressing some common problems, we'd all like to hear it. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even need to do anything at this point? They've been made aware that others view this as an issue and they've taken action to rectify it. Based on their talk page, they've had 21 drafts accepted in the past week. They've also been making an effort to A7 tag pages that they don't believe will qualify for main space. At this point in time they have roughly 500 fewer drafts than when this discussion started. Why does there need to be any sanctions at all when the user is responding to and attempting to adjust their behaviour based on the criticism they've received?

That's exactly what we should want out of people, and yet people keep proposing new sanctions that won't actually help to protect or improve the encyclopedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: You do have a point. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is way too much pressure. Immanuelle would have to improve 100 drafts a day, and then there's a massive influx of work at the end of the month - the worst of all possible worlds. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I managed to reduce my draft count by almost 500 over the past 2 weeks and it was maddening.

This also specifically counteracts some of the methods I put in place to lessen the burden on me and administrators

I have used the page User:Immanuelle/Draft Staggering to randomly select from my drafts and perform dummy edits on a few random ones a day (and g7ed pointless kanji articles or ones I saw as lacking a future, or improved when I saw an opportunity) so that in the future I will never have more than ten expire in a day, and can look through them carefully too decide whether to delete them or not.

This means that over the next 5-7 months my draft count will be able to effectively decline without overloading admins with g13 deletions

Now that I learned g7 deletions are easier for admins I will do g7 deletions instead of letting articles g13 delete. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Some "two birds with one stone" advice. Work toward making articles that are more substantial and explanatory. To a typical reader, many of your articles use terms that they don't know to explain a subject that they don't know. Suggest working on them to be more explanatory for an average reader and more substantial. This takes work. The result would be better articles and fewer numbers problems such as those being discussed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that nothing needs to be done here, but if Immanuelle created drafts at a rate of half a dozen per minute, is it really that strange that they should have to improve those articles in order to keep them? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{discuss real emo here...} 07:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

...is it really that strange that they should have to improve those articles in order to keep them – Not strange at all. I think they've been receptive to the feedback they've received and they're making good progress on reducing the amount of drafts they have since this discussion started (roughly 500 fewer now). Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

They have been improving those articles, so I don't really think it's fair to put this much pressure to do so on them. It is much easier to create tiny stubs quickly than to later improve those stubs, and as long as they're making an honest effort, I don't see why we have to retroactively punish them for their poor judgement earlier. AryKun (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is unnecessary micromanaging of a contributor whose work is in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. Creating and enforcing these rules would do nothing more than waste editors' time. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose What this discussion needed was not another proposal. Twenty days and five proposals is enough, this whole thread should be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a very complicated restriction that would require a lot of admin work, and reduce any usefulness of the drafts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Chalk me up as another editor who thinks this is a tempest in a teapot. Yes, creating thousands of cut-and-paste drafts is weird, but if this is how Immanuelle wants to waste her time, we are none of us her parents or her boss. Arguments that many of these drafts are on unimportant fringe subjects could well be applied to the article creation preferences of many of us -- quick, how many of you are enthused about minor-league ice hockey? -- and contradicts the argument that the existence of these drafts deters editors from creating articles on them. I won't belabor the sheer inanity of the charge that managing these drafts puts an intolerable strain on bot resources. If Immanuelle's antics trouble any of your amour propres so very much, grit your teeth, shake your head, and move on. Ravenswing 12:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing I love that idiom, thanks for teaching me it

  

  I found this image which I think nicely captures the Japanese aesthetic of this tempest in a teapot https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/473841340/tempest-in-a-teapot-hokusais-great-wave

  I also found these two pages

  • Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
  • User:Ivanvector/Drafts are cheap

  I definitely think I made too many drafts, and it was disruptive to my talk page in a way I didn't expect. but I expect to be able to reduce this to a non-problem in a couple months.

  I really hope this ANI ends soon so I can feel comfortable properly taking a break from wikipedia.I have all my drafts I'm really invested in submitted and the draft processing queue is not at its record low anymore, so I think now is genuinely the best time to take a break. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

List of Spider-Man film cast members

Can an administrator please look into User:(a)nnihilation97s editing behavior at List of Spider-Man film cast members. They are mass removing references as seen here and here at List of Spider-Man film cast members. They have not left any edit summaries whatsoever as the reason why for these mass removals. I left a couple of messages on their talk page and reverted some edits, but they are not communicating and Talk:List of Spider-Man film cast members is blank with no discussions. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 01:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that this issue was also raised in February 2023 with this editor. Is there a community consensus somewhere I'm not aware of that these types of List articles don't have to include references? Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 01:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that being part of a cast is usually a yes-or-no proposition, I think that the list inclusion criteria should be that either there is a Wikipedia biography of the actor that verifies that they played the role, or a reference to a reliable source is provided in the list article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That discussion can certainly be had somewhere sometime. But I am reporting their behavior for editing an article that is reliably sourced with 120 references and removing 92 of them, and their lack of an explanation or discussion as to why they have removed all these references. They don't seem willing to WP:ENGAGE with anyone as evidenced by their talk page, and they are not leaving any edit summaries to explain their edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 08:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This editor has been disruptive for as long as I can remember. He constantly goes around cast members lists for comic book movie franchises and keeps adding the same unnecessary stylistic changes, he mostly doesn't answer to either talk messages or edit summaries. —El Millo (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. This user has a long history of being unwilling to collaborate and communicate with others. The constant radio silence from them is especially frustrating when editors are seeking to form consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they are right back to editing the article again, only leaving 5 edit summaries out of 11 edits on November 6. And left this message on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done a partial block on that article for a month. I'll also warn them that continued failure to use edit summaries will result in further sanctions. Fences&Windows 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Any editor that refuses to communicate when other editors object to their edits should be indef blocked until they actually start communicating. Mutism is not acceptable behaviour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes to that; the timesink of a) making another editor miserable and b) taking admin time to evaluate the issue, and c) with a history of same "radio silence" = block. Not pblock, as they'll do same elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

CIR block needed

If someone believes that they can turn User:Yashwardhan Kachhawaha into a net positive, they are welcome to try. I don't see it happening and think this good faith editor lacks the necessary competence to edit enwiki. They create or hijack multiple articles for the same subject (Sainik Kshatriya, Rajput Mali and Mandorva Rajputs), create subpar articles like Sankhla where they reject the cleanup-rewrite tag[5], or Tak rajputs which has been draftified, then recreated, and where they repeatedly removed the cleanup-rewrite tag[6] and restored text poorly copied without attribution from another article[7]. Other edits like this are not really improving things either. Whether they are the same as, or working with, User:Mandorva rajput, is not clear. Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 1 year for disruptive editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

please unblocked User:Yashwardhan Kachhawaha Mandorva rajput (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: What's the reasoning behind imposing a one-year block (as opposed to an indefinite block)? It's not something one sees often with named accounts, and the few times I have seen it, I've never understood it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Despite the large number of indefs I've given out, I do try to minimize them. My sense here is an earnest desire to do good work, but a lack of language skills that sours their efforts. I figure that a year could be a reasonable amount of time to overcome enough of that barrier, but now that you bring it up, an indef could be used for this and they can appeal when they think their language skills have improved. I woulnd't be upset to have my 1 year "improved" to an indef. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, I'm willing to bet that 99% of the time, both methods reach the same result and either: A) The blocked user comes back with a different user name (per AGF, including both before and after the original block expires so as not to insinuate socking) or B) the blocked user never comes back. 216.126.35.244 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

please Unblocked User:Yashvardhan kachhawaha Mandorva rajput (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. So Yashwardhan Kachhawaha is the sock account of Mandorva rajput. I've blocked both. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Does seem that way. I had made an SPI request a little bit before your blocks. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, when the requests to unblock the account popped up here, that was a dead giveaway. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Serchia

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing:

1. Long term edit warring at Kurds since April, attempting to remove sourced information about the Kurds being an Iranian people, claiming it to be "controversial" and "Pan-Iranism" without anything to back it up [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. They even just violated WP:3RR in that article right now - just before they did that, they reverted a edit warring warning I gave them, saying it "It is not an edit war"
2. WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS: Paniranism Paniranism Your entire history is POV not my edits
3. Included the ancient Median language as part of Kurdish, no source [15]
4. Disregarded the note twice in the WP:CTOP article Death of Mahsa Amini, adding "Kurdish" in October and December [16] [17]
5. Disregarded the consensus at WP:RSN, reverting with no explanation [18]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Edit warring on Kurds, that's a good enough reason for a partial block for that article. Perhaps that will make User:Serchia understand that we are serious about these things, and perhaps it will be an incentive for them to practice talk page discussion. Older diffs are also of concern, but they're too old to be weighed in this incident. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• It is obvious that the edit war was started by users from Middle Eastern nations with a history of oppressing Kurds. I removed the term "Iranian" from the opening paragraph of "Kurds" with the valid point that the term is very controversial, and as other credible encyclopaedias such as Britannica don't mention it, there is no need to mention it here. It is also a term that offends most Kurdish people and they do not agree to be called "Iranian". This is the main point here, and as for the other points you outlined, there is no need to mention here. Serchia (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Serchia It's sourced, but that doesn't seem relevant to you. If it were, you would have started a discussion after being reverted more than once. The WP:3RR has already been violated, so the best course of action for now would be a short-term block on you. Jerium (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I think that Drmies was generous with a three month pageblock on just the Kurds article since this editor has disrupted other articles in the Kurdish topic area. Serchia, consider yourself warned that any further ethnonationalist disruption may well lead to more stringent sanctions. So, be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Discussion of this on the talk page goes back to 2005, and this is just a sampling:
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 2#Regarding recent edits and the Kurds status as 'Iranian' people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 13#We need to qualify the statement that they are an Iranian people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 6#Kurds are ethno-linguistically Iranian people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 12#Iranian classification is linguistic - we kurds are not iranian ,we are medes ! our free group since 540
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 15#Kurds would never call themselves Iranian people
• It hasn't always gone well over the years (Special:Diff/266730161, Special:Diff/253670639) but it looked like we reached the what-do-other-encyclopaedias-say point in 2012. The next step is to try to find expert sources, rather than be the edit warrior who aligns with those over the years who were just making assertions with nothing to back them up but IP addresses and pseudonyms. This has happened over and over in all sorts of topics, with people arguing their own personal views instead of doing the research. This is not the way to approach things.

  Uncle G (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that, for good reasons, contemporary Kurdish leaders do not want to be associated with the modern Islamic Republic of Iran, which was founded in 1979. But the concepts of "Iran" and "Persia" and "Iranians" and "Persians" are much older, and frankly, much broader. Uncle G has dug up diffs going back many years, some of which are very ugly and disruptive. I certainly do not claim to be a subject matter expert, but it seems clear that many scholars classify the Kurds as an Iranian people, broadly defined. That does not mean that they are associated with the mullahs in Tehran in any way today. Whether or not that is an assessment widely shared by the most respected academics in the field, I am not prepared to say. I agree with Uncle G that tallying up what various other encyclopedias say is not the proper way to proceed. Instead, the best way is to study what respected academics have written about the matter. The first "academic journal" article thst I found discussing the Kurd/Iranian connection was issued by a predatory publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, which issues journals of "questionable quality". What is needed is a serious assessment by editors with an established track record of competent evaluation of sources in the broad topic area. In my opinion. the OP, HistoryofIran, is one of very few active editors with that expertise, and we should take that editor's assessments seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm home in like 8-9 hours, I can gather some WP:RS by academics with expertise in the area then. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Whomever has gone about and added "Kurds are an Iranian people" to the first sentence of all the Kurd-related articles, is ethnonational pov pushing. That wasn't there last time I was in the topic area (two years ago or so) and everything I remember reading said that the origin of Kurds is much disputed and debated by scholars. Sounds like another way of saying "there is no Kurdistan/there are no Kurds." Levivich (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Also I just looked at the talk page of Kurds and there are more threads about this than listed above. Looks like a steady stream of people talking about "Iranian/Iranic," I see threads from this year, last year, 2019... this needs an RfC or something. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Content tagged {{dubious}} and sources/quotes at Talk:Kurds#Kurdish people are an Iranian ethnic group?. That's the content dispute part, which will be resolved on the article talk page. I still think that whomever went around and added "are an Iranian ethnic group" to the first sentence of all the articles has engaged in misconduct (specifically, POV-pushing, and also source misrepresentation, because those sources cited don't say "Iranian ethnic group"). Levivich (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was added a few years ago.[19] PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw another one at another article from earlier this year Special:Diff/1131147468; from a quick look, it seems to be one of those things that's been added/removed multiple times, as well as discussed a lot on talk pages (or at least Talk:Kurds), for many years. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At another article in 2022 Special:Diff/1124346370, at another in 2019 Special:Diff/881369287 with the edit summary referencing previous iterations... looks like one of those perennial edit wars. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's good to see that we're now back at the level of Talk:Kurds/Archive 13#We need to qualify the statement that they are an Iranian people when Dougweller and Kurdo777 were involved. A small correction to the above: It's not 2005. It's 2004. Vide Talk:Kurds/Archive 1#Iranian?. There was not much edit warring in the article at the time, although Special:Diff/13200475 is an edit from 2005, notice. This goes back way before 2020. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, Wikipedia. We should rename it Sisyphedia. Levivich (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Related to these reverts, but also a content issue, see Talk:Mahsa Amini#Mahsa Amini was a Kurdish-Iranian. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• At the WP:CTOP article Death of Mahsa Amini, Levivich basically repeated [20] what Serchia did; disregarded the note and long-time consensus, adding "Kurdish", without any form of discussion, let alone a WP:CONSENSUS. Looking at Levivich's comments here and elsewhere, they seem like a person who does their research of the article history beforehand. So, they were probably already aware that countless discussions regarding this had taken place in the article's talk page (and surely aware of MOS:ETHNICITY as well), yet still decided to go on with their edit. At Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini, I've asked them twice to revert themselves and make a RFC if they must, which they have ignored. Why a RFC and not a discussion first? Well, because there have already been the same countless discussions in that article, and the recent discussion with Levivich at Talk:Kurds was fruitless; They failed to show a single WP:RS that challenged the claim of Kurds being grouped as an Iranian group and they kept asking me the same questions and making the same arguments, instead of addressing my responses to those, which led to a WP:REHASH fiesta between us (obviously, this is just my perception, I could be wrong, I could be right, maybe a bit of both, ultimately that's for the readers here to decide). --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

User:71.219.49.187

Continues to make uncited edits to pages, despite multiple warnings from editors this month. User has not responded and continues to make unsourced, disruptive edits. glman (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours and will watch User talk:71.219.49.187 for a while. Post there with an explanation if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting attention to article Eusébio

There's been an editing war in last couple of the days on the article Eusébio that I ask your attention. One user, looks very biased on all matters regarding the sport club S.L. Benfica cherry-picking information and sources that highlights his clubs and diminishes their rivals. He has done this on other articles but this time its getting further. Rpo.castro (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Change title of discussion so as to link to this section, not article itself. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a series of issues with this article. There is an interview with Eusébio (primary source) in which he is accusing Sporting Lourenço Marques of racism, but this was replaced by a user with a secondary source (a brief analysis of the interview) in which it is clamed that Eusébio was accusing Sporting Clube de Portugal of being a racist club, and the text on the Eusébio article was modified accordingly. Comparing both sources, it's not hard to conclude that this is patently false. Whether this was an honest mistake on the part of the journalist or not, I cannot know, but it is evident that the user who introduced this change is aware of the falsity of what he is adding. Furthermore, his nickname suggests that he has an axe to grind and is making the change on purpose to discredit the rivals of his own football club. There's also the problem of another user, who reverted this changes, claiming that we should stick to primary sources (!) for sourcing content.

1) Secondary sources are usually preferred to primary sources. In this case, the primary source allows us to disprove a very strong claim made by a secondary source, but the principle is to stick to secondary sources if possible.

2) Primary sources should be used to only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. This is not necessarily the case here, as it would at the very least demand basic knowledge of the Portuguese language, and it also is used to make a pretty sweeping accusation. Furthermore, it's an accusation that adds very little to the article. I would personally do away with all of that if a better source cannot be found.

3) The user SLBedit is clearly and knowingly engaging in tendentious editing/POV pushing. He's not being subtle about it, with his nickname including the acronym for Sport Lisboa e Benfica and almost a decade of SPA editing. I would also argue that he might even be violating Wikipedia's username policy.

Not being an admin, this is all mere commentary, but I believe SLBedit should at the very least get a talking-to. Ostalgia (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I find your comments to be very offensive and defamatory: "is aware of the falsity of what he is adding", "is clearly and knowingly engaging in tendentious editing/POV pushing." Correio da Manhã was talking about Sporting CP/Lisbon, which was indeed a club with people connected to the Estado Novo (Portugal). I have never hidden the fact that I support Benfica. I don't remember seeing you edit football/sports-related articles, so I don't even know you and you don't know me; therefore, one more reason for you to retract what you wrote about me. SLBedit (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's get something clear - you don't need to know me, and I don't need to know you, in order to identify a bad edit. You don't get to decide if or when an uninvolved editor can intervene in a discussion at ANI.

As for the case at hand, in question are two sources: you have used Correio da Manhã's short summary of an interview with Eusébio to introduce the claim that Sporting Clube de Portugal was, in Eusébio's eyes, a racist club [21]. You were reverted by another user, who provided the full interview in order to show that Correio's interpretation was wrong, and that Eusébio was referring to Sporting LM. I cannot know why the staff at Correio made that mistake, but at this point it becomes clear that it's a bad source for that claim. You know Portuguese well enough to understand that, yet you continued edit warring to reintroduce your claim and preferred source ([22], [23] - in this latter case suggesting that he accused both clubs separately of racism). Furthermore, even when you seemingly agreed to drop the stick and accept that he was referring to Sporting LM, you did so on the tacit condition that the fact that it was Sporting CP's affiliate in Mozambique was pointed out. This is link is undeniably true, but you also removed the claim made by Eusébio in the same interview about the coach of Desportivo (Benfica's affiliate in Mozambique) being a racist as well as denials of the original claim of racism by some of Eusébio's contemporaries [24] [25]. This is unacceptable behaviour, and it's made even worse by your edit summaries, such as accusing someone who reverted you of being a Sporting CP fan [26] or quipping that you are "not responsible for [their] club's loss today" [27].

I'm not involving myself in the content dispute, nor do I care about petty football rivalries. I have already stated that I do not believe any of this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article (maybe as a passing comment, at best, but certainly not worth all this hassle), and all the speculation about alleged kidnapping attempts and the like, quite frankly, I'd do away with or minimise as well. What I am worried about is your conduct - this kind of source manipulation, edit warring, and overall tendentious editing is far below the standards expected of an editor with tens of thousands of edits and a decade of experience. If you find my comments very offensive and defamatory, I'm afraid that's a you problem - you brought this upon yourself. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

A "bad edit" doesn't mean it was made in bad faith. Correio da Manhã source was indeed about Sporting Lisbon, and you didn't assume good faith. You also wrote that most of my edits are "gnoming", suggesting I've never expanded any article, which a huge lie. So, as far I know, I can call you a liar and, consequently, a disruptive user. SLBedit (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

A bad edit does not indeed, imply bad faith, but the fact that you kept readding the source and the commentary in spite of having been shown that the source was wrong does. You only stopped when you were reported to ANI. The way you have addressed your fellow editors throughout this process does not inspire confidence, either. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"Fellow editors"? The ones accusing me of club bias while trying to hide their own bias? That's your (subjective) opinion. You don't inspire me confidence either. Cheers. SLBedit (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Rpo.castro looks very biased on all matters regarding the sport clubs FC Porto and SC Braga. And, by the way, A. Landmesser (talk · contribs) is clearly a supporter of Sporting Lisbon. SLBedit (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Rpo.castro forgot to mention the discussion I started at Talk:Eusébio#User:A. Landmesser. SLBedit (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop throwing dirt into the eyes of other people to diverge from your own actions. Your only answer to any question or discussion is throwing accusations. You point "your discussion" in Eusebio's talk page? That's not a discussion. That's only beligerant accusations, not constructive talk towards any kind of consensus, as well are you edit summaries too.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You are still resentful at my recent edits to Football in Portugal, aren't you? SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop sniping at each other, or you'll bot get WP:NPA blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

So, I just found out a quote from Eusébio in the primary source saying he did NOT like Sporting CP - the reason, apparently, is the kidnapping story Sporting made up. "Pensaram: "Como é que agora vamos descalçar esta bota?" Inventaram o rapto. Eu nem do Sporting de lá [Lourenço Marques] gosto, quanto mais do de cá [Sporting Lisbon]. Tudo o que hoje sou é graças a mim, aos meus colegas e ao Benfica. Fui melhor jogador do mundo, melhor marcador do mundo, da Europa, fiz tudo, só não ganhei um Mundial." SLBedit (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it's because of the kidnapping story and the fact Sporting initially didn't want to give him money: "Eu pergunto: então se o Benfica me tivesse raptado, eu iria gostar de uma equipa que me tinha feito isso? Não gosto é do Sporting, que depois até pagava 500 contos." SLBedit (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. SLBedit (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Mass editing to change External links by Judkessler

After they hit my watchlist of Featured articles, I asked new editor Judkessler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) what their criteria was for mass changes to External links. Without a satisfactory answer, I've asked them to slow down, then asked them to stop. They haven't, and are continuing to make the changes, while not listening.

The account was created July 14, but sprung into rapid editing today, raising the question of whether this is ACE2023 edit count driven. Perhaps they will listen to an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Noticed: [28] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

A list of the 17 pages (including one featured article) where I deleted some external links is available on my talk page: User talk:Judkessler#Follow-up.

Judkessler (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC).

This is well more than 17. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

As explained on my talk page, I did modify more pages (probably around 60); however without deleting external links. Only to add the WHO fact sheet on relevant pages (e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32] and [33]).

Judkessler (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia, @Judkessler. I really appreciate your efforts to help with ==External links==. "Weeding the link farms", as we sometimes call it, can be a really important contribution to Wikipedia. If you (or anyone else) wanted to do a bit of that, then this search string shows a pretty serious problem – a website that used to have relevant content, but it went out of business, and now it's an advertisement for a gambling business. It was reported last week at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and we've made progress, but there's still a handful left.

Generally speaking (naturally, any individual case could be different, but speaking about a purely hypothetical average situation), a fact sheet is probably going to fail WP:ELNO#EL1. Consequently, it probably shouldn't be listed in ==External links== at all.

But there are two possibilities. Both of them depend on these URLs being pretty stable and on people generally thinking they're important in some way. If both of those things are true, then we could see about adding them to Wikidata (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chlamydia gets put into d:Q153356; we'd have to ask for advice over there on what, exactly, the best way to do that is) and/or we could see about putting it into Template:Medical resources.

As for the disposition of this outcome, @SandyGeorgia, do you mind if we split off link removal to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and take the "are these WHO pages worth adding?" questions back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Massive EL changes? We could mark this section as resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing split as you wish (I did not realize we now have an El noticeboard)! I was more concerned that I couldn't get Judkessler to stop and listen, and the editing pace was very fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A couple of edits that I looked at involved adding www.who.int links. It is generally very unwise for an editor to focus on adding links, and it is particularly unwise if that involves one website. Judging what is appropriate for external links is best left for experienced editors and should not be done on a drive-by basis with a quick adjustment to an article before moving on to another. Please let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq; I'll keep an eye on it and ping you if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from Fancy vibēs

• Fancy vibēs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk page abuse, such as removing messages and warnings and continuously pinging blocking/block reviewing admins and me. Please revoke TPA. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• This appears to have stopped of its own accord, possibly when it became apparent that repeated calls to reveal the method by which this was uncovered fell on deaf ears. Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Boushaki family cross-wiki spam

Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zouaoui16

I was trying to warn all wikipedias that Mustapha Ishak Boushaki has been creating articles for himself in more than a hundred sites, when I realised this was only the tip of the iceberg. He has been also creating articles about his whole family, as you can see here. Also, more than a hundred puppet accounts of this person have been globally blocked.

So, would there be a way to delete most of these articles? (Sidi Boushaki I think it could be notable).

See also: Talk:Brahim Boushaki and Talk:Mustapha Ishak Boushaki

A lot more information on this case at d:Wikidata:Project chat#Boushaki family. Thanks, Paucabot (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's more complex than that. The to-and-fro over Boushaki cosmological operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) both in the article and on various talk pages, and deleted edits at User:Cjayross/Mustapha ishak boushaki indicate that there are two groups:
  • One group is accounts that self-identify as Mustapha Ishak Boushaki. They oppose (by blanking the contributions of and starting talk page discussions about) a second group.
    • Mishak1967 (talk · contribs)
    • Anish.universe (talk · contribs)
    • Mustapha ishak (talk · contribs)
  • The second group is the huge cross-wiki sock-puppet account farm, from global block logs and also intersecting edits on the English Wikipedia. These are the ones that are really messing us about, including creating fake biographies based upon copying the wikitext of the Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein articles. This includes but is not limited to:
    • Zouaoui16 (talk · contribs)
    • Authentise (talk · contribs)
    • Kalimoun (talk · contribs)
    • Friedrich20 (talk · contribs)
    • Tidjany (talk · contribs)
    • Soufismo (talk · contribs)
  • There have been lots of articles involved. These are just the deleted ones:
    • Khaled Boushaki (AfD discussion)
    • Yahia Boushaki Boulevard (AfD discussion)
    • Corso helicopter crash (AfD discussion)
    • Template:Sidi Boushaki book
    • User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki
    • Feriel Boushaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Ali Boushaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Shahnez Boushaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Abderrahmane Boushaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Nadia Boumerdassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Brahim Boushaki Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Yahia Boushaki tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• That said: A 14th century theologian (Sidi Boushaki) is not close family to a 21st century physicist, presuming that it even is family.

  CaptainEek, you investigated Cerberon-900 (talk · contribs) and that intersects the second group in one of the AFD discussions. Thoughts?

  Uncle G (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have no memory of this, it was some years ago, sorry. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Holy moly, it seems like this is an interesting case, especially given how some of the figures *do* seem plausibly notable. Remsense聊 23:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• I should note for any checkusers: There is off-wiki evidence, that strongly tallies with on-wiki behaviour, that Cjayross (talk · contribs) is not a sock-puppet account, and that account can be excluded from sock-puppet account investigations and lists. Please let us not get more specific than this. The deleted edits in that account's user space are by Mustapha ishak (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the investigation Uncle G. I didn't know it was not the scientist that wrote all these articles. I had only noticed the cross-wiki spam (which seems to be another person). Some things I can add:

• There are more than a hundred globally blocked accounts as I have collected them here: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Boushaki family.
• There are more articles spread over more than a hundred wikipedias. You have also the list at the same link in Wikidata. Even there are a dozen wikidata items without any sitelink, including scientist's both sons
• I think some of the articles could be notable like Sidi Boushaki and Shahnez Boushaki.
• Maybe the spammer wasn't only spamming on his/her relatives, but on his/her surname, as you can see in Zawiyet Sidi Boushaki or Yahia Boushaki. Paucabot (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Potential behavioral issues around Bette Davis

User:MonicaAng has been a behavioral problem I've encountered within the past month. I detected this when editing several Bette Davis, and other film/Oscar-related articles. The first indication was in the edit history of her filmography page, when I made Bette's separate awards page. Curiously, I browsed her user talk, and saw this dramatic encounter, which can still be viewed here. No point in linking diff-by-diff: User_talk:MonicaAng#What_is_going_on?

After perusing this, I understood. Okay, Joan Crawford fanatic, perhaps has a grudge against Bette Davis, defensive against her due to the infamous feud. Whatever. User_talk:MonicaAng#Bette_Davis_and_the_Hollywood_Canteen This was the more alarming talk page element. Because this flies directly in the face of well-documented, well-known evidence that has been sourced in books and on Wikipedia for a long time.

As you can see, @NLB2023 and @CodeTalker called her out for inappropriate behavior, for removing sources, for her reasoning for removing sources, and page vandalism. But not sure if any warnings were issued really.

On Bette Davis's page however, here's where her behavior becomes VERY alarming. And unfortunately, NLB seemed like a newcomer, who didn't know much about warning. He was a bit wikibullied. This one, I'll pull up several diff examples. Part of the conversation has been archived, from August. It's a bit exhausting, please forgive me. I'll try my best to outline it:

• This DIFF here shows Monica going on the attack at NLB, aka Nick. Doxxing his full name, which I did not see posted anywhere on Wikipedia, so that's creepy. And alleging it means "Nick Loves Bette" is tantamount to wikibullying, the way she uses it with vitriol throughout the next few comments.
• Next one near the bottom furthering the attack. Also furthering the factual lies, but I'll get to that.
• Lastly, this diff here: Please note the statement "I am willing to compromise...something along of the lines of "Bette Davis was among the members of the Hollywood Victory Committee who helped establish the Hollywood Canteen." rather than the current "In 1942, Davis and John Garfield co-founded the Hollywood Canteen." I think this would be a good solution rather than to continue bantering back and forth."
  • This "compromise statement" about the Hollywood Victory Committee is relevant, because on the Canteen talk page with me, she would claim that those words were there before she ever edited. Another lie.

And also: "I have found that Davis biographer Julia Stern (who is a radical)" -- Because Monica accuses others of sourceless information. Yet, where is this proof? What does this even mean?

---

Now, onto the present-day: -Last month, I create Bette Davis's "List of awards and nominations" article. She questions why? I explain to her the myriad of other actors who have a plethora of awards, and have separate articles with brief summaries. -Next, she protested why I included a link to the Hollywood Canteen on her template. I said, because she was a co-founder and driving force, who has received accolades for it, and served as its president.

She challenged this info on Halloween, claiming she found old newspaper articles in which it states these 10 or so "Hollywood Victory Committee" people were all jointly responsible for the creation of the canteen.

At first, I couldn't access her engine, GenealogyBank (NewsBank basically), but I was able to get a free trial and now membership. And I checked every precise link. I screenshot them and verified they matched on the talk page. Each and every link? Absolute fiction. She is once again peddling misinformation and vandalizing, and reverting edits.

(By the way, Revision is not the issue. You must look at the entire history. In May of 2022:)

Edit warring on Hollywood Canteen: Started here but went unnoticed. Then began again, once again, with her and NLB2023, and now me. Edit warring on Bette Davis's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bette_Davis&action=history&offset=20230807183642%7C1169205805

---

She refuses to accept anything I've laid out. On the Hollywood Canteen talk page here, I documented EVERYTHING. When she posted all of the sources, as I said, I screenshot the newspapers in case I couldn't keep the trial, and they match with each URL:

Talk:Hollywood_Canteen#Hollywood_Canteen_is_NOT_the_same_as_the_Hollywood_Victory_Committee.

Not a single one of the actors named have an article verifying that they are a founder of the Hollywood Canteen. All they each say is that they were doing war bond drives for the Hollywood Victory Committee.

Meanwhile, below that, I screenshot all my sources and here is my last edit, in case she reverts again. This diff, with all correct information WITH newspapers from the era, 1942-1945 AS she demanded were the only ones that were accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hollywood_Canteen&diff=prev&oldid=1184359457

---

MonicaAng has been WP:GAME by brow-beating other editors into believing that she has sourced this "mythical information", that all this history about Bette Davis and John Garfield founding the Canteen is fiction.

WP:TEND, WP:LAWYER, WP:OR, etc.

She claims I "cherry-pick" articles for evidence. I found 40+. She's found less than 8, only 2 of which have mentioned the Canteen. Just one now which mention both Canteen and Victory.

You'll finally notice in her phrasing and language, she loves to turn the phrasing on the other person. "I don't know why this is such an issue, when it so CLEARLY states what I've proven" or "why Cinemaniac86 only wants Bette Davis credited" (and John Garfield, Jules Stein, and the other people in the original paragraph.

I thought the dust had settled. But I was wrong. Please help me, because I am at my wit's end with her, and nobody else on that article is active enough to help.--Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 19:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is all entirely FALSE. I have NOT lied regarding anything, and have always posted reliable citations for edits. Cinemaniac86 is the issue here. We have a debate regarding the issue of the Hollywood Canteen. It is a fact that the Canteen was originally started (and funded) by the Hollywood Victory Committee. However, Cinemaniac86 is alleging it was solely the work of actress Bette Davis. This is false. Instead of working through this issue on the article's talk page (which is what I was attempting), Cinemaniac86 unilaterally altered the entire article without discussing the current issue. I am trying to follow the correct procedure of discussing this issue on the talk page. It is Cinemaniac86 is is attempting to bully and "game the system" here. Again, I am trying to talk this issue out on the article's talk page - it is Cinemaniac86 who isn't wanting to discuss the issue and unilaterally disrupt the article's page. MonicaAng (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I am still providing sources on the article's talk page regarding this debate, however, Cinemaniac86 reusing to discuss the issue at hand on the article's talk page. Instead, because this user simply seems to not like that I am challenging the edits he attempted to do on the page, he calls me a "liar," etc. etc. I have tried to approach this issue respectively, yet, I am name-called and accused of actions I have not done. Again, I believe this is now an issue of Cinemaniac86 attempting to bully me from attempting to discuss this issue to find resolution - which has been my goal within this situation from the start. MonicaAng (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Lemme reiterate some of Monica's numerous lies. With links.

Lie #1: Bette Davis was not the president. She was an honorary president for a short time.

Fact proven by newspaper sources: Bette Davis was president, and John Garfield 1 of the VPs, of Hollywood Canteen from the beginning, throughout the war; and as a foundation, all the way until 1966.

Lie #2: "Re "Hollywood Canteen" this is a topic that was already well covered on the topic's article talk page. Davis was not responsible for founding the canteen. The Hollywood Canteen was established as a "sister canteen" to New York's "Stage Door Canteen." The "Hollywood Canteen" was established by a formed committee headed by actress Irene Dunne. Davis served as honorary president for a period of time after it was opened. MonicaAng (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)"

Truth: There has been no evidence of any of this. First, this has never been a topic covered on the talk page until me. It was covered on Bette's talk page, not the Canteen's. Second,

Lie #3: Those statements about "Hollywood Victory Committee" were there before I edited.

Fact: You made a truce with NLB on the Bette Davis talk page with that offered statement, and he conceded. Then you lied to me about it being there before he typed it for you.

Note: I'm not conceding to adding false information to an article. I don't think that it is an acceptable thing to do. All sources state one story. You are trying to add WP:OR, by twisting facts and WP:GAME with your approach and WP:TEND.

Lie #4: I am not alleging it is the sole work of Bette Davis. I continue to tell her that the sources have stated it was conspired by Bette Davis and John Garfield. All of the 1942 newspaper articles give them credit for being co-founders when they did stories on the Canteen. Screenshots of the paywall-sourced newspaper clippings:

"Bette Davis and John Garfield are the organizers, August 1942": https://i.imgur.com/OTC0bc9.png (Full page with date https://i.imgur.com/5Z90F4v.png)

"Sheila Graham Tells How Canteen Was Founded, December 1942": (Pics) https://i.imgur.com/Q9151iV.png (date is visible; pics attach to Sheila's article)

(Article attached to Sheila's pictures, same paper) https://i.imgur.com/1ymzV40.png "Bette and Garfield are its creators, and mentions Garfield being vice-president." Another article states the same, from a reporter who volunteered as a dancer: https://i.imgur.com/3JfD9Um.png (full page https://i.imgur.com/xMEG1ha.png)

"Louella Parsons, August 1942, Bette Davis done tremendous amount of work making this possible" https://i.imgur.com/ZAMhgVC.png (full page https://i.imgur.com/aweMZ5A.png)

Again......I don't wanna be redundant. I already stated, you can verify my newspaper sources on the talk page, and match them with my edit via the (Diff).

Lie #5: She says "resolution from the start", but she takes an "I'm right, you're wrong" approach from the start. But the evidence is right here. In words. You can't argue with facts. There is no dispute here. Davis and Garfield are founders, organizers, and establishers of the Hollywood Canteen. The articles and book state it explicitly. It's not as if there's a gray area. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 20:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that I think this debate should be on the article's TALK PAGE, I think you are misunderstanding the terminology - "organizer" does NOT mean "founder." Again, the Hollywood Victory Committee was the founders of the Canteen. Davis and Garfield were members of that committee. Working to organize the Canteen does not make them the founders. I think if you will read the articles on this, you will find how the Committee assigned roles to its members (that is precisely how committees typically work). I am not stating Davis and Garfield were not overseers on the project, but contesting they started it our of thin air - that just isn't the case. Also, the articles you screenshotted are missing their dates - and I would like to point out those articles appear to be AFTER the Canteen opened and Davis had been appointed president of it. Not articles regarding the original founding of the Canteen. So, therein lies some confusion here. MonicaAng (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Holy wall of text Batman! Would anyone involved here care to give the tl;dr version here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

MonicaAng states It is a fact that the Canteen was originally started (and funded) by the Hollywood Victory Committee and has relentlessly pursued that change to history across multiple articles, but is unable to provide reliable sources to support it. I checked one source she put forth, and it didn't support her claim, so I believe Cinemaniac86's analysis of the other sources she's put forth. Disclaimer: I have little respect for editors who misrepresent sources. Also, I'm concerned about the doxing diff, but that took place in August so not sure what's to be done there. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, note that at least one of the conflicts (Hollywood Canteen) has been resolved on its talk page. I think Cinemaniac86 needs to speak to whether any of the issues brought up in the OP still need to be pursued. Schazjmd (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I had to tackle some IRL duties in addition to reassembling the page. Yeah, this compromise was sufficient, since it didn't deny the facts nor diminish Bette's/John's roles, per se. And that there should be peace after this. I do think the "green room" lunch, without going into detail, between the 2 of them, is supported by the sources, like 2 you cited. You'd have to weigh in for consensus on the talk page, but omitting it until then.

But aside from that, I'm relieved she's satisfied with a mutually agreed upon phrasing now. The main issues I had were the misrepresentation of facts, where articles were cited that did not support claims. Call it WP:OR, or not. The other issue was the approach to always remove sources and/or revert edits, and edit war. So I mean, I think she and I are kosher now with this phrasing issue and these articles, enough to simmer down. But regarding past behavior, and the doxxing/factual inaccuracies of the past, I feel like that's an admin/mod decision to investigate and decide.

My hope initially was that I felt helpless communicating the evidence, so aside from being reprimanded for the edit warring/false information, at least I could have some other voices assisting me in spelling out the facts. Because all others abandoned it, and I was fighting for the facts alone. But I ain't no Paula Alquist, ain't nobody gaslighting me! --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Well, we all knew this day would come. The Wikipedia Bette Davis – Joan Crawford catfight. EEng 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  https://i.imgur.com/QFAgrHW.gif --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 21:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

User:208.175.138.112

User continues to add undersourced content to football pages, and remove indications of sourced vacated wins. User has multiple past warnings and does not engage on talk page. Example of removal of vacated wins [34], example of addition of unsourced content [35] glman (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[36].

I blocked the IP for a month with a notice asking them to respond at User talk:208.175.138.112. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ravensfire reported by TruxtVerified

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Ravensfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am writing to bring to your attention an unfortunate incident involving user "User:Ravensfire" on Wikipedia. There have been instances where this user engaged in the use of vulgar language and offensive behavior directed at me during editing sessions.

The specific incidents occurred on [37]. This conduct is a clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on respectful interaction and use of language.

I kindly request that the necessary steps be taken to address this issue. This might involve warning the user or considering a temporary or permanent block to prevent further occurrences of such behavior.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and thank you for maintaining the standards of respectful collaboration on Wikipedia.

If you save him, I will quit Wikipedia. Finally, BLOCK HIM IMMEDIATELY Sincerely, TruxtVerified | [Message] 12:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi TruxtVerified, thanks for your report. I'll continue at AIV but for those here, you should probably provide diff links for the plural "instances where this user engaged in the use of vulgar language". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You have been on Wikipedia for over a year, and have over 2000 edits, so it's tough to chalk this up to being a rookie mistake. Perhaps, then, you can explain to us why you thought an article you'd just created ought to have a Featured List status? I agree that Ravenfire's use of obscenities was unwarranted, but their astonishment at your edit wasn't. With that, I hope and trust you understand that threats to quit if we fail to do your bidding aren't going to move us in the least degree. Ravenswing 12:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ravensfire, This is your fake and second account.

Your behavior, including the use of vulgar language, is unacceptable and violates Wikipedia's community guidelines. Regardless of edit count, respect and adherence to these standards are non-negotiable.

This exchange should focus on addressing inappropriate behavior rather than devolving into personal attacks. We are here to collaborate and contribute positively, not to engage in disrespectful interactions.

I strongly urge the administrators to take appropriate action in line with Wikipedia's guidelines to maintain a professional and respectful environment for all contributors

This response emphasizes the unacceptable behavior and urges appropriate action without engaging in a counterattack. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As an involved editor I noted with interest and slight amusement Ravensfire's comments. I am not a great fan of extravagant language, but this edit summary was clearly not aimed at the author of the article but rather at the thought that anybody could believe that an almost unsourced list could be considered a "Featured List". I have seen far worse pass without either comment or sanction. Time to drop the stick I think.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe edit summary was clearly not aimed at the author of the article is quite accurate. Looking through the contribs, Ravensfire have draftified one of TruxtVerified's lists before writing the edit summary, and proceeded to draftify two more. In this regard, RavensFire's word choice is definitely inappropriate.

Also @TruxtVerified, are you saying that RavenSwing is somehow RavenFire's sock account? Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

However, amidst these discussions, the fundamental question remains: are the use of offensive words by Ravensfire considered acceptable conduct? TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, he said that bad word to me. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Your support for this individual despite their use of inappropriate language is concerning. In my view, the use of profanity warrants consequences. If this behavior goes unpunished, it undermines the integrity of our community. I am considering quitting Wikipedia editing if such behavior continues to be overlooked. Despite their extensive editing history, their lack of understanding regarding appropriate conduct is evident. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The use of profanity is not prohibited on Wikipedia. At worst you could say that Ravensfire was slightly uncivil or hot-headed, but nothing that would mandate a block.

Also please be more careful in accusing another editor of sockpuppetry. Aside from the similarities of their names, there's no reason to believe that Ravensfire and Ravenswing are the same individual. — Czello ^(music) 13:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, he used bad word to me. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Ravensfire's language was inappropriate. I will leave them a note to that effect if no one else does. Now, that said, this report of yours (TruxtVerified) is a mess:

• Your tone is haughty and officious.
• You've accused an editor in good standing of being a sockpuppet, apparently because their usernames contain a common word and they disagreed with you.
• You start by saying "This might involve warning the user" and then proceed to demanding that they be blocked immediately, in all caps. Blocks are preventative, not punitive.

Why are we here? You made a bad editing mistake (adding the featured list icon), Ravensfire used inappropriately strong language in response. You could have told them so on their user page. Were you uncomfortable doing so? Is there a pattern of behavior on Ravensfire's part? Mackensen (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What? You are supporting the calling bad word he used. I agree my fault, but for that, a good person shouldn't use these words. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are supporting the calling bad word he used Well, no, I'm not. I said it was inappropriate (twice). I'm trying to help you understand that there is distance between doing something inappropriate and getting blocked. No one's getting blocked today. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I need justice, You are saving him. His fault is retaining there. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If I'm being blunt, you don't need justice for another editor using a swear word when it wasn't a direct personal attack. They will instead receive a polite request to be more civil, and that'll be the end of it. I think it's time you drop this now, as it's not going to go anywhere. — Czello ^(music) 14:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• TruxtVerified, are you using ChatGPT or a similar large language model to participate in this conversation? --Blablubbs (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, what? TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm alone! TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge the profanity was over the top, I was just that surprised that a reasonably experienced editor would create two list articles with minimal sources add the featured list template. The back-and-forth at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Republic_Media_Network colored my view. My sincere apologies to TruxtVerified for the tone of the edit summary. I stand behind the actions I took and the warning message I left on his talk page [38] which is direct and blunt but still reasonably polite. This isn't a new editor crashing around but an editor with 2000 edits making some inexplicable edits. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I know my fault, you have to learn about your fault. I know you have more than 78000 edits. Still you showing my fault only. Why you tell 'Sorry' for me in my userpage. If I made a mistake, you have to tell me and guide as an experienced editor. But what you do, you used bad words. But still, other users are supporting you. They said that Its all my fault. It's your fault. Ok TruxtVerified | [Message] 15:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a space that everyone can edit, you cannot use bad words against it. Also, I know bad words than you know, but i didn't use, because of my knowledge about Wikipedia. TruxtVerified | [Message] 15:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

How you replied previously and how you are responding now are very different. Clearly looks like you used an AI to assist you as highlighted by Blablubbs! Jeraxmoira (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@TruxtVerified, you just left a message on my talk page [39] saying you have to learn from this,***k. Would you explain what you meant by the last word? I know what it looks like but I'm hoping there's another explanation. The idea is there should be de-escalation of the conflict. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, de-escalation can start here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What word do you mean? TruxtVerified | [Message] 17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ravensfire said very clearly that it was the last word, which you wrote as "***k", but withdrew the question in the interest of de-escalation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ravensfire, you reported it🤣. I also do that with evidence. Okay TruxtVerified | [Message] 00:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on this thread, TruxtVerified is obviously not fluent in English and thus should not be editing the English Wikipedia. I'm sure there are Wikipedias in whatever languages TruxtVerified is fluent in. Also, I don't think they're using machine translation: if they were, we'd be getting better translations. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We're being trolled now. Boomerang block required, so we can all get back to what we were doing. BTW: for all those who think that bullshit should not be in a Wikipedian's lexicon... that's debatable. ——Serial 16:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

One may safely count me among those who feel this is getting into boomerang block territory. I am still awaiting TruxtVerified's explanation for deciding that a new article creation somehow merits Featured List status, I now await TruxtVerified's abject apology for jumping to the conclusion that I'm a sock of Ravenfire's -- certainly a worse offense than Ravenfire's f-bomb -- and I agree that TruxtVerified's truculent demeanor is objectionable in of itself. Ravenswing 16:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for that @Ravenswing. TruxtVerified | [Message] 17:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything that has been said here, especially that no sanctions apart from a gentle reminder to tone down the language a bit when exasperated should be taken against Ravensfire, but would remind everyone that demeanor can be difficult to judge in writing, especially when dealing with someone whose first language may not be English. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Arguably, but we're both ANI regulars, and we know that demeanor gets judged all the time here. How many ANI complaints have turned over one party acting like it was a battleground, and that anyone who wasn't for them was an enemy to be defeated? Ravenswing 21:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

what, he is 100% correct? TruxtVerified | [Message] 00:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• The self-contradictory nature of the original post, moving from "please warn the user or possibly consider blocking them" to "BLOCK HIM IMMEDIATELY or I quit!" within the very same edit, coupled with everything that has come afterward, lead me to conclude that this thread should have been closed without action several hours ago. Note also, in the context of the edit that spurred the complaint, the existing partial block on the OP's account. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

webhost IP + potential block evasion

194.0.194.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

V (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey all, Wukuendo was p-blocked from the page about the V programming language for edit warring on November 10, and while they were blocked I started editing the article to remove the promotional language and unverifiable claims attributed to self-published sources. A couple hours ago, 194 reverted two of my edits, [40][41] which Wukuendo previously characterized as removal of sources without consensus, though without saying why they think the removals are inappropriate at V's talk page. I suspect block evasion or meat puppetry going on here, and at the very least the IP should be blocked for being a webhost, but I'm involved. Requesting an admin to take a look and see if any actions are necessary here, thanks! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Range blocked as a colo/hosting range. firefly ( t · c ) 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My account should not be associated with any random IPs. This looks like it may have boiled over or is giving the appearance of targeting. I'm not nor have used that IP. Please stop accusing me of acting in bad faith or making such accusations.

I'm not in anyway saying or interfering with what actions Wikipedia should do to edits from random IPs, but making the accusation of block evasion involving a 3 day block for that specific article comes across as extreme and is escalating conflict.

Additionally, other people might be trying to make edits to the article, but are getting intimidated by what is going on or a perceived selection of editors to push a/their version without compromise. It looks like the assumption is being made that their view is the "only" or "allowed" view, and that others don't or can't disagree with it. This may include escalating or retaliatory behavior to set the conditions to ban accounts or IPs perceived to be in opposition to a/their specific version of the article.

Wukuendo (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, isn't it disruptive for the IP to just come by and revert changes without providing any reason, while using a webhost to mask their actual IP? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Nchitu is massively categorizing open railway stations as closed

• Nchitu (talk · contribs)

I reverted about 10 edits of this afternoon of this user, who categorized open Belgian railway incorrectly as "closed" like this one. After that this user continued to do the same with other countries like Jamaica and lots more. I suspect that the user is massively doing edits with HotCat about thousands of stations in various countries where he does not know the details of. When I looked at the user talk page I noticed the account was created on 16 October 2023 and has already 22,176 edits. I noticed the user received various warnings about their behaviour on their talk page, but did not reply or change their behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovaModaal (talk • contribs)

• User:Nchitu should be blocked immediately pending an acceptable explanation of their edits. The editor has made an enormous number of edits, many of them disputed, but is totally uncommunicative on their talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I have partially blocked them from (Article) space as a regular admin action. Any admin is free to remove or replace their block as they see fit, especially pending resolution of this thread. --Yamla (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • That's almost half as many edits as I have made with this account in its entire lifetime, in less than 1 month. On the first page there are 44 edits in a single second, at one point. Ordinary humans should not be required to keep up with this 'bot-rate editing, on a non-'bot account. And apart from the odd sandbox edit, there is nothing at all outside of category or the main article namespaces. This is well into Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing territory. Then there's Bellingham Square station. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Ok, I see a number of things here. (i) I would not say the edits are obviously incorrect. The same article Namur railway station (used as an example in this thread) says the station was closed in 1988. It was later reopened, and is now open (an d I have accidentally been there after 1988 and can attest this), but it is not incorrect to categorize it as a station which was closed in the past. If this is contentious it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. I checked a couple of more edits and they were also not obviously incorrect. (ii) It is still very concerning that the user received the first warning a week ago but continued editing without reacting to it. I think the block is well justified, and they should not resume editing without having first explained their actions, and, if these are contentious, discussing them at an appropriate venue. (iii) The editing speed is very concerning to me, and we might deal with either an unapproved bot or a sock (though I would not dare say who is the master) or both. If someone has seen this editing pattern before and can recognize it we might go for an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Death Editor 2 (...and User talk:Death editor)

Death Editor 2

I think this editor should be reviewed as a possible WP:NOTHERE. There talk page shows a variety of problems with contentious topic, edit warring, and POV editing. They are again in a slow moving edit war in a 1RR area [42], [43].

I think this account is connected to User talk:Death editor, due to the name, the block time on Death Editor and the creation time on Death Editor 2, and similar issues, but not sure this is enough for a look.  // Timothy :: talk  19:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I created this account because I lost the password for that one. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

and you might have noticed that death editor was unblocked. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I would probably recommend disclosing that in your user page because people will block you if you appear like a sock account with malicious intent. For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 18:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:ToosieJoosie

The user breaks the rules and returns erroneous edits after correcting them in Afro Tech, displaying disruptive behaviour. After I explained the reasons for these necessary corrections on User talk:ToosieJoosie and asked to return my corrections - they suggested to keep violating the rules and started getting personal, so I think it would be better to resolve the situation with the intervention of someone from the outside so as not to escalate the situation. Solidest (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As per written on your Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Solidest

RE: Article:Afro Tech , contributions and edits

1. They are clearly two seperate words, and how the subgenres name is predominantly displayed as well as typed across a plethora of sources and platforms, not a stylization. (Your move also only suspiciously, took place after the pages views were increasing. After your move ,it's back to near 0). Again ,seems malicious and unecessary, not even by accident or genuinely wanting to improve.Thus, if the bots or more established admins haven't found a problem, I think you should disregard it. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fusion_music_genres ; "This category contains music genres that could be considered fusions of various historical genres; that is, they combine elements of different genres together." As per numerous sources and evidence , this is or will definitely be the case , in future, if not so, already. 3 None of the sources , source nothing , if you have time to read properly ,they all mention or highlight the topic/ article. Thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually just found that you are the last and only editor on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech page's contributions that created at least three duplicate , citation, instead of re-using, which I have to rescue and fix, now. I don't know what your problem is but please stop with the fixation and malisciousness.

The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Solidest also displays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_ behaviour across , at least 3 different accounts , all evidentially what seems like constantly only "tracking" my edits, almost daily since I started my user account, I am new and not perfect , still learning and honing my editing skills, this user's behaviour has been highly perturbing. Please assist and/or advise further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

And if not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, piggbacking and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry, there are literal , sabotage edits in my first and only page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech , such as duplicate, citation source references and then later on my talk page accusing me of listing "fake sources". Removing text and edits as well as labeling them as "copy editing" and constant incorrect grammar edits, I would have to correct , after the user(s) block the "undo" function , forcing me to do manual "undos" when I am a new editor. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute and neither of you have engaged on the article's talk page. That's where this discussion needs to start. @ToosieJoosie, unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry are inappropriate. If you feel there is a genuine concern and can back it up with diffs, go to WP:SPI. Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It could be proof that the user is infact maliscious , since he/ she is a more experienced and longstanding editor. He/ she would've known to do that, instead comes straight here which highlights the constant sabotage and tracking of my edits and page creation. Perhaps the user's aim is not only to discredit me however to entirely get my account deleted. As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page where the user , again started a discussion instead of the article's talk page. Let's hope it will be resolved civilly and not reach that far. I kindly, thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@ToosieJoosie, your path at Wikipedia will be much smoother and you'll be more successful at achieving your desired results if you focus your comments on content, not on editors. Your most recent post to Solidest on your talk page takes a battlefield approach that simply escalates hostilities. I understand that Afro Tech is a new article and it's the first article that you created so it's natural to feel possessive over it. However, you don't own the article. Please, stop the accusations. Schazjmd (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Some of the statements made such as sabotage duplicate citations, then later on accusing me of listing fake sources and incorrect grammar edits after my editing are not accusations & can be tracked. Any mistakes I have or may have made are obviously because I am a new(beginner) editor. On the other hand,clearly disruptive edits made by more experienced user(s)/ editor(s), is highly suspicious. ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @Solidest's talk page as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ToosieJoosie (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The page has already been reviewed twice by a user and a bot (user/s bot). Without any problems or highly concerning instances. I do feel as though @Solidest's behaviour is highly perturbing and accusations , exaggerated for alleged reasons mentioned prior to and perhaps others. @Solidest could we agree to disagree and you perhaps , fixate on something / someone else or create your own page(s),as what you're currently doing now is not only time as well as energy consuming but highly unecessary,too. As @Schazjmd mentioned it is a mere "content dispute", not such a big deal.

@Schazjmd I have focused on the content , @Solidest wrote on my talk page and I was simply , reiterating the reply on his talk page too as he/ she had done on, mine. The page move wasn't necessary as there are title(s) of the genre displayed the same/ in a similar manner without any issues.The user keeps on bringing up disputes that he/ she can self-pacify via researching or actually reading the "fake sources" I have been accused of. The user's arguments are also a clear indication of not researching or having any actual knowledge in the topic however creating disputes just "for the sake" of it. ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@ToosieJoosie: please read WP:OWN, a policy page you still don't seem to have read, because asking Solidest to stay off an article you created is not allowed. You're both at risk of getting blocked from editing that article entirely because neither of you has started a discussion at that article's talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by "As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page" but in their first message here, Schazjmd told you this discussion ought to happen at Talk:Afro Tech. City of Silver 22:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I never ever asked anyone to stay off an/any article, what I stipulated or meant rather could be interpreted as him/ her @Solidest please not warring on my talk page or disruptive edits, without clearly researching or clearly for "the sake of it" - on my edits. I had no issues whatsoever , not even starting any talks on the page's article or anyone's talk page, whereas there's / was clear evidence of disruptive edits/ vandalism. @Schazjmd mentioned it was supposed to be initiated on the article's talk page, because @Solidest only initiated a discussion directly on my talk page, that's where I had to respond. That's what I meant by "as advised". ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver & @Schazjmd

RE: I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @Solidest's talk page as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point ToosieJoosie (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My edits are routine style corrections that I make on a regular basis within the music genre taskforce. I made the edits and gave reasons in the comments why wikipedia does it this way and not the other. ToosieJoosie started reverting and rolling everything back. I started the conversation on their personal page, not on the article's talk page, as I thought the issues of WP:MOS and sources placing were more about the user editing practice than the subject of this exact article (but I wasn't sure if that was right, and that's where I was wrong). I replied with more details about why it should be like that and provided links where it is written, they still disagreed and moved on to accusing me. This over-dramatisation over disagreeing with trivial edits is exactly what I was trying to avoid. If someone doesn't agree that wiki guidelines should be followed, I don't have the motivation to prove otherwise. Regarding the accusations of "fake sources" - my phrase was "false sources" and I further explained that I was talking about using the source where it doesn't support or match the sentence in which it was posted. That reference use was brought back to the same place. In the other place, I put {{Not in source}}, which ToosieJoosie also removed for no reason without making any corrections. The problem really isn't so much with the article itself (which is why I didn't make any more edits there), but with ownership and disagreement with the wiki's guidelines, and instead of finding a solution, it went straight to accusations and personal attacks, and accusations of puppeteering here sound even more ridiculous. Solidest (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am no longer going to back and forth regarding this specific article or "my faults". I tried to only focus on the content and even now a user/ editor has removed relative emphasis information and shortned the lead for what appears no valid, reason.Which I will try to restore as I mentioned it is, relevant information. All of "these kinds" of edits were not taking place on the article , nor my edits elsewhere until "you"/ recently. Thank you everyone @Schazjmd, @CityofSilver and @Solidest for your feedback as well as encouragement, I look forward to being a positive and insightful editor , as well as to become as skilled as y'all one, day. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´- ToosieJoosie (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@ToosieJoosie, before you revert this other editor's changes, please try discussing your disagreement with their changes on the article talk page first. Don't get into an edit war. Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Afro Tech ,

• WP:ADMINABUSE
  • WP:TOOLMISUSE
    • WP:MEATPUPPET
      • WP:ADMINACCT

ToosieJoosie (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's the second time you've accused someone of sockpuppetry or coordination (WP:MEATPUPPET). Either provide evidence at WP:SPI or you will likely receive a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are you being biased and not referring to what clearly seems as disruptive / nonsensical/ unecessary edits highly suspiscious for a long standing , more experienced user , even in a discussion , couldn't back or explain? You are not focusing on the content and behaviour. Furthermore my life doesn't revolve around that article, I just highlighed it as the circumstances I was even "brought" to this page as a newcomer was exaggerated and unjustified when @Solidest didn't start any discussion on the said article's page and also wrote regarding the specific article on my user page. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Even , @Schazjmd stipulated that the initial talk was supposed to be done on Talk:Afro Tech , not here, I also apologized for "fixing" the disruptive edits instead of engaging in tallking first , why am I now what seems like being constantly baited into edit wars or provoked?

I apologize for using those links, however I think Wikipedia:Civility should be used in fairness for all editors. Nowhere have I harassed or "bitten" anyone , instead it seems like the other way around.

• WP:BLOCKNO
• "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!
  • Experience or associated privileges shouldn't be misguidedly interpreted as a reason for default acquiescence from other members, and no Wikipedian is above any other Wikipedian. Editors who exercise these privileges should provide unambiguous clarity as to why, based on policies"
  • "How to avoid being a "biter"[edit] Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle in Wikipedia, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter". To avoid being accused of biting, try to:
    1. Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)
    2. Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, etc.).
    3. Moderate your approach and wording.
    4. Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
    5. Avoid sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting.
    6. Strive to respond in a measured manner.
    7. Wait, i.e. calm down first.
    8. Be gracious.
    9. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
    10. Take responsibility for resolving conflicts.
    11. Reciprocate where necessary.
    12. Listen actively.
    13. Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
    14. Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.
    15. Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcoming to new users. Consider writing a personalised message.
    16. Don't fill the page with maintenance templates or join a pile of people pointing out problems. Having multiple people tell you that you did something wrong is unfriendly and off-putting, even when each individual comment is gently phrased and kindly intended.
    17. Avoid nominating user talk pages for deletion.
    18. Remember that it's okay to make mistakes—we're all only human. Standard welcome or warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning. Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia."

ToosieJoosie (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(Contd.) Besides @HandThatFeeds, I may have stipulated that out of annoyance for the said reasons above nor myself or the said user, at the time even engaged in any disruptive discussion or "edit war". I will accept and internalize @Schazjmd advice "stop with the accusations". Please let's just leave it at that, this is all not normal at all , highly toxic and time/ energy consuming. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@ToosieJoosie: You said that Solidest is making edits that are "highly suspicious". The best place to address that concern is WP:SPI and if you want, I'll help you file a report once I know what evidence you have that Solidest is violating the WP:SOCK policy.

And I'll say it before anybody else does: please don't copy and paste large sections of text like this. A link to WP:BITE would have worked just fine. City of Silver 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver in the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. RE: I am not going to repeat myself or back and forth. Please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@ToosieJoosie: Does "I'm not going to repeat myself" mean you're not going to compile evidence for a report at SPI? City of Silver 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I never ever requested an investigation or said that I would anywhere for any user(s), as a newcomer I simply stipulated the phrases as into try and understand what was going on and out of being WP:BITE.n, and annoyance, as per RE: n the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. Once again, Please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@ToosieJoosie: I apologize if you feel badgered. I promise you, I'm doing my very best to keep you from getting blocked for breaking a rule that you, since you're a newcomer, might not fully know. You are not allowed to say or imply that Solidest is sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting if you're not going to request an investigation because that would be you violating the policy that says personal attacks aren't allowed. As The Hand That Feeds You said earlier, you have to "provide evidence at WP:SPI or you will likely receive a block." City of Silver 20:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver, thank you. Would @Solidest writing directing on my user page regarding a specific article and initially mentioning "I was engaging in an unhealthy manner" , as well as then furthermore "bringing" me here instead of again having not started a talk on the specififc article's talk page also warrant as , personal attacks aren't allowed?

• WP:MEATPUPPET stipulated "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." I was not aware that simply, stating it as a newcomer out of annoyance for and for all reasons above , results in getting blocked. Thank you for informing me, now I know. Again, not once have I harassed anyone , I further even reverted my post on his talk page in response to his on mine, which he never did nor directly apologized for. Lastly, this is resulting in mundane and unecessary back and forth as well as repetition of statements which I am trying to avoid. Again, please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´

ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mika Muramatsu

I saw the draft Draft:Mika Muramatsu was being constantly submitted by an an ip user and declined. This happened ten times. I believe the user might be WP:Nothere but more likely they are just inexperienced. Nonetheless I think we should at least address them here instead of simply rejecting the draft.

I think the draft should not be rejected, but I think a month long ban on submission or similar might be good, and I think that can only be done here. Sory if I am doing this wrong this is the first time I made a thread here.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO AfC is big enough to look after itself. The user is more enthusiastic than experienced, is all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm of the mind that this doesn't raise to the level of needing ANI intervention. It's not exactly a behavioural issue that requires immediate admin attention. Putting a block on an IP can be iffy, especially if theirs is a dynamic one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu yeah I think I jumped the gun on it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've searched for infos and reliable sources as I could. These are my last edits. I leave the problem about the "draft" to you. 193.207.178.201 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Waves of test edits at Australian Bureau of Statistics

Help. One of many articles that's been targeted by new users and disposable accounts with MOS:OL and WP:ENGVAR issues. In the last few weeks, and especially the last day or two: [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54]; [55]; [56]; and finally, [57], which adds redlinks and links for "census", "online", "diabetes" and "Australians." The obvious request is for page protection. The more difficult questions at this and other articles with maintenance templates is why they're attracting droves of new users, often repeating the same errors and creating a continuous disruption, and whether these accounts--some of which have been blocked--are somehow related. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• That's a massively mixed bag. Isn'thathim? (talk · contribs) is vandalism-only but has gone quiet, and clearly isn't in the same category as Bilgiljilll (talk · contribs) which looks like a good faith contributor, whereas Kamaria Winta Mandisa (talk · contribs) looks like it is doing the old 10-rubbish-wikilink-edits-to-get-autoconfirmed trick and preparing to drop some paid editing on us. The account name of Invensef Brands (talk · contribs) speaks for itself. I don't think that these accounts are all related. Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is probably due to the recent implementation of a topic selector to the Suggested Edits feature. If you enable the "newcomer homepage" in Special:Preferences, go to "suggested edits", and filter for "easy edits" in the "politics and government" topic, the entirety of en.wp has four articles to suggest. One is Australian Bureau of Statistics (the others are U.N.C.L.E., The Livingston Group, and Trinità dei Monti (think tank)).
  Cleanup tags are adding these pages to sparse sets which cause tight bunching of low quality newcomer edits (see Special:NewcomerTasksInfo). This is a new problem, but not the first case. See Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Several articles are being assigned as newcomer tasks very frequently for the existing discussion. Pinging User:Trizek (WMF), as point person for Growth Team. Folly Mox (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • For clarity (and already expressed at the linked discussion), I don't think this unintended consequence is Growth Team's fault. We experienced editors should be doing a better job engaging with the local configuration of the Suggested Edits feature. Enwiki has the infrastructure to fix this in-house. Folly Mox (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that explanation, Folly Mox. In this thread I noted other heavily-trafficked pages [58]. Most of the new editors don't stay around long, and none of them engage or explain their intention, which only adds to a dubious impression. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Thank you for bringing this here, Bob. Alpha Omega Alpha was one of the two articles brought to the thread I linked as well. The other articles you mention on your usertalk I don't recall seeing in any of the extremely sparse "easy edit" topics, but I haven't gone through the topics with more than eight or ten eligible articles. It would be nice if there were some indication on the article itself what topic(s) Suggested Edits places it in: right now it's just guess and browse, so discoverability prior to disruption is difficult. Folly Mox (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I just tried clicking through to a Suggested Edit from the "copyedit" task, and the guidance being shown to newcomers is still the inappropriate "small fix to the way an article is written, such as spelling, grammar, or the clarity of the text" guidance, unchanged from April 2022. (Sources for this guidance in the link; it's in the Mediawiki namespace.) It doesn't mention the specific cleanup tag triggering the article's eligibility for the newcomer task, nor encyclopaedic tone, nor ENGVAR. I didn't complete an edit through the Suggested Edits feature to see what it says about edit summaries.
        I get that the feature is intended to get people from zero edits to one and two and maybe a bit further, and we don't want to overwhelm zero-edit accounts with the whole of the MOS, but certainly some realignment can be made in terms of how they're being introduced to editing versus what we expect editing to look like. Posted whilst still waking up. Folly Mox (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I had spotted U.N.C.L.E. from reviewing the contributions histories and had wondered about it, and presumably 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 had, too. Modesty forbade mention, obviously. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Me: people actually want to get university degrees in... statistics?!?
      • Statisticians: people actually want to get university degrees in... reading novels?!?--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sockfarm at Loki (season 2)

Can an admin take a look at [59] and take care of the ~20 redlinked sockpuppets? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the list of users is:

• Benjaminvx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BobDylan4523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BruceSpringsteen2355u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dohungduy1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dothihamy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dssamsungds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ElvisPresley001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hamas101123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimihendrixfan5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LadyGaga19218614 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Madonna003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MichaelJackson002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nguyenngocngan02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nguyenthithuy1107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TaylorSwift15244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tranngocanh08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tranthanhduy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Trantomyu8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WhitneyHouston4753 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikiblog872 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikibrowser71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Pedantic Aristotle

• Pedantic Aristotle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pedantic Aristotle exclusively edits topics related to Argentine politics and is involved in edit wars across multiple articles. The content disputes revolve around the candidates and parties of the Argentine general election (run-off is on 19 November).

Pedantic Aristotle routinely blanks sourced content from articles, especially passages that offer criticism of Javier Milei, or characterizations of him or his party as "far-right" or "ultraconserative". In turn, he repeatedly adds "Fascism" and "Peronist Fascist" as ideologies of Milei's opponent and his party, almost always over the objections of other editors. The edit summaries, when they occur, are frequently misleading, misstating what was actually changed or claiming that there was talk page consensus when there wasn't. Talk page discussions suffer from WP:IDHT type responses.

Edit warring occurs across multiple articles. Often two or three editors are reverting Pedantic Aristotle, who continuously restores his preferred versions. These diffs are from the past week or two. Most are reverts or reinsert content that was removed by other editors.

• Javier Milei

3 November: Blanks mention of political party and national deputy status; changes "achieved notoriety" to "Milei initially gained prominence as an economist and the author of multiple books on economics and politics, before he rose to political prominence." "updated intro as per Talk page"

3 November: After being reverted, restores his edits. [no edit summary]

3 November: Reverts again and blanks party membership. [no edit summary]

3 November: Blanking of sourced political positions. "removed duplicate information"

3 November: Reverts again, to a version that omits his political party, blanks mentions of plagiarism. "restored the version that had no content removal"

3 November: Reverts again, blanking mention of plagiarism. "readded the missing content as per Talk page"

6 November: Describes political opponent Sergio Massa as "from the Peronist fascism coalition". "added a clarification of Sergio Massa, as this may not be well known outside of Argentina"

• La Libertad Avanza

28 October: Changes lead from "right-wing to far-right political coalition" to "Libertarian political coalition", blanks mentions of right-wing populism, erases sourced content of "conservative and ultraconservative tendency on social and cultural issues", erases sources being used to support "far-right", adds the party's mission statement "fixed some content"

2 November: Removes sourced mention of ultraconservatism "lacks source"

2 November: Removes sourced content "with a conservative and ultraconservative tendency on social and cultural issues" [no edit summary]

2 November: Removes sourced content "labelled as far right" "fixed content according to source"

2 November: Removes sourced content "conservative and ultraconservative tendency on social and cultural issues" [no edit summary]

2 November: Removes sourced content "labelled as far right" "fixed content according to source"

2 November: Removes "right-wing to far-right" from lead "reduced repetition of words"

2 November Removes sourced content "has taken paleolibertarian, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, Argentine nationalist, and anti-communist positions." "unsourced, these sources seems to point to people rather than the political alliance?"

6 November: After being reverted, restores all the new edits from 2 November. "restored last consensus version"

9 November: After being reverted, again restores the new edits from 2 November. "removed unsourced and questionable content that has no consensus. if you want to include it, find consensus in Talk page"

10 November: Reverts again. "please check the sources again, the content you keep adding back to the article is not verifiable through the sources used"

11 November: Restores preferred version, removes "right-wing to far-right" from lead "removed unsourced content, please open a discussion in Talk page for these content additions"

• Peronism

3 November: Adds "Ideologically it has been described as fascist." to the lead paragraph.

3 November: After being reverted, restores the phrase.

11 November: Adds "Ideologically its been described as a Latin American form of fascism" to the lead paragraph.

• Renewal Front

3 November: Adds "Ideologically it belongs to Peronist facism." to the lead paragraph. "improved lead, with better sources"

6 November: Adds Fascism to the ideologies in the infobox and restores "Ideologically it belongs to Peronist fascism." to the lead paragraph. "added a clarification of Peronism, as this may not be well known outside of Argentina"

• Juan Perón

6 November: Minor edit, adds Category:Argentine fascists and Category:Fascist politicians. [no edit summary]

11 November: Restores the fascist categories. "there may be disagreement, but it is verifiable that he is categorized as fascist by many, thus the category is appropriate"

• Sergio Massa

6 November: Adds a 'Public image' section to the article solely with the content "According to investigative journalist Christian Sanz, Massa is a very dangerous person. In his book, "Massa confidencial", he describes how Sergio Massa has ties to drug trafficking and people disappearing. He further describes how Sergio Massa has access to an unusual amount of money, and has purchased several expensive properties, one valued at 8 million USD." "added a paragraph on the book about Massa, by Christian Sanz"

• Union for the Homeland

3 November: Adds Fascism to the ideologies in the infobox. [no edit summary]

3 November: Reverts, adds Fascist to political ideologies (sourced to a 1973 book, for a political coalition established in 2023). "added sources"

6 November: Restores Fascism to infobox, adds "based on the Peronist branch of fascism" to the lead paragraph. "added a clarification of Peronism, as this may not be well known outside of Argentina"

This editing pattern goes back to when the account was created in August. I'm also concerned about potential socking. A DR/N discussion between Pedantic Aristotle and Davide King for example demonstrates a fluency in policy and markup well beyond that of an editor with only a few days of experience. Pedantic Aristotle was previously blocked for a 3RR violation and has received warnings about edit warring and disruptive editing. An attempt to resolve the matter was not successful. The editor has been informed of this discussion here.

Courtesy pings for editors involved in previous discussions: ToBeFree, HapHaxion, Aoidh, Cambalachero, Vipz, Wow

gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I briefly spent time at the Milei article doing some CE and also noticed this user's edits. Unlike OP, I do not believe he's a sock or an experienced editor (in the same DR/N discussion he cites we can see that he forgot to notify the opposing party, which is usually a rookie mistake), but I agree that his conduct is sub-par. On the one hand, the constant adding of puffery is blatant PoV pushing, and is often done without regard to the overall picture of the individual (for instance, labelling someone a "prominent" economist when they have a Scopus Hirsch index of 0 is hardly justified – most of his articles apparently were published in regional journals while other works of his were published by a Libertarian press or by more "popular", rather than an academic, publishing houses) and sometimes explicitly contra sources. I am also concerned about the way he sources his claims, and the quality of the sources he uses, particularly given the fact that he's editing around sensitive topics. More worryingly, however, the suggestion that Milei's rival in the next elections leads a fascist coalition nails the trifecta of unsourced, false and BLPvio. Ostalgia (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the content and choice of phrasing. E.g. that Peronism is a branch of fascism is being discussed and is well sourced. Argentina has a long history with fascism, but i think people are confusing it with the extremist versions of it, including racist elements etc, which is not included in Argentinian politics. I find it odd you would react to the word prominence=famous, but not the word notoriety=famous, when he became known in Argentina through his TV appearances as an economist.

The articles Javier Milei and La Libertad Avanza suffer from rather extreme bias by certain editors, and contain a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I have actually bothered to read all the sources, and check the verifiability of statements, which I suspect certain other editors are not doing. In several cases, the content appears intentionally misleading WP:NOTFALSE.

@Gobonobo has in particular been WP:Stonewalling every attempt at improving the articles, and has not participated in any content discussion on either Javier Milei or La Libertad Avanza. The editor even went so far as to blank and link hijack a spin-off article, to favor their own version rather than discuss how to improve the articles;

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1182023220

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_views_of_Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1182011968 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Your summary appears quite one-sided and misleading. I'll try to briefly comment;

Javier Milei 3 November edits:

The lead has been discussed, and there has been consensus to improve the lead, although many of the discussions are now archived, there is a new thread on the Talk page where there has been no objections or comments. I further made adjustments based on your comments here, Talk:Javier_Milei#New_political_positions_section, and corrected the things you highlighted.

La Libertad Avanza edits:

The discussion dates even further back than October 28th. The content in question is not supported by the sources, and has either been corrected according to what the source states, and removed in cases there is no support for it. Then you re-add the content without discussing it on the Talk page, which you at multiple times have ask me to do in other articles. Then you claim I'm the one adding content.

Peronism/Peron/Massa;

This is also discussed on the talk pages, and i have made updated proposals based on inputs from other editors. Amongst others, there is a source from 2018 discussing Fascism with modern Peronist politics. I'm baffled that this is even disputed, but there may be room for further improved phrasing, which there already has been some iterations on. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, those listed edits are problematic. I do not want to start yet another back-and-forth discussion, so I will just say I assume good faith but would have only supported a revised lead we worked together as a compromise (it was not done yet, I was waiting for other users to weight in, then I stopped going to the talk page and edit the article because I was expecting a ping to my last comment since I was not watching the page and I had other articles to take care of, and I am now scared to go watch what happened), certainly not their whole re-structuring and other edits, including to related articles. As for sockpuppeting, I am conflicted because on one hand they showed a clear lack of policy guidelines about Wikipedia, and on the other hand showed some knowledge a newbie usually do not have. I wish it was because they did listen to my suggestions and links, not because they are a sockpuppeter. :-) More than the alleged sockupppeting, I find troubling the pattern, which is in line with my interactions with them, showed by gobonobo and the fact they appear to be a single-purpose account. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and appreciated you taking the time to guide me in the beginning, i certainly made a few mistakes. The lead is more or less the one that was discussed then. The improvements to the article simply stopped after the extended protection, so not much has changed since those discussions, and I've updated the articles according to the state it was in when discussions stopped. You are more than welcome to check and comment.

Particularly the Javier Milei article is in a really bad shape, and i find it troubling how some editors are using every tactic to prevent it from being fixed. If only they would participate in discussions on the content, this would not appear as WP:BRDWRONG. Its also troubling how the same editors appear in the articles for the political opposition, editing with a different set of policies. Its an unusual level of bias, but it is consistent with the standard political practices in Argentina, so I'm not really surprised. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Including courtesy ping for User:Czello Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Ngunalik

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 § User:Ngunalik

After discussion about Ngunalik edits on Ateker peoples, Kumam people, and Lango people. She continued to add her old edits with an unreliable travel guide website despite being told that her edits are not credible by any scholars nor linguists. She continued for the past few days to add back her edits to these three articles. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• The user talk page is not very inspiring, we might need a block here. Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• This doesn't really agree with the diffs that I see:
  • Special:Diff/1093629022 — Added in June 2022 sans source
  • Special:Diff/1182488894 — Challenged and removed in October 2023
  • Special:Diff/1183851706 — Re-added in November 2023 this time with an attempt at sourcing
  • Special:Diff/1184878897 — Removed again, now with the claim that the source is bad, in November 2023
• This seems to be the usual they-want-a-source-how-about-a-WWW-page-that-I-found-with-a-search-engine process. It's all-too-common, but what it is not is repeatedly adding edits with a travel guide. It has happened once in that article, over a period of a year and a half. I'm not sure that we should be leaping for administrator tools unless the next edits are edit warring, because this is actually very clearly an attempt to address sourcing concerns. It's just not enough.

  And Ymblanter, you are looking in the wrong place. Try Special:Diff/1183215993 and Special:Diff/1183237408. Also see Special:Diff/1182501376 where Cookiemonster1618 takes the tack of characterizing this as "vandalism" and then at Special:Diff/1182516056 actually reports good faith but wrong attempts to provide a source for a challenged fact as vandalism, rightly declined by Bbb23. If there's an editor that doesn't know how to interact with other editors around here, we might have to be looking more in the direction of Cookiemonster1618. And I should note that this was pointed out by Robby.is.on, C.Fred, and HandThatFeeds last time that this was here. This repeated heavy-handed call for administrator intervention when the right approach was exemplified by C.Fred last time around is not on. And Schazjmd could have been less oblique about academic-accelerator.

  Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  • No, this is indeed not vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm concerned this is being dragged back to ANI, again with an inaccurate description of the events in question. Cookiemonster1618 seems to be running to the admins when it's not really appropriate. Continued improper reporting may require more serious action. At the moment, a warning / WP:TROUTing is probably sufficient.

    That said, Ngunalik has been a member here since 2011, so the lack of understanding around reliable sourcing is troubling, and might be a WP:CIR issue. Their edit history seems narrowly focused on Uganda & related pages. Not really a red flag, but maybe they need to expand their horizons a bit if they're still having trouble with sourcing after over a decade of small edits here and there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi guys. This editor 1618 has an attitude of edit-waring and I have picked that up within other articles. The references I have added are references which are already in the articles, they simply back what other editors have already written in those articles. It is not only travel sites I have quoted. This editor 1618 deleted the sources then added his own edits in southern luo language, where today he/she has added Lango and Kumam as part of southern luo language, then referenced it as the reliable source - is this normal? He/she cannot give us independent so called reliable source any where stating that Lango language is a Luo language, other than an old ethnologue once quoted. The purpose of the new articles in Lango, Kumam, Ateker is that these are not Luo (Lwo) groups as it was once thought or presented by ethnologue and other linguists. Before, wikipedia had Lango and Kumam all under Luo (Lwo) article. Then other editors started new articles with evidence that these are a separate groups and they speak mixtures of languages of Luo dialects and Ateker dialects. I am simply building on these then the editor 1618 reverts it, accuses me and places Lango plus Kumam back under Luo group detatching the argument detailed in the pages of Ateker or Kumam on wikipedia. Please search these articles and you will see for yourself. Thanks ~~ Ngunalik (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • you have been told that your edits are not sourced with a reliable source and that you add information to these articles with either an unreliable source like a travel guide website or you add information that is not sourced. At this point you should just get blocked because it's ridiculous. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The reason ive brought it here because everytime i leave a warning on her talk page she talks back and when i report her to the adminstrators theres no action taken. This isnt her first time being involved in these kind of edits. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • @Cookiemonster1618 There is no point reasoning with someone like you. I leave that for other people to see who you are. Ngunalik (talk) Ngunalik (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • So your problem is that someone communicates when approached on xyr talk page? That's absurd. The problem here appears to be you, with heavy-handed approaches, which you've even continued above with that "you should just get blocked" stuff. C.Fred showed the right thing to do, which is to explain, not threaten. You should be taking this approach. And I see that Special:Diff/1184877445 is you adding things in this very topic area without sources. Do you want sauce for the goose to be sauce for the gander? No more heavy-handed threats, please, and practice what you preach. Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      Since when did i threaten her lol? Ive left her a warning before and we had a long reply comment section on why her edits are not credible to these articles and she kept threatening me saying that i should get blocked. Yet im the one who's thretening her? You saw the edits she added on those three articles yet your blaming me? Woww the administrators who saw the evidence yet they are blaming me and saying im threatening another user. All i can say is that you have seen the evidence for yourselves by her edits at Kumam people, Ateker peoples, and Kumam dialect. I rest my case here. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      @Cookiemonster1618 could you please stop referring me to a "her" or "she" I do not intend to reason with you any further. Thanks~ Ngunalik (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      No need for you to reason anyways because i wasnt even talking to you. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      For the record i did explain at the beginning when i brought this report 12 hours ago but apparently you seem to be focused on my replies to Ngunalik and not the evidences that was shown by Uncle G. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      The source for that was Ethnologue which anyone who is subscribed can see, if you go to Ethnologue you will see the Language Classification under the Language itself with the Language family and its branches I added what Ethnologue says. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      btw for my edits at Special:Diff/1184877445 they were originally there but Ngunalik removed it along with Kumam on August 12 you can see the edit history yourself for evidence also most sources state this as well so my edit over there was not a problem. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm somewhere between "let's all sit down for a cuppa and relax" and "let's put everybody in timeout" on this one. We have Cookiemonster1618 making a report that features the concern, [Ngunalik] continued for the past few days to add back [their] edits to these three articles. However, they have not provided any diffs to show where Ngunalik has done this.
  It would be very easy to take the approach of Ngunalik being innocent, except for the repeated comments along the lines of I do not intend to reason with you any further. If the two editors were willing to discuss the matter on article talk pages, remain civil, and focus on content and policies, we wouldn't need to be here.
  Instead, if we use the analogy of two children, whenever one child makes any mistake, we have the other child immediately tatting to their parents (the admins) over every little things. Hence CM's latest report over the edits that are adding the same material but apparently trying new sources to support it.
  I'd like to see both Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik work together on this matter, because if there's administrative action to be taken, neither of you will be happy, because you'll both get sanctioned with an interaction ban and/or a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic-ban requested for User:Jayvrr at Chandragupta Maurya

Persistent pov-pushing at Chandragupta Maurya, replacing "Brahmanism" with "Jainism" as Chandragupta's religion: diff, diff, diff, diff.
Sources mention Brahmanism; reference 9 also provides an explanatory quote; issue has been debated ad infinitum at talkpage (with "Hinduism" as the alternatibe pov-pushing):

• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya#Brahmanism versus Hinduism
• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya#Religion of Chandragupta Maurya
• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya#Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023
• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2#Religion
• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2#Religion (continued)
• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2#
• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2#Religion (#3)

Editor has received multiple warnings link to talkpage-history; Enough waste of time, please a topic-ban for Jayvrr. Pinging RegentsPark for input. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them from the Chandragupta Maurya page for one week and warned them. RegentsPark (comment) 12:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

IP-hopping anonymous AfD-closing vandal

An IPV6 editor has been closing AfDs including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvine Kamaha, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nkosazana Daughter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Declaration, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Rinaldi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardik Gohel (now properly closed), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Knob (New York), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeWiki. So far three /64s (with different geolocation) have been blocked but I'm not convinced how effective that might be, and some of the badly-closed AfDs may have been removed from deletion sorting lists before getting unclosed. I'm signing off for the evening but others here might want to consider the tradeoff between semiprotecting AfDs against this kind of vandalism versus locking anonymous editors out of the actual discussions, the likelihood that the vandal will just move on to other AfDs, and what else might be done to protect against this kind of vandalism. An edit filter against anonymous AfD closing, maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Heh! You drew my attention to one of those discussions and as I was addressing a further point in the discussion after mine the person without an account did it again at Special:Diff/1184898956. Materialscientist, your 2600:1006:b13d:f57::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) rangeblock hasn't worked. The same person is back in 2600:1006:B111:6D06::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Robtex hints that it's probably a 2600:1006:b110::/44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Uncle G (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Now back as 75.112.74.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've reverted on the discussions where I'm not a participant. Uncle G (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Given IP's can't close AfDs per WP:NACD, can we set up an edit filter that triggers when an unregistered editor adds an AfD close template to a discussion? Daniel (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support per nom, and likewise for other XfD categories should evidence come up of similar violations in the past or future. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? I can't understand why you people are upset about me closing AfD discussions according to consensus. It not like I don't know what I'm doing and I'm trying to mess things up here. --Anonymous (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.89.168 (talk)

Can I suggest an admin temporary pblock 2600:1006:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 75.112.64.0/18, from Wikipedia space. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Maybe we should discuss this first? --Anonymous (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've full-blocked 2600:1006:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 75.112.64.0/18, as there's a lot of disruptive editing elsewhere too. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Eh, the IP has been told multiple times that only registered accounts can close afds, but keeps acting like they haven't been told it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that given this edit, the IP appears to have been evading a block since the beginning from User:Hasnainbv . Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, and they removed my !vote while closing... XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Itsjustluck

• Itsjustluck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accused another editor of liking "child porn" [60]. They were subsequently warned and had that accusation removed from their talk page but then reverted those changes. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  The editor repeatedly cited irrelevant rules to vandalize my edits regarding a high profile figure that does not believe child pornography harms children. My citation was a direct quote from the twitter of a living person

  I was repeatedly harassed and falsely accused of using poor citations even when I pointed out WP:BLPSELFPUB allows for citations of direct quotes of living persons.

  JaggedHampster and others have been harassing me and vandalizing my talk page and pretending to be admins. Itsjustluck (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to pretend (although it's perfectly fine for ordinary editors to point to the no personal attacks policy). Editing privileges are gone for the personal attacks, as is talk page access as they were done on the accounts own user talk page. Repeating the bad faith assumption accusations of vandlism on this very noticeboard was merely the icing on the cake. Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You didn't link to the correct diff: [61]. This incident was apparently provoked by this edit, where Itsjustluck added sensitive BLP claims with a primary source and a non-RS (CoinDesk). In any event, Itsjustluck is blocked now with no talk page access and failed WP:UTRS appeal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Marino13 and personal attacks

Marino13 (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks towards me since about April 2023. I reverted the aforementioned editor when it changed WP:DATEFORMAT at Vladislav Gavrikov for no apparent reason (the same was also done at Anže Kopitar). I wrote a friendly message at User talk:Marino13#Date format at Vladislav Gavrikov where I explained why date formats should not be changed. However, the editor ignored it and repeated the date format change at Adrian Kempe after which was again warned at User talk:Marino13#Date Format Ludicrousism (the original title of the discussion was "April 2023", but Marino13 changed it to current title). The editor then attempted to force his way regarding dates at MOS:NUM with this edit, which was instantly reverted. Since the disagreements and warnings regarding dates the editor started a "personal attacks" campaign against me. Examples:

• 30 April 2023 (first personal attack)
• 4 August 2023 (second personal attack after I reverted this edit twice at Jaromír Jágr)
• 24 September 2023 (third personal attack in which the editor "agrees" with 164.76.13.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is a sockpuppet of Moka Mo)
• 29 September 2023 (fourth personal attack after this I warned the editor on its talk page on 30 September 2023, but that was reverted with a fifth personal attack on 27 October 2023)
• 6 November 2023 (sixth personal attack, which is obviously directed at me)
• 8 November 2023 (seventh personal attack, which is obviously directed at me)
• 12 November 2023 (eighth and most recent personal attack where Marino13 has a discussion with an IP editor who is evidently another sockpuppet of Moka Mo). Meanwhile, the block-evading IP editor is making accusations, personal attacks and threats towards me at User talk:Marino13#Anze Kopitar edit (with the encouragement from Marino13), because it was caught as being a sockpuppet of Moka Mo.

And I am not even mentioning various other problems with Marino13 who is obviously WP:NOTHERE. – sbaio 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we got block evasion by the IP for sure. [62] --ARoseWolf 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Leaving aside the issue of sockpuppetry—which I assume we're not accusing M13 of?—I'm having a hard time reading any of those diffs as actually personal attacks, with the exception perhaps of 'meddler'; although this is so mild it surely doesn't need ANI. I also agree that suggesting someone is 'triggered' verges on questioning their mental health, and I'm sure a quiet word from a wiki-colleague would let them see that. 'Harrasser' might seem rude, but when a 13-year-old account gets templated, I'd suggest that's a pretty calm response: see WP:DNTTR. Ultimately, these diffs do not prove at all that they are NOTTHERE, one of the most serious accusations one can make. And ironically, accusations, without clear evidence, are themselves considered aspersions. I don't think anyone's covering themselves in glory here. ——Serial 16:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(And re. the logged-out socking, I agree that, if nothing else, it's pretty bad optics to be seen making friends with fully 'fessed up socks and agreeing with them, let alone taking their side. While it's not an offence as such, it's contrary to the spirit of WP:DENY and in no way helps one's case in times like these; quite the opposite. Judgment is a call. ——Serial 16:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC))

Absolutely agree on all points made. --ARoseWolf 17:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Don’t listen to sbaios stuff. He’s just mad that we are exposing the truth. I was falsely accused of being a sock puppet simply because some edits of mine a couple months ago were similar to another person who was blocked. He is saying I am the same person moka mo. I am not the same person and whenever I try to reason with him or try to prove my innocence, he either ignores me or gaslights me and victim blaming by saying stuff like “stop rambling” or “stop wasting everyone’s time” and much more hurtful and demeaning things. Like what do you mean, I am a completely different person and like 99% of my edits were perfectly rational. Mot of my edits were corrections to small grammar issues or false information like for example, in Daniel Sedin, it says that Martin St. Louis was a Ted Lindsay finalist when the truth is it was actually Stamkos who was nominated along with Perry and Sedin not St. Louis. St. Louis was a hart finalist but the Ted Lindsay Award is a completely different thing. He is just mad because I hurt his feelings but the truth is whenever I make the littlest edits he immediately reverts them without consulting the one who initially made it. He is power hungry and is trying to make Wikipedia toxic rather than inclusive and welcoming like it should. My name is Ethan Parker which sounds nothing like Moka Mo does it? I didn’t even know my edits were similar to moka mo until after I got confronted about this. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• I am very well aware of WP:DNTTR, but this editor is not a regular since the account was created back in 2012 and has a mere 1,903 edits as of this comment (not to mention multiple warnings from other editors through the years).
• ...these diffs do not prove at all that they are NOTTHERE, one of the most serious accusations one can make... – the diffs are about personal attacks, which you do not see for some reason. In addition, edit summaries like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this quite clearly show that Marino13 is not interested to be collaborative (so that is precisely WP:NOTHERE).
• Other editors (Conyo14 and Ravenswing) have warned Marino13 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings–Golden Knights rivalry to stop his WP:NOTHERE behavior so I am not making baseless accusations (like you are implying). – sbaio 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• I saw Ravenswing's and Ravensfire's comments; they're both editors I respect, and coincidentally I supported them in a thread a little further up. But the difference is that their comments were timely and addressed at the right level, unlike here. For example, no one has said your accusations are baseless, merely that they don't amount to the egregious behavioral problem AN/I is intended for. And I have looked at that swathe of diffs you have presented in the hope's of backing your argument up; I'm afraid they don't. (Since when were Clunky? What did you think I was trying to edit?, Adding more context to the date situation. A serious problem here on Wikipedia, Now do you get my point?!, Neither is meddling with other users' edits personal attacks, for example?) This is mere diff mining, and not only do they not support your case, they undermine the integrity of it. Identify troublesome editors by all means—within procedure, that's useful work—but I suggest you present a stronger case when doing so. ——Serial 18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• The diffs in my last reply were about WP:NOTHERE and not about personal attacks. Therefore, I think you misunderstood my last sentence (And I am not even mentioning various other problems with Marino13 who is obviously WP:NOTHERE), which was about other problems and not personal attacks. – sbaio 18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  With no evidence of personal attacks, the "other problems" amount to nothing. This section can be closed as non-actionable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

For the last time, I am NOT moka mo. I don’t know who that even is. My name is ETHAN. DOES THAT SOUND ANYTHING LIKE MOKA MO TO YOU? Just cause some of my edits looked similar it doesn’t mean I’m that same person. 99% of my edits were perfectly good in fact when I mention milestones or make corrections to the littlest errors another person made. You put this on yourself for your demeaning behavior towards innocent people like myself by abusing your power as an administrator. Wikipedia should be an inclusive platform for everyone and not a toxic one where people get accused of sock puppetting for absolutely no reason. Whenever I try to talk to you you ignore me or gaslight me so you surely put this on yourself. Maybe if you were to just cooperate with me and hear me out then you wouldn’t be getting called out like this. The truth hurts sometimes but you sir are being abusive with people like me by playing mind games with me and taking full control of your own gain. Continuing to ignore the truth and admit that it was all a misunderstanding and still be apart of a charade just because of an investigation is unacceptable. Try owning up to your actions cause if you did, people won’t be complaining about you and how toxic Wikipedia can be for some people. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

In this message you said you were looking to get your "original account unblocked". What account is that? City of Silver 19:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Gymrat16! This user is claiming that a small handful of my edits were similar to moka mo but the truth is I am a completely different person and like 98-99% of my edits were perfectly rational and when I try to talk to him, he ignores me and gaslights me. So if it is possible I was hoping to get my account unblocked and then get sbaio blocked because of how he is treating certain people like me. This behavior is not ok and people who do it should have consequences. We want Wikipedia to be a place where everyone is welcome and everyone can do their best to improve something on it rather than harm it or completely blind someone of what they wrote. I joined to take part in the community and be apart of it while sbaio is here just to play mind games and gaslight people like myself. Thanks for skiing this and hopefully this matters and proposals are considered because whenever I try to appeal and plain myself there they do the same thing either ignore me or victim blame me. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn’t make such a request because I think Wikipedia should be welcoming for all people and people should be able to work together and talk to each other if something goes on but this sbaio guy isn’t doing any of these things and is victim blaming me even after I try to prove my true self and gaslight me rather than simply own up to his actions and admit it was all a misunderstanding. I want peace to be made not conflict while he is only trying to create conflict 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think The Hand That Feeds You has summed the situation up succinctly (far more than me!); I assume the IP will get themselves rangeblocked or something. It seems a curious thing, to announce one's socking at ANI, but, horses for courses I guess. ——Serial 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. IP /64 range blocked for 72 hours for the admitted block evasion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh indeed. --ARoseWolf 19:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Not the first time someone came here demanding their account be unblocked, but it still hurts my head a little each time it happens. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)