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)

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)

• Support 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)
• 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)

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)

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.

Iterresise's MEATBOT behavior removing template from articles,changing DAB page layouts, etc.

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

---

I have to draw attention to Iterresise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is going on a pogrom against transclusions of a particular template ({{Crossreference}}) that the editor doesn't like; see recent contribution history which consists of little but deletion of this template at page after page, with a copy-pasted opinion "unnecessary" or "not necessary" as the robotic so-called rationale.

The editor vented at me personally about this template, in rather less than cogent terms, but has as far as I can determine sought no consensus at all, other than a single brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Note that ..., It is important to ..., Surprisingly ..., Of course ..., which is characterized by a very strange (and refuted) claim that such cross-references are not "ever permissible". Iterresise certainly did not get any consensus there to mass-remove this template, and has opened no discussions I can find about removing it at any of the targeted articles, nor opened a WP:TFD discussion about the template, or otherwise done anything that might ultimately come to support his position. Whether the template should be removed in some particular case is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page, and few people would object to removing it unilaterally in a case where a rationale makes a clear showing that it is unhelpful. But robotically deleting it over and over again at page after page is clearly WP:MEATBOT behavior with no consensus behind it.

This is not the only WP:FAITACCOMPLI activity by this editor. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Or variants: Iterresise again went on a sweep, this time of changing disambiguation pages to a new lead/intro format this editor invented, then after the fact came to WT:DAB to "propose" the change, only to be met with consistent resistance. The editor is engaging in a long-winded WP:ICANTHEARYOU pattern (not listening to reasons why his proposal is not practical, and instead just repeating the propsal again as if no objections were raised), and battleground behavior there, has not undone the mess he made, and insists "I see no harm in removing 'or variants' language at this time" [4], which is difficult to read as anything but a declaration that he's going to continue no matter what. Then he histrionically complains that multiple editors disagreeing with him amounts to "WP:TAGTEAMING" [5]. This brings to mind WP:COMPETENCE: an editor has to be able to understand how the WP:Consensus process works, and that being disagreed with is not being personally attacked.

The editor then engaged in an actual WP:TAGTEAM / WP:GANG behavior, by going through my talk page looking for other people I've had disagreements with, and attempted to recruit one of them to join him in opposing me [6], which is small-scale WP:CANVASSING, and more victim posturing.

This is several kinds of not-okay behavior. At a bare minimum, I think the editor needs to be required to undo the mass changes they made to the templating at various articles and the mass changes they made to disambiguation pages, and narrowly topic-banned from making any more such changes, unless and until there is an actual consensus to implement such sweeping alterations.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: This editor is one who routinely blanks out any crticism or complaint posted to his talk page, but the issues are worth a review: [7][8][9][10][11] A fairly long litany of objectionable unilateral actions, followed generally by nothing (there or anywhere else) that resembles an attempt to establish a consensus for what the editor wants to do. I even checked the talk pages of every single article mentioned in these complaints, and Iterresise only posted to one of them. This was after he engaged in the WP:POINT behavior of removing the most famous prog-rock band in the world from List of progressive rock artists[12]; their sole discussion input was to ask "The entry for rush doesn't have a real reference. Why is it included? I already sent a message on the reverter's talk page."[13] (Tracked that edit down, too, and it's more unreasonable hostility [14], taking someone to task for citing an album.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a long post so I will have to respond point by point.

In this post, user:SMcCandlish has already started off to insult me with the phrase "in rather less than cogent terms". Rather than speaking to me personally first on my talk page about his concerns, he files a bad faith complaint against me. Iterresise (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"come to support his position": There is no further need to defend any of my positions. I have already discussed with good faith my concerns in any proposal I made. I am not sure which specific issue he has with me now that he didn't have with me before. Iterresise (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"is clearly WP:MEATBOT behavior with no consensus": I don't see this as relevant per WP:BRD. Iterresise (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

SMcCandlish posts the following rude and disrespectful statement: "This is a discussion, not an article, and we don't need citations to simply have a discussion. But if you want to be a WP:WIKILAWYER and try to WP:WIN every discussion you get into with pointless arguments and bluster, instead of employing common sense and considering that some people may actually know something you don't, and instead want to make out like they're blatantly lying to you, here you go:". Now he posts about my WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. He was asked to give it up since I have exhausted all my options. He was asked to give it up a second time but instead he continues to assume bad faith and to make this post here to continue the bad faith. He was respectfully asked to assume good faith.

[edit conflict] Now he makes this post here to mischaracterize all the discussions I've had. There's nothing here but, in his words, bluster. Iterresise (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This really clearly illustrates the WP:COMPETENCE problem. This is an editor who interprets any disagreement with their reasoning as an "insult" and repeatedly makes accusations of "bad faith" in response to such criticism or disagreement. Anyone who has difficulties doing the very basic compartmentalizing of "I am not the idea I proposed and the idea I proposed is not me" is going to cause problems here. I assume the problems are mitigable in this case by just preventing the editor for continuing the disruptive meatbot behavior; collaborative competence actually can be learned over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going through your head. I've been respectful and patient but you've exhausted all of that. Iterresise (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And I'm not interested in engaging in a bunch of back-and-forth banter with you. The point of opening an ANI discussion is to get community input on a problem (in this case FAITACCOMPLI + MEATBOT activity, to which your alleged respectfulness and patience are irrelevant), not to engage in two-party bickering.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then read up on WP:CIVIL. I got off your talk page and then you followed me to user:Infinity Knight's talk page. You are not obligated to opine. You were disrespectful to him too. I think it would be in your best interests if you were to impose a selfblock via wikibreak. Iterresise (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

More continued incivility with the edit summary hand waving Iterresise (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Iterresise is prevaricating. He pinged me directly to Infinity Knight's talk page. And the above comment interpreting my objection to their engaging in hand-waving behavior as "incivility" is further demonstration of the COMPETENCE problem. This is an editor who simply cannot brook any criticism; if you criticize any aspect of their actions, behavior, or ideas, you are necessarily attacking them personally. This viewpoint is fundamentally at odds with how WP operates, though I remain open to the idea that a more competent approach can be learned, as long as we don't have to put up with disruptive meatbot activity until that evolution as an editor comes about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not prevaricating. What evidence to you have that I am? Which sense are you employing? Well of course I pinged him on to his talk page. I found your characterization of his actions to be disrespectful. Otherwise I would have pinged him on my talk page. Was that what he would have preferred after he told me to stay off his talk page?

You stated on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Or_variants:

• "and you're going round in circles with a bunch of hand-waving"
• "Repeating me back to myself but adding nothing to it other than vague handwaving like "you have misunderstood" without explaining any such alleged misunderstanding, is not an argument, it's just noise" [own emphasis]

This is 3 times total use of the word "handwaving". If you look at the article: it is disrespectful. So why use it? Is this more disrespect with the word "noise"? Iterresise (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

And again we're right back to the underlying competence problem: criticism is not "disrespect". No one is owed special "respect" here, just the equal respect of regular human dignity. Iterresise is clearly looking for the deference sort of respect, and seems not realize he is just one among a vast sea of equals, any of whom may raise concerns about edits and unconstructive behavior patterns. For this editor, any criticism is a reason to dig in and battleground repetitively. When someone is at ANI for meatbot and fait accompli actions and avoids addressing these actions (even after an administrative warning to stop them, because they've continued during this ANI), never indicates any understanding why they were disruptive, but instead verbally waves their hands around trying desperately to distract people away from the topic of the ANI with claims of victimhood, this is absolutely, positively, unmistakably handwaving. "Do not look at the man behind the curtain", turned up to 11. So is pinging me to a talk page and then trying to make me out as having been wiki-stalking him. Same with implication that I've falsely accused him of something ("What evidence to you have that I am?", after I already provided the diff [15]). And so on. I am starting to doubt my own belief in this user's behavior probably improving over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Iterresise, on the face of it, your editing spree as described above on multiple articles, seems highly disruptive to Wikipedia and blockable. Is there any forum where you can show consensus has been obtained to undertake these mass changes? (May I also request you to desist from making any such or newly found changes you might wish to make on a mass basis until these discussions have been concluded?) Thank you, Lourdes 08:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is this with regards to WP:MEATBOT? It says: "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity". The issue is whether the quality of the edit has been sacrificed. If I were to undo all the edits, that would mean that all the edits were not improvements which would contradict WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Iterresise (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please undo all your mass template-removal/template-change edits immediately. You do not understand the concept of BRD. You need to take consensus before undertaking mass edits. Anyway, please revert these immediately. Lourdes 09:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked for a consensus for these mass changes and I can't find one. They likely ought to be reverted. Can we get a script written to do that? I wouldn't fancy doing it manually.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• There is also something worrying about Iterresise's post on Infinity Knight's page mentioned above, where they ask Infinity Knight if SmcCandlish "has been disrespectful elsewhere". The notion that SmC was "disrespectful" to IK in the first place is far-fetched enough; asking for dirt from "elsewhere" is downright battleground-y. Bishonen | tålk 14:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC).

  Do you have any WP:diffs to show everyone that I made personal attacks against him? Iterresise (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Did I talk about you making personal attacks against anybody? (Hint: no.) Bishonen | tålk 11:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC).

  I took a look at User talk:SMcCandlish and I saw the comment that was written so I thought it was disrespectful. I didn't do further research. I just seemed disrespectful prima facie. Iterresise (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, on October 21 he ran around indiscriminately removing {{see above}} templates from articles at a rate of one every minute or two. Then the next day he went around doing the same thing with {{see below}}. His edits summaries were always "unnecessary", as if that meant something. He clearly isn't taking the time to actually judge the role of these templates in the reader's experience. He needs to find something else to do that actually improves things. EEng 16:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid#Note_that_...,_It_is_important_to_...,_What_is_...?,_Surprisingly_...,_Of_course_... specifically states: "Neutral cross-references, e.g. (See also Cymric cat.), are permissible (and best done with the {{crossreference}} template), but are often best reworded (The Cymric cat is a recent breed developed from the Manx.)."

  I've already have had objection here but followed the guidance by rewriting.

  Here, an editor objected to my concern and I am currently in discussion with him. Iterresise (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I guess I need to be more plain: Stop jumping from page to page removing random stuff you don't understand in obeisance to your simpleminded interpretation of random guidelines. Got it? EEng 08:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also, in the first of the above cases, it's Iterresise making a statement then unilaterally acting again without any input pro or con [16]. In the second, Iterresise misrepresented me as having said something in support of his removal actions, which I had to correct [17]; he has been met with no agreement on the talk page and is doing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU thing again with regard to clear and well-stated rationales for the template's use. It's as if because Iterresise has excercised his own pre-judgment that the template is an evil and the guideline must mean "always no matter what" where it says "often", the die is already cast.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Update: Here's the smoking gun on that: [18]. Since Iterresise doesn't like that the guideline says "often" instead of his preferred "not permissible", he's just proceeded as if it said what he wished it said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  User:EEng added "often". Maybe I am coming to understand the reasoning? Maybe it should be discussed there? There is an application of that section of the policy here but it might need to be rewritten. Iterresise (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever. Blind removal isn't "rewording". EEng 09:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish has captured Iterresise's editing and interaction patterns perfectly, and I wholeheartedly support their proposed actions: require Iterresise to undo the whole slew of dab intro and (Edit: I'm nearly done cleaning these up myself. 19:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)) cross-reference edits, and topic-ban them from same. I'm less optimistic about the potential of this editor to reform their attitude; the attempt to recruit Infinity Knight is particularly galling and suggests a scorched-earth mindset to me. I won't be surprised if this is not their last appearance at ANI. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly did I say I would keep doing? Iterresise (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"I see no harm in removing "or variants" language at this time." SMcCandlish and I both (reasonably) took that to mean you intended to continue. Whether you did or not, treating a warning not to continue as a personal attack is absurd and part of the reason you're here. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 17:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You have to be explicit with which warning you are referring to and where did I assume that it would be a personal attack? You should provide diffs because this abrasiveness is equally absurd. Iterresise (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything, since you know exactly which comments I'm talking about, and not a single person here is buying what you're selling. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Try reading the entire discussion, and absorbing it, and thinking carefully about what to do next, instead of picking things at random you don't like and then engaging in "I must get the last word" behavior. You were administratively warned, twice, days ago: [19][20]. And you need to stop this "poor me, I'm such a victim" act. No one is buying it. No one is being "abrasive" or otherwise inappropriate toward you (and you sure do like to make such accusations [21] any time you meet resistance or advice). You have been disruptive, on a pretty large scale, everyone is pointing that out to you, and you are just not getting it, even slightly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Iterresise, given your deliberate avoidance of answering my clear query above, let me issue this final administrative warning. In case you undertake any mass changes of any areas as mentioned in this discussion, you stand the chance of getting immediately and indefinitely blocked. Secondly, you do need to revert all the mass changes you have undertaken without consensus, and while having an IDHT attitude to multiple editors advising you to stop. Let me know if any part of this is unclear. Thank you, Lourdes 05:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify: I didn't go to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval for any of my edits. They were manually made, but are you asking me to undo template removal edits? There are specific improvements to articles such as testosterone. I don't understand why WP:BRD doesn't apply in this case. Iterresise (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Iterresise, BRD is for individual edits on a single page. The community cannot be investing time to go through mass edits and discuss each and every edit with you. It doesn't matter whether you believe there are specific improvements that you made to articles. Please undo all your template-removal/template-changing edits as you have not discussed them before undertaking these controversial edits. It is good that you are discussing these here though. Thank you in advance for undertaking this. Lourdes 09:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Swpb is the one proposing me to undo the edits. His discourse with me is excessively abrasive. Is it possible to ignore his request? Iterresise (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's not just swpb who is asking you to revert your edits, many other editors are as well, including Lourdes, who is an admin, immediately above! And no you can't ignore them! Paul August ☎ 11:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• And it's getting worse. I wasn't even looking for anything like this; it just came across my watchlist. Iterresise has now very inappropriately accused someone of WP:OWN [22] simply for reverting [23] an undiscussed change Iterresise made [24] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. Iterresise's change had nothing to do with grammar, as they suggested, but with adding unecessarily legalistic wording. I'm starting to think that a broader topic-ban from MoS (which is covered by WP:CTOP) might be in order, since the problem this ANI opened with comes down to Iterresise mistakenly believing that an MoS line-item that reads "often" equates to "must" and empowers him to go on an across-the-board "enforcement" rampage. Even where MoS does not have use-editorial-discretion language like "often" and is more emphatic, we still treat it as a guideline to which exceptions may apply, and use consensus formation processes (WP:RM, etc.) to go about implementing changes at articles to comply, and listen to principled objections, and don't act as robotic enforcers, much less ones who accuse anyone who opposes them of being OWNers (and all the things Iterresise has accused me of). If Iterresise is going to react this way every time they are reverted making a change at a guideline page (where most any undiscussed change by anyone gets reverted), then this user should not be editing any guideline pages at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I can't see any very recent bad contributions from Iterresise. Making systematic changes against objections and with no clear consensus is very disruptive and must stop. If there is evidence of future problems, please reply here (or notify me if this gets archived) and I will see if a block is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the editor is clearly playing the "lay low for a while" game now, hoping this all blows over without any action, but I think there's already consensus here for the narrow topic-ban idea and being required to revert the mess he made (to the extent it's not been undone by Swpb already).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  And now he's opened another front in his war on cross-references (WT:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid#Note_that_...,_It_is_important_to_...,_Surprisingly_...,_Of_course_...), instead of answering here for the mess he's already made. EEng 11:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Casting of ass

Persians

• Between the WP:ICANTHEARYOU for not understanding (or ignoring) that multiple users have said that Iterresise's mass edits are being disruptive and he needs to revert them compounded with the constant casting of aspersions towards any editor that disagrees with him as either being uncivil, insulting him, being abrasive, is almost comical. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• It's high time for a block. Iterresise has been given ample opportunity here to clean up their mess or show any measure of contrition, and they've chosen instead to double (triple? quadruple?) down on playing accusation games on multiple fronts. Nothing short of a block is going to get through, if even that will. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support block this is the kind of editor that drives others off Wikipedia for nothing. Needs to stop now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Question: I did a quick check ten minutes ago and it appeared that at least some edits were being self-reverted. Are further problems still evident? @Iterresise: Do you have a comment about the current situation? Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've reverted the {{see above}} and {{see below}} template changes I made but I noticed Swpb made a revert without an edit summary which seems out of scope of the request. Iterresise (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still not hearing that you understand why what you've been doing is inappropriate. EEng 21:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The issue was with the wholesale removal of {{see above}} and {{see below}}. Removing them was meatboty and because my view is that they are not helpful, this was against consensus.

  Swpb's revert seems to me to be a WP:LASTWORD issue. Iterresise (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm detecting a disturbing habit here of "I got criticized for doing X, so let's see if I can try to accuse someone else of doing X instead, to distract attention away from me." Not only was Iterresise asked above to stop engaging in last-word behavior, only to try to get the last word here again by accusing someone else of last-word behavior, he's also tried to wave away concerns about his programmatically using misleading, unhelpful, or missing edit summaries by pointing at another editor who happened to miss including an edit summary one time. This is not a good sign, in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  You really are your own worst enemy, you know that right? When I saw you started reverting yourself, I was pleasantly surprised and ready to rescind my call for a block. I spot-checked your work, saw a cross-reference removal you apparently missed, and reverted it for you. This is the response I get? I was an idiot to have any hope that you'd gotten the picture, or that you ever will. I don't believe you are capable of being a net positive to the project, and you should no longer be allowed to waste our time. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Relatedly, Iterresise has been insisting at Talk:Anti-LGBT rhetoric that link anchors using <span> tags should be removed as confusing for new editors. I dunno why anyone would balk at HTML while editing a web page, but have directed them to resources they can use for editing help. May be worth keeping an eye on the topic of changes to Wiki-markup as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Block, please

• Yeah, the "block" idea is starting to look better all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Just read the entire thread in full and the above is some of the most blatant battleground/IDHT behaviour I've seen in a while. I fully support a block for disruptive editing. Daniel (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• For persistent inability to acknowledge what they're doing wrong, the nonsense about Swpb's edit a few posts above, and the absurd waste of editor time in this thread and elsewhere, an indef is amply justified until they can explain how they'll avoid repeating the same mistakes. EEng 22:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block for editorial behaviour absolutely inconsistent with our policies and guidelines. Lourdes 05:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• As above, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

When paid editing tells on themselves...

https://www.prweb.com/releases/criminal-defense-attorney-ken-rosenfeld-of-the-rosenfeld-law-firm-to-showcase-25-years-of-expertise-accomplishments-in-upcoming-wikipedia-page-301970700.html

Just a heads up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 08:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

lol, also what’s with that screenshot? Is it of a draft or something? Kenneth L. Rosenfeld doesn’t exist. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It can't be a screenshot: Wrong fonts, and, perhaps most tellingly, a lack of headers AND the footnotes aren't superscripted. It appears to be a bad photoshop mockup, and that's... weird, right? Like, feels like a lot more work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 09:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"and Wikipedia is a great resource, whether for prospective clients or just people in general". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That article will get intense scrutiny if and when it appears, and looking at the involved accounts should be interesting. The press release almost cries out "mock me for blatant self-promotion!" Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

From a quick Google search neither the lawyer nor the company seem to be even remotely close to being notable. DanielRigal (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just bizarre. No draft either. Secretlondon (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely astonishing. When a teenager does this then we chalk this up to immaturity but a fully educated grown adult? Wow! Is there any way that this could be a prank by one of his competitors trying to make him look bad? Anyway, I've watchlisted a few variants of his name and the name of the company. I suggest others do likewise. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears to come from the press office of his law firm. Secretlondon (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Has someone extracted $$$ from Rosenfeld on the promise that the screenshotted article is going live real soon now? Prepared offline so the victim can't see the status of the article in draft or sandbox and no editor account can be identified as its creator - so the scammer can claim to be any prolific editor in good standing. NebY (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone should create the drafts ahead of time with a couple common spellings, just to see what happens. Hy Brasil (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. That would be disruptive. MarioGom (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, it would be getting ahead of the issue. Hy Brasil (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Anybody who did that could come under suspicion of being the spammer and just make trouble for themselves and confuse everybody else. I don't think it is a good idea. I also don't think that pre-salting it is a good idea. Let's all watchlist the likely titles and just wait and see whether it actually turns up and, if it does, see who creates it and find out what else they have created and whether they have any sockpuppets. Who knows. It might uncover a whole nest of vipers. DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And I'll be sure to edit in that the law school he attended is unaccredited. EEng 14:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Self-promotional though this press release is, and the likelihood that a posted article would need to be severely pruned, the fellow might turn out to meet notability standards. Ravenswing 05:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Most likely this is the off-wiki mock draft delivered to the customer by an undisclosed paid editing company, which would then publish it as a draft in Wikipedia some time after payment. It's a common practice. MarioGom (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Once he doesn't get his way, there'll be another article along the lines of "WIKIPEDIA IS A TERRIBLE RESOURCE." Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 11:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• For what its worth, this isn't likely to be published here. The purpose is clearly to have something come up when you search their name and Wikipedia. Since there won't be an article here, people will see that page with that unchangeable mockup. SEO success. Just here for the facts (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure it's a legal no-no to publish something purporting to be a WP article -- complete with our logo -- when it isn't. If he'd attended an accredited law school he would know that. EEng 06:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Poetsrogue1 making persistent disruptive edits and not receptive to feedback.

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

---

User:Poetsrogue1 has been making persistent disruptive edits, as seen here [25], here [26], and here [27]. When I addressed this on their talk page, their only response was "lmfao". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, please notify this user via their talk page that you've opened this thread. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Sorry, forgot! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the user has been banned in eswiki for doing exactly the same kind of disruptive edits. Dubstar (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked because I'm getting racist vibes. It seems this person is determined to strip these players of legitimacy as European citizens.--v/r - TP 02:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Omer123hussain: persistent sourcing issues

Omer123hussain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Omer123hussain is a longstanding editor with a commendable enthusiasm for the history and culture of Telangana. His contributions, however, have a long history of problems with original research and verifiability, shading into NPOV and copyright issues. These have been raised with him repeatedly, but he has brushed them off in his apparent eagerness for recognized content. Here is a sampling of recent issues, some from spot-checks I performed, some flagged by others:

• In the Bazaars of Hyderabad; close paraphrasing, source-to-text integrity issues, leading to a failed GA review in July 2023: [28], [29].
• Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha; extraordinary claims being made with poor sources; considerable uncited content. [30] (ongoing)
• Golconda diamonds; rife with sourcing issues, see DYK nom (for the record, I was the admin who pulled this from prep) and GA reassessment (October 2022 to September 2023). See also this contorted history.
• Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Memorial; GAN failed due to sourcing issues [31] (September 2022)
• This edit to Telangana adds two sources; the first verifies the name of the individual being discussed, but doesn't support anything to do with etymology or history; the second supports even less (September 2023)
• This edit to Asaf Jahi dynasty; added source has nothing to say about a siege. (September 2023)
• This edit to Nigar Shaji; cited sources do not support the content added. (September 2023)
• Tasmia Qwani; a randomly selected older article (2015), about a religious ritual among Hyderabadi Muslims. The article as created contains three sources; the first discusses a related custom among Siddis; the second is biographical, and makes no generalizations; the third provides definition only, and no description. The majority of the article's content is unsupported.
• Most recent talk page archive [32] lists three pages draftified at NPR, and subsequently deleted, dating back to December 2021.

This user is working in good faith, but they are making edits that would be concerning in a new editor despite having been here for years. They need, at the very least, hands-on mentoring that I am unable to provide, and more severe sanctions may be needed. pinging Fram, who discussed the OR issues with Omer at length. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree due to shortage of time and connectivity issue i could not spare much time for editing but I dont agree with your accusations atleast for now after seeing your first accusation for close paraphrasing; What do you mean by this? you are comparing lines of poem as close paraphrasing here.

Could you elobrate "more severe sanctions may be needed" and for what ? is it for some couple of failed GA and DYK nominations, which i could not respont for above mentioned reson. Any way need to look in detail for your above accusations.

Omer123hussain (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the close paraphrasing flagged by the GA reviewer was not a copyvio? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Omer123hussain, for your benefit, I actually downloaded the full book that you referred to at Talk:Hyderabad#Dubious and searched for all the places where the term "Hadhrami Arabs" was quoted. It is quoted nowhere in the book. I also searched for "Hadhrami" and "Chaush" separately. Same result; no reference to the said terms. I further searched all references to the term "Arabs" and the book does not anywhere support what you have staunchly defended at the said talk page. Given all the above examples, and given continuing evidence of the same at multiple locations, including at the now referenced Talk:Hyderabad#Dubious, where, despite repeated assertions to the contrary by other editors, you continued claiming the book referenced Hadhrami/Hadrami/Chaush Arabs, and in fact disruptively reinstated the citation and the challenged material, I am blocking you from article space. You are free to make your case to other administrators. Thank you, Lourdes 05:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(For any interested editor, I can share the pdf of the said book... Thank you. Lourdes 05:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC))

Talk page access

Can a mod possibly revoke talk page access?

Hi, can a mod possibly revoke talk page access at User talk:SlackerD2? This blocked user is continuing to use their talk page for disruption and personal attacks. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 20:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, done now. — Czello ^(music) 21:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And this (image to right) is why we call them admins here not mods: Imagining some of our worthies dressed like this hurts the mind's eye...though i would love to see what Bishzilla could do with Mod fashion. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The '60's. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The dawning of the Age of Aquarius. It's not going so well of late but we'll get there. I have hope. Is the TPA revoked yet? That's a good start. --ARoseWolf 17:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bishzilla probably knows about They Call Us Misfits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

How can we be Mods when, according to various blocked users, we're all actually postmodern neo-Marxists? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 11:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I was nervous reading this intense, threatening and braggadocios post. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly a death threat. Secretlondon (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I swear I've seen almost that exact same post here on Wikipedia sometime in the past few years... Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the Navy Seal copypasta. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

“Gorilla warfare” 😂😂😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

it's always the g-darm users cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh duh....thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:ChimaFan12

ChimaFan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past year, this user has been disruptively pushing for their preferred changes across a variety of Marvel Cinematic Universe–related articles, despite consensus against them or a lack of consensus. In fact, nearly all of their ~600 edits have been dedicated to righting WP:GREATWRONGS on MCU articles; it is evident that they are a WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. This user has acted aggressively and combatively, ignored the WP:STATUSQUO and pre-existing consensus, accused editors who disagree with them of OWN, claimed that there was consensus for something when there was not, and claimed the opposite when consensus was formed but not in their favor.

Throughout all this, the user has persistently resorted to edit-warring when they are unable to get their way and while discussions are still ongoing, as seen at [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. They have been warned of this many times, including in edit summaries, on their talk page (which they have repeatedly blanked: 1, 2, 3, 4), and at ANEW (no action taken because they narrowly escaped the 24-hour window). They have also banned certain users from posting messages on their talk pages (WP:SOMTP), attempted to circumvent the consensus-building process by submitting an edit request for a controversial change, and even tried to recruit an uninvolved administrator to back them (the admin did not take the bait).

A sampling of their greatest hits to illustrate the gravity of the situation:

• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § “Marvel Knights” vs Defenders Saga.
• Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe § Cancelled projects and uncritical placement within the brand.
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 5 § Helstrom
• Talk:Adventure into Fear (franchise) § Reviving potential merger into Helstrom
• Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series § Chronology in the lead
• Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series § Head of Marvel Television Jeph Loeb
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 6 § Spider-Man: Freshman Year MCU?
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § Request for Comment: Adventure Into Fear
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force § All Marvel productions are now from Marvel Cinematic Universe?
• Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe § Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline fallout
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § Adventure into Fear “developed for the MCU”?

As you can see, it has been an endless cycle of long-winded discussions, edit wars, RfCs that go nowhere, and edits without consensus. The discussions themselves are riddled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments, bad-faith accusations, incivil or rude comments, plenty of bludgeoning, and rehashing of DEADHORSE arguments. They have accused editors of being "clique-ish and obstructive", "disrespectful and disingenuous", "attempt[ing] to intimidate users under false pretenses", and posting messages "designed solely to degrade and intimidate" them. When editors make efforts to reach a compromise, they reject the proposals as not meeting all of their demands: 1, 2 3. One particularly nasty comment: My bad for saying you need to practice reading. Maybe you just need to learn what words mean before you use them.

This disruptive behavior has become tiresome and mentally draining for editors. The ceaseless flood of new talk page discussions initiated by them is impossible to keep track. It is clear that the user is unwilling to collaborate constructively and work with consensus. To prevent further disruption, I am calling for either a topic ban on MCU-related articles or a full block. Pinging other parties involved: @Trailblazer101, Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, Alex 21, Gonnym, Facu-el Millo, and YgorD3. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal: Indef TBAN from MCU-related articles - this user doesn't seem to be completely obstructive, at least engages with others (if not effectively), and seems to be acting in good faith, if not very immaturely. Maybe if they can demonstrate they can work constructively w/ consensus in other topic areas then they should be allowed back to their passion. I think a full block is too much. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to defend myself here. The entire time I've been here, I've only operated in good faith, though I have to admit that at times I've let my frustration get the better of me. That "learn what words mean" comment, I have to say has no excuse and is an isolated instance. I have made accusations about other users' behaviors, accusations that I wholeheartedly believe and think that they are continuously exhibiting. I do think the Taskforce has been cliquish and biased against credible sources arguing that particular projects are not in the MCU. Edits that I make are instantly reverted at times and very similar edits are allowed through. Complaints people throw at me about the nature of my edits don't seem to exist when people make similar ones. Just look at the shift in attitude from what Favre proposed hereafter I posted my proposal here. Comments of mine in both discussions point out valid policy concerns (including NPOV and OWNERSHIP), not a mere matter of preference. I find it disheartening when my words are so blatantly misrepresented by users as you can see in that second link in order for me to be blocked from making a well-sourced contribution to an article.

I will say, though, for all of the conversations I've been involved in, I actually have worked with consensus. I don't think that this complaint does a good job displaying that. For instance:

1. Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Cancelled projects and uncritical placement within the brand. - I ceased editing the box and am awaiting a consensus on AIF that is in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding STICKTOTHESOURCE, NPOV, and SYNTH.
2. Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#“Marvel Knights” vs Defenders Saga. - I get behind InfiniteNexus' own compromise. In my newness, I get confused with the process of finding consensus (this happens a couple of times earlier on but is made explicitly clear to me in the later I Am Groot discussion that occurs later this month.) An edit is made by another user in accordance with the consensus. I assume consensus gets reached when it hasn't, because discussion is still ongoing and we haven't worked out the kinks in a way that satisfies everybody's concerns appropriately under Wikipedia policy.
3. Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series#Head of Marvel Television Jeph Loeb - I was actively involved in finding this consensus and it was one that I have helped upheld. If I recall correctly, this addresses my problem that I point out at the end of the discussion on the previous page. Happy camper here.
4. Talk:Adventure into Fear (franchise)#Reviving potential merger into Helstrom - I began condensing this but as soon as it became obvious that my edit was contested, I returned the page to the status quo before I got there. I believe this discussion expresses a lot of my concerns with the Taskforce and it's where the clique quote comes from. In any case, I honor and uphold the original edits and as of yet have not returned to it. When I do, it will merely be in my sandbox and I will create an appropriate proposal for the changes.
5. Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series - This is a long and frustrating conversation wherein I make a lot of mistakes that highlight the correct process a lot better for me. As you can see, an issue I exhibit here (and in some earlier discussions, which is where a lot of the edit warring comes from) is that I assume consensus has been reached when it hasn't. We are still working out an exact consensus and I am happy to keep working on it.
6. On the current discussions regarding the MCU timeline book, I object to the current popular proposal out of valid wiki policy concerns. I would encourage all reading this to read the full discussions (they're the two hyperlinked "here"s in this message) before coming to any conclusions. I'm happy to find a consensus that addresses my policy concerns on the page. Wikipedia's article on finding consensus points out that valid concerns related to wiki policy are an acceptable reason for an otherwise agreed upon edit not to be implemented, and it is not considered stonewalling to do so. It has nothing to do with "my demands". It has everything to do with policy concerns including ownership, NPOV, and UNDUEWEIGHT for pro-MCU claims.

As for banning a user from my talk page, the user was not making constructive, productive edits. They were taunting and it felt like harassment. I would encourage people to take a look at my talk page history if they'd like to see more and to decide for themselves. Further, please click on all the hyperlinks wherein I'm described as characterizing editors' behaviors a certain way. I hope it provides context and rationale for why I have done so. I don't think it's egregious to call out when people are being disrespectful and disingenuous as you see it, or to accuse someone who's a non-admin and has been otherwise non-involved with a discussion issuing "final warnings" of overstepping and attempting to intimidate. At this time, being otherwise occupied, I struggle to create a full report of these other users' behavior that's nearly as in depth with links as this one is about me (although this one is sparse in unbiased details and portrayals of events). Ultimately, I think the accusations against me ultimately come down to a process of trial and error wherein I've made many mistakes but have learned from them to be a better editor. When someone points something out about my behavior, I do change it.

If there are any errors in my behavior, I will be happy to course correct. I've done so before, and hopefully you trust me to do so again. I am constantly improving myself. Thank you for listening. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As for bludgeoning, I also have to say I've certainly improved in that area. Compare the discussions from the last two months (IAMGROOT and the timeline discussions) to the ones regarding Helstrom from previous months. In August and July, I was still finding my bearings. Those are where the accusations of bludgeoning arose the most and even though I fully believed I was operating in good faith and not trying to intimidate users, I have to concede there were times where it was a bit much. I fully apologize for those. Particularly this month, after all the trouble I got into with the preemptive closure and presumptive consensus in the earlier half of the I Am Groot conversation, I've been a lot better about allowing users' objections to remain without getting into rhetorical arguments beneath their votes.

I also resent my messages to administrators' being described as bait rather than sincere attempts at mediation. Further, my protected edit request on the Inhumans page was not an attempt at circumventing conversation, as you can see from the fact that I'm actively involved in the conversation. I provide a valid reason for requesting that edit and I had assumed I was speaking to an objective third party like an administrator who would be able to help mediate. I do not think that the portrayal of my actions here is charitable or captures the spirit they were intended in, and instead casts a rather sinister tone around them that I wholeheartedly refute. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12, this caught my eye: I don't think it's egregious to call out when people are being disrespectful and disingenuous as you see it, or to accuse someone who's a non-admin and has been otherwise non-involved with a discussion issuing "final warnings" of overstepping and attempting to intimidate. I disagree. Focus on discussing content, not your opinions of editors; your approach leads to situations such as this one, where you're having to defend yourself. By the way, any editor can issue a "final warning", they don't need to be an administrator nor do they have to be involved in the discussion. So accusing that editor (whoever it was) of overstepping or attempting to intimidate is not appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I respect your analysis and would agree not to repeat that sort of behavior. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make one final edit to address accusations about me being a single purpose account. (Hopefully as I'm responding to myself and only noticing more now about what has already been said, this isn't seen as bludgeoning -- it's not my intention.) I don't think that is true, as I have a variety of interests (though the Marvel Cinematic Universe is at the top). I've edited pages that I've seen regarding other actors not involved with the MCU and genuinely have tried to make my edits in an appropriate manner. I also don't think NOTHERE applies to me either. A lot of my edits and discussions clearly invoke concerns over wikipedia policy. I want to be as objective as I can be, and I constantly stick with wikipedia policy to the best of my knowledge. When that knowledge is expanded, I always apply the lessons I learn. I like it here and I don't intend to be disruptive. I acknowledge past behavior has been disruptive, but I don't believe any current behaviors to be and have always amended when it was clear wiki policy and basic decency was not on my side. As for GREATWRONGS, I am not here with an agenda. I am trying to reflect the official positions of real world sources in a faithful manner, and on matters like Adventure into Fear, I have found that the current structure of the edits, particularly as pertains to MCU connectivity, does not. I'm a big fan of a majority of the shows. On a personal, off-wiki note, I keep a list of viewing orders of the MCU featuring a majority of the Marvel Television series as part of the MCU. I believe treating these series being part of the MCU enhances my enjoyment of them and takes me back to a simpler time. I do, however, recognize that real-life sources are not on my side when it comes to them being MCU and all my edits here have been in the interest of adhering to fact and removing as many misleading details as I can. My personal biases and the nature of my edits are not in alignment with one another. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that prior to this, there was no attempt at conflict resolution from InfiniteNexus, and per Civility, when I was made aware of my comments being unkind from other users prior to this report being filed, I adjusted my comments so that they were more civil. These are not the actions of a bad actor. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I for one am unpersuaded by this spurious change of heart. If you had truly learned from your mistakes, your comments at the most recent discussion would look very different, and you would not have started a ... what is it, fourth? DEADHORSE discussion about Adventure into Fear just a few days ago. And as we speak, you just edit-warred again here — 24 minutes after promising you would stop your disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  That last edit you linked states in the edit description that, according to wiki policy, since discussion involving concerns over policy is still ongoing, consensus has not yet been reached. I full heartedly agree with that. I was going to put a note in saying if that edit is reverted, I will not reinstate it but rather ask an admin to keep an eye on the conversation, but I worried that would be seen as an intimidation attempt and I did not want to make anyone feel that way.

  I do not believe this is a change of heart on my behalf. I've always been interested in reaching consensus, expanding the encyclopedia accurately, and coming to resolutions. Wikipedia is one of the most vital sources in society, and it is in everyone's best interest that it is as accurate as possible.

  If my Adventure into Fear discussion is DEADHORSE as you characterize it, I apologize. I didn't see it as such when I posted it, and frankly I still don't, given it's a concise and specific question that is of additional interest now given concerns over Feige's quote on the MCU timeline book not being specific enough for some parties, rather than a rehashing of multiple threads and aspects of the conversation. Likewise, I don't believe my comments at the most recent discussion should look particularly different, although there is one where I accused another member of being manipulative and "sad" and given what Schazjmd has said, which is actually at the heart of a lot of wikipedia policies, I do not think that edit was constructive. I admit to being frustrated and letting that frustration at times spill out into my interactions with others, but I think that's true for all parties involved. This is a long-lasting situation not because anybody wants it to be, but because the matters being discussed are complicated and have been for a long time. I think what would be the best solution would not be to have anyone banned or punished. I don't want that for anybody else. I think it would be in the spirit of collaboration to have more parties have an eye on the subject and provide input that can help us sort it out without emotions getting the better of us. Would you be open to that? ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  NOTE: this is the edit reason underneath the edit InfinteNexus has just linked accusing me of edit-warring: "Discussion is still ongoing. My objections are not a manner of personal preference but of policy concern. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, we should wait until discussion is concluded before we proceed, as serious policy concerns remain unaddressed with this version of the edit." If this action was wrong or inappropriate, please let me know. As I said, I don't intend to revert again if it is reverted as I really do not want to be involved in another edit war. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  One further note: for the sake of full transparently, and seeing as @Schazjmd has reminded me the importance of commenting on content rather than the character of my fellow contributors, I have been making an edit to a comment of mine posted 3 days prior to my first edit that has not received any replies. I am doing this for the sole purpose of allowing the conditions for a more fruitful conversation to occur without the focus being diverted to users' characters. Here is the permanent link to my edit so you can see what has been edited and why. Likewise, here. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It is very much an (ostensible) change of heart. You are desperately trying to change the narrative in light of this ANI thread, trying very hard to reframe your actions as mistakes that you have learned from. Your comments and actions right before the ANI thread indicate that you have not. Please know that ANI was a last resort for editors who have tried to work with you for a full year, but your continued refusal to collaborate constructively has caused others to finally run out of patience. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not. I've been made aware of a way I was acting against wiki policy and have been trying to correct my actions in areas where I have the right to do so. I think the links you've provided speak for themselves. This ANI which you alone submitted, without any other user's contributions, reflects your personal exhaustion with me. I regret that you've run out of patience with me but I don't think the way you present information has been charitable. I'm always trying my best to work towards an outcome that works for everybody. That's not new. And you're right that even in recent days I've let my frustration get the better of me, but I believe that that's true for everybody and I'm committed to improving. I'd rather we work towards a solution that works, and if you don't want to work with me it is entirely your right not to. I will not try to pull you into conversations you don't want to be involved in. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed, from not only the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but from all articles pertaining to comic books and superheroes and any TV show, animated cartoon, movie, video game or any other type of media, present or future, related even peripherally to comic books or superheroes. The editor claims that they are not an SPA. They can prove that by spending an extended period of time editing entirely unrelated topics. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, I'm not certain what this would achieve. That punishment is far too broad ("even peripherally related to comic books or superheroes"?) The page describing SPAs states that they should contribute neutrally, which in general, I do. My edits don't have an agenda, certainly not one that can be articulated. The subject I've probably pushed the most is renovating Adventure into Fear/Helstrom to be more objective pages, at least regarding their connection to the MCU and the development thereof. My earliest edits were a successful RFC in which a majority of users agreed with me that there was a lack of objectivity with certain claims and we arrived at a consensus to fix that. I haven't gone out of my way, prior to the release of the Timeline book, to convince anyone that the other shows aren't part of the MCU, ever. I Am Groot also was the basis for a large discussion, but it's impossible to tie that to any sort of agenda that has to do with Adventure into Fear or my other contributions, and we've arrived at a general consensus that I Am Groot is a TV show even if we're figuring out how to incorporate it on the article. I've actually come to a consensus I agree with on every subject to date and upheld consensuses that I didn't necessarily agree with. There's no agenda here. If you look at all the discussions you can see that my biggest concern has been upholding Wikipedia policy and being neutral.

  I think the bigger problem is that I've had blindspots when it comes to project norms, I'll admit, but I think it's exceptionally clear that I've overcome many of those blindspots and am at least committed to further improvement. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support tban They continue to argue about their own personal interpretation of the time line of people-in-spandex TV. From just a few minutes ago, they are arguing that company employees are reliable secondary sources for in-universe stuff - [39] Just here for the facts (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't implemented any edits based on that comment, and I am only pointing out that in my interpretation of Wikipedia:SPS, Kevin Feige would count as an expert whose work on MCU projects has previously been published by reliable independent sources. If this is wrong, I apologize, but I don't think I should be punished for disagreeing with you and trying to adhere to policy as I understand it. I'd rather be corrected than punished out of hand. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  His personal fortunes depend on the MCU, he is far from independent for this topic. Just here for the facts (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. When you produced Wikipedia:Primary I read through the numbered guidelines and per number 3 and 4, I concede that your interpretation of the guidelines on the subject is correct. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  FYI: Link to conversation is here. Look to the bottom of the thread. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban for MCU-related articles for all the reasons laid out by InfiniteNexus in their initial comment above. I echo everything they have said, and would like to reemphasize how the multiple discussions across various talk pages on similar issues has made discussion hard to follow with this editor, and then when discussion eventually settle in one location, the arguments eventually just go around and around in circles, or attempts to reach consensus introduce new variables/claims from them after the fact, that again make it hard to work towards consensus. There is only so many attempts at discussions on the material with the constant reverting (with the oh-so-close but just outside the window of edit-warring) and not accepting consensus where it just has become viewed as disruptive and draining for everyone else to again explain the consensus and enter the cycle all over again. It has led me to believe they are just WP:NOTLISTENING and that they should WP:DROPTHESTICK and haven't, hence my support of a topic ban. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  The only time I did not accept a “consensus” was yesterday, as I raised numerous valid policy concerns and it became evident that there were other policy concerns I had missed. There has been no other occasion. Every time the consensus has been explained to me, I’ve accepted it even if I didn’t agree with it, and in all of those cases I have not pressed forward. ChimaFan12 (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN (uninvolved) per Cullen; I would also recommend the editor learn the value of WP:WALLS and WP:BLUDGEON. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN from entertainment media articles, broadly construed, like Cullen328 has suggested. I see too many problems here, trying to push a certain POV or narrative to these MCU articles in numerous ways – edit warring, gaming the system by 'narrowly' avoiding 3RR and by stonewalling, as well as not dropping the stick, and bludgeoning on talk pages, all of which altogether constitutes highly disruptive editing. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nationality-based attack by Rosenborg BK Fan

Rosenborg BK Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said in this series of edits: I really don't like to have anything to do with German users on any Wikipedia, let alone on the English one. Since we previously had discussions on Talk:Germans and also because I state my nationality on my user's page, they know pretty well that I'm German. My complaints and their reaction on their talk page can be seen here. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone get some Tippex, we need to remove some NPA's. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit: Seems like he blanked the original notice, I added another one, if I need to remove it I will. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Rosenborg BK Fan is blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's because I chose this specifically, if you take a look at the log. And it is indeed not quite surprising at all, considering how I was treated there (I and other users that I know). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Several comments. First, AstatineEnjoyer, you should not have reinstated the ANI notice (I've undone your edit). Second, Rosenborg BK Fan requested an indefinite block at de.wiki. Third, I don't see any personal attacks that warrant deletion. Finally, in glancing at the exchange between Rsk6400 and Rosenborg, the only thing that I see that is concerning is the quoted attack against all Germans.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. Indeed, all of your points with one exception are correct. I would like to stress that I did not mean a personal attack on all Germans, not even on all German Wikipedia users (i.e. I haven't mentioned the word 'all' there, please take that into consideration), but rather specifically what I previously wrote. And that was not an ethnic/nationality-based attack at all. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosenborg BK Fan: I just skimmed your lengthy comments at Talk:Icelanders, and they are simply unacceptable. Whether they are a rant against de.wiki, comments about German users (that can be construed as attacks), or attacks against Rsk6400 specifically, none of it is germane to a content dispute. So, consider this a warning that if you repeat such behavior in the future, you risk being blocked (involuntarily).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. We want only germane German attacks. EEng 18:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I thought you said Romaine for a second and almost spit air. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Bbb23, that's all what I wanted. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yuck. I hate Romaine. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: RBKF was previously blocked 48h earlier in the year based on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Help with bigotry & xenophobia. regarding Romanians and Romanis (with a drop of the G-slur), and this talk message; this is hardly a new issue and they had been warned to cease nationalistic attacks earlier this year. Nate • (chatter) 20:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is absolutely final warning before a long vacation territory here. It's inappropriate and utterly unacceptable. Star Mississippi 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you MrSchimpf. Rosenborg BK Fan, I have a simple question for you and I would like a straightforward answer. Do you agree (OK, so it's actually a leading question, to make it easy for you) that comments like "I've had with you and your kind" are always unacceptable in a collaborative forum? You could do yourself a huge favor by explaining why "your kind" is so problematic; that might certainly put some of us at ease. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That was a misunderstanding as I previously explained, but I am not going to further talk about it... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosenborg BK Fan: Please provide a diff for your previous explanation. Also, it would be helpful if you responded to Drmies's question.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Given the previous block for similar behaviour I don't think a mere warning at this point is appropriate. WaggersTALK 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'm torn a bit. Yes, I agree that right now User:Rosenborg BK Fan does not look like a net positive for the project. The easy slippage between "you Germans" and "you editors at the German Wikipedia" is just too...well, it's just dumb. The "you and your kind" comment corresponds with that--the problem isn't "a misunderstanding": 'no one should talk in terms of "your kind". That they fail to grasp that and refuse to explain is really reason enough to block them from editing a collaborative project. On the other hand, Bbb23 warned them in no uncertain terms, and maybe that's enough for now--plus handing out a one-week block or whatever right now is punitive and serves no purpose, IMO. If there is no consensus for an indefinite block, then next time Rosenborg Fan makes a comment that in any way seems to generalize or stereotype other editors, I will be happy to block them indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  This reminds me a bit of the situation with Laurel Lodged, where each individual something-phobic comment was credibly a miscommunication, but it strained credulity to believe that all of them were, and there was a marked absence of the "Oh shit I didn't mean that" comments that one would expect in a legitimate misunderstanding. My reading from the February thread, per HJ Mitchell's comment and Kinu's close, is that Rosenborg should already be understood as on their last chance, and so here I tend toward an indef. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Having just skimmed this thread and refreshed my memory from February, I'm inclined to agree. Do you want to drop the hammer, @Tamzin, or do you want me to do it when I can get to a proper keyboard in a couple of hours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have indeffed per the consensus here. If they change their tune, then ROPE might apply. GiantSnowman 18:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Going by Yamla saying their OUTRS response was 'offensively bad' (I really hope in just being poorly-written and not in what I fear it actually was), and RBKF calling the block 'unbiased, civil, and polite', along with their refusal to answer the simple yes/no inquiry from Drmies, it was the right thing to do. Nate • (chatter) 00:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

UTRS, not OTRS. :) Mostly, it was just a rant about how we are all authoritarians, and references to... German authoritarianism. Also, apparently nobody has a nice vocabulary and we are all doomed. Ah well. --Yamla (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And TPA revoked for using their talk page to continue ranting about admins being authoritarians. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

non-admin comment As the editor who started this thread I just want to say "thank you" to all admins - among other things, for keeping calm when confronted with such language. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a Commons issue, but they've gone through and asked for G7 on all their images (none are in en.wiki filespace), many already PD'ed; are they allowed to do so? Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons blocked them for three days and they left yet another manifesto about their images being 'too poor' to be kept (they're in articles now and haven't been removed so...no). Nate • (chatter) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As an amateur photographer, I'd like to offer that their images are more than O.K. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, except the one where the background is too bright. Happens to us all. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, UTRS appeal #80669 offers further indication of user's unsuitability for this project.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:SchroCat and incivility

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

---

I have been in a long-term disagreement with this user. However, today they went beyond merely arguing with me on relevant talk pages and followed me to an unrelated article they’ve made no significant contributions to in order to correct a mistake I made in the most passive-aggressive way possible. When I confronted them about it, they reverted me with an incredibly rude edit summary. Therefore I would like to request a no-fault two-way interaction ban as it is obvious we are incapable of civil interaction. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

McDonald Fraser has been on my watchlist since before I put The Flashman Papers through FLC way back in 2013. Accusing me at ANI of stalking you isn't smart. Are you saying I should have left the error in place rather than correct it? That's even less smart. And yes, when you leave ridiculous messages on my talk page, I'll revert them and tell you that they're ridiculous. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You could have corrected it in a civilized manner that doesn’t look like your stalking me. How am I supposed to know what’s on your watchlist? You could also consider not continuing to insult and belittle my intelligence at every opportunity. Dronebogus (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given you have, recently, called me "pathological and disruptive" for no other reason than I asked a second uncivil editor not to be rude, I think my mild snark stacks up for very little. I have seen (and been at the end of) way too many aggressive bad faith comments from you to take any complaints from you about other people's "rudeness" at all seriously. Constantly poking people and then running to ANI when they get snarky is a rather tiresome little game that I won't bother with. I'm off to do something useful, so I'll leave the dramah board to you. Any time you want to strike off the unfounded and false accusations made against me would probably be best, but given you think snark should be reported at ANI, the next time you think of calling an editor in good standing pathological and disruptive, I will drop you in here without any qualms at all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"How am I supposed to know what’s on your watchlist?" By assuming good faith, @Dronebogus.

"I think my mild snark stacks up for very little." This is not mild snark, @SchroCat.

Please stop this slap fight. You're both goading each other on. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re right: it doesn’t even come close to the level of mild snark - but well done on bypassing calling another editor “pathological and disruptive”. Please don’t ping me back to this pointless timesink - life is too short to bother about it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You literally called me an idiot. And I struck the “pathological” part. I just never want to have to interact with you again. I’m not seeking to harm you in some way. Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

• @Vanamonde93: I agree that both parties are at fault here, but I can't help but think you've closed this with the wrong even number of sanctions. There's very few other editors who'd get off with a warning for conduct like SchroCat's here, especially given multiple past blocks for personal attacks, the last in July. Dronebogus' belligerent attitude, meanwhile, has been a recurring topic at AN/I for basically their entire editing career, most recently getting TBANned from XfD in August. At some point we have to say enough is enough, regarding both editors. And if "pathological and disruptive" vs. "genius" + "idiotic messages" isn't that point, then what is? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I don't disagree with you in principle, but I had no stomach for the drama that always ensues from this particular conflict. The last time I was administratively involved with SchroCat and the infobox wars, an AE discussion ended up at ARCA, and JzG (who is an excellent person) and I had to do a lot of talking to sort out our differences. I had approximately 10 minutes free at work, saw this post below my own ANI report above (languishing for lack of attention, still) and thought I could short-circuit the drama. Infoboxes are still a CTOP, so you could apply a unilateral sanction if you wish; and if you really would like me to re-open this I will, but I'm not optimistic as to its outcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have no interest in restarting this. I have no interest in seeing SchroCat blocked. I have no interest in being blocked myself. @Tamzin:, I don’t really like how you seem like you’re looking for an excuse to block both of us for past offenses by way of a current dispute that isn’t individually deserving such a harsh sanction. I’ve discussed this with the closing admin to my satisfaction and SchroCat hasn’t complained further. Let dead threads lie. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus that's fair and all, but you opened this thread less than a day ago. If Tamzin's looking for an excuse, to use your phrase, you seem determined to provide one. At some point editors don't like having their time wasted. Please think long and hard about opening another thread here. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  When you open a thread at WP:ANI for any reason whatsoever, you open yourself to having your conduct examined by other users. We have been here many times before discussing your conduct, and you've talked yourself into community-imposed sanctions each time. I would note that in several of those instances, you actually opened the ANI thread yourself by complaining about another user. That would meet the criterion of being a "chronic, intractable problem". Tamzin is right: How many more times do we have to come back here until it ends in an indef?

  The best thing you can do, right now, is apologize for your conduct, admit that it was unsatisfactory, and explain how you plan to not repeat it, and don't point fingers back at other editors who are unhappy with it. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will admit that my conduct was unbecoming. I already partially redacted it shortly after adding it. I will offer an apology but I doubt SchroCat will care or accept it. But all that said, I’m more or less certain at this point that I’m simply a community persona non grata everyone wants to see blocked at the next opportunity. I know this sounds like whining from a troublemaking jackass but the stress of constantly knowing that you have no defense against even the most blatant bullying and could be community banned at any minor slip-up is not only crushing in real life, adding to my existing problems with anxiety and depression, but paradoxically makes it harder to edit properly. I get I have a laundry list of failures and lots of people don’t like me for understandable reasons, I think about it almost every day and it feels terrible. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: Telling a user to "think long and hard about opening another thread here" is an entirely disruptive comment. This page is here for anyone to report behavioral concerns and other disruptive conduct in need of sanctioning. You are in effect threatening Dronebogus, telling them to ignore all such behavior – however egregious – for fear of having their own conduct scrutinized. This is a completely unacceptable comment, and I suggest you strike it and remove all such notions from your brain forever. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is inevitably going to lead to a mention of Wikipedia:BOOMERANG, a guideline which sounds great on paper but in my experience is interpreted as “if your behavior isn’t spotless you’re an outlaw, so expect sanctions if you go to ANI for any reason, even someone else’s conduct, even if you admit you did something wrong”. Dronebogus (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Inevitably. Still, I couldn't help but read it and genuinely believe Mackensen had just provided perhaps the worst take I had ever read at ANI, in all my near 20-years on this site. Deserved correction. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Homeostasis07 I decline to accept the trophy for worst take at ANI. I doubt that's even the worst thing that I've said at ANI. I think you've misconstrued my comment and its context. Coming to ANI and then withdrawing it within hours is disruptive. Dronebogus was warned to not use ANI as first resort back in 2022. I can't find the discussion now, but if IIRC a ban from ANI was mooted in the past. I may be misremembering. The intention of my comment is to suggest to Dronebogus that what they think is ANI-worthy and what the community thinks is ANI-worthy often don't overlap. If that's bad advice then Dronebogus is free to not take it. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  “What the community thinks is ANI-worthy” from me is literally nothing. I recently reported what appeared to be coordinated off-wiki harassment and basically got laughed at. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I got boomeranged in December 2012, and then came close to a more serious boomerang in February 2013, and since that day I have started precisely one thread on this noticeboard. (Quite recently—a minor dispute where I wasn't seeking a block, resolved quickly.) I was a non-admin for most of this time, and was involved in no small number of controversies, but I've (almost) always found ways to handle them other than coming here. Avoiding AN/I is not difficult, and is not an unreasonable suggestion to make to someone who keeps running into trouble here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  With no disrespect intended, that’s extremely easy for a highly respected user and admin to say. Admins cannot realistically be sanctioned unless their conduct is bend-over-backwards inexcusable, but they are capable of handing down sanctions summarily. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I know it's hard to let things go but your OP above asks for an interaction ban. That's not needed. Just let it go. Schrocat was insulting but their claim is that you got some basic facts wrong (I have no idea about that issue). Focus on the factual claim rather than the edit summary. If (if) you made a basic factual error, I'm afraid you have to swallow it when your opponent notices. You should know that inserting a space where it does not belong in the article so you can add a dummy-edit summary asking not to be insulted is not useful. Even less useful is complaining on the opponent's talk page. Just let it go. If you have six months being squeaky clean and you are still being insulted without reason, there might be an opportunity to have redress. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I thought the space was a genuine error. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Still, I think you’re missing the meat of the situation— I don’t care I made an error; I care that SchroCat called me stupid twice in a row, without remorse, over it; and now you’re suggesting that I not only shouldn’t have been offended by that, but also that a less severe month-old insult I admitted was poor form at the time disqualifies me from being offended? Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Despite your claims, I did not call you stupid. I said that your comment was stupid. That’s a rather different thing that you and others seem to have got rather wrong. It pales into insignificance to calling someone “pathological and disruptive” and then “obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive”. That’s just a lovely way to talk about another editor solely for having a different opinion to you. But fine, you just get upset because I referred to one of your comments not being very good while throwing around some really unpleasant insults at others. It’s great to see that the ArbCom infobox civility decision means sweet Fanny Adams, given the aggressive insults you are happy to throw at people.

although it’s unlikely there’re will be an interaction ban, I have no desire to interact with someone who is happy to be so aggressive and insulting to others, but feel free to avoid me or any of the articles I’ve worked on. It would bring me great delight if you did so. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You call my comments idiotic, you’re basically saying I’m an idiot. You also called me “genius” sarcastically, which obviously means idiot, as well as saying “get the basics right sometime”, which unsubtly implies I typically am too stupid to even get “the basics” right. And then you made insinuations about my intelligence during this very thread, asserting my actions were not “smart”. In context it’s hard not to read that as a continuation of the insult train on top of your general incivility. So yes, I stand by my assertion that you functionally called me stupid. Which is a low I’ve never stooped to with you, even when using some unflattering ad hominem adjectives to describe you which I regret and apologize for. Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong on how you have ‘translated’ my comment. I use and choose my words carefully: you are applying an incorrect interpretation of the actual words. Again, I have no desire to continue discussing this further, except to reiterate that I have not called you stupid, but I did say you left a stupid comment. This still pales into insignificance in comparison to “pathological and disruptive” and then “obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive”. If you don’t think that is ‘low’, then I advise you pick up a dictionary and actually look at what those insults really mean. I’m out: there’s no point in trying to explain this if you can’t see just how insulting “pathological and disruptive” and “obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive” really is. - SchroCat (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. It would be wise for both of you to disengage from this thread; for best results you might avoid each other (and ANI) completely in the near future. Please consider just walking away, as suggested above. BusterD (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s literally why I started this thread, to formally ask for an interaction ban. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And the nominees for "2023's Most avoidable blocks" are...  // Timothy :: talk  02:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s real classy. I’d highly recommend deleting that comment and politely refrain from further knitting beside the guillotine. Dronebogus (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’d highly recommend the nominee walk away as advised.  // Timothy :: talk  02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Is sarcastic cruelty the only language anyone speaks at ANI? Dronebogus (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Suggest WP:ARBCOM if situation continues. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Hawkers994 is using source for Original Research and is frantically edit warring

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

---

User in question: User:Hawkers994

I edited this page Habr Awal and Awdal and removed this section: "The Habr Awal also partially inhabit the neighbouring region of Awdal, namely in eastern Lughaya"

The reason why I removed this content was because when I read the source provided, it was a clear case of WP:OR.

The source that the user used states this: "The second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts ; there , Isaaq traders and pastoralists have established a greater presence in recent years." To provide some context, nomadic pastoralists trade outside of their respective regions in this part of the world which is very different than being a recognisable demographic. I then created a discussion in the talk page here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Habr_Awal.

I explained to the user that the source does not really reflect the content and asked if they had more than one source. They then proceeded to keep editing using the same source. They violated WP:3RR whilst I was reversing back to the original edit before the dispute. I then sent them messages urging restraint until we get a 3rd party to possibly look into it. The user did not provide more than one source which was being used as OR and I explained to them that the source is not the problem but the violation of WP:OR. They kept accusing me of not accepting the source when I made it clear on more than one occasion that the problem isnt the source but the content that it is being used to convey. They continued frantically editing without any concensus being established. I mentioned clearly that I was ready to clear the discussion but they keep edit warring.

One source which is being used to establish demographics to offset the standard number of sources used explaining the exclusine demographics of a region requires Per WP:Exceptional, WP: Extraordinary and WP:Ecree. Which is why I then asked the user to provide more than one source to irrevocably establish the content being established, but they have not complied.

The user has not provided any content in the talk page except for saying that removal of sourced content is a violation which I feel is an obvious deflection to obfuscate the discussion.

Having said that, I am ready to go back to how it was before or a 3rd opinion being established.

As you can see in this talk page, the discussion has become circular because the user is adamant on using the same source to use content which is not reflected in anyway. MustafaO (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:MustafaO i have issued you a 3RR first in your talk page to avoid complication but you disregarded as evident from your talk page [40] you are deleting sourced content which clearly shows the presence and inhibitions of certain clans in the region due to your biased attitude [41] the exact same content is on the Awdal page same Author, same book used by many other ediors. I have explained on both talk pages yet you refused to stop editing with sourced content at hand [42] you do not get to pick and choose which sources suit you to your liking. Yet you are negotiating saying to leave it on one page and delete the other [43] even though the same content just because it doesn’t suite to your liking, that’s not how Wikipedia works.

User:Hawkers994

This is where the issue diverges. We are not discussing the same issue. In the first comment, I clearly reiterated from previous discussions, the source is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with using it, however it does not mention what you say its mentioning. That's the first point. Your content is WP:OR. This is what you are not really appreciating. If the issue is clear then why not bring corroborative sources to establish it which you chose not to do? This is why I believe we need a 3rd opinion and possibly an administrator to weigh in. Grazing rights and trade does not equal demographics. That's what you are using the source for.

MustafaO (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You are still removing sources from the page while this discussion just began which is an evasive tactic, the source clearly states large presence of communities as in habitation in the region which you are avoiding due to biased and not fitting to you liking Hawkers994 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994

Please do not assume my intentions and let us keep this respectful. You say the source "clearly states large presence of communities". Here is the source you provided: [[44]].

Could you show where in this source it states "large presence" or anything close to what you used it for?

This is what you wrote in the article: "The Habr Awal also partially inhabit the neighbouring region of Awdal." But the aforementioned source does not say what you are saying. Could you provide where it says "large presence"? Clear case of WP:OR.

MustafaO (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

you are even denying the source book itself on page 9 “Haber - Awal has been in conflict with the Gadabuursi over land rights. The second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts; there, Isaaq traders and pastoralists have established a greater presence” [45] why are you denying this source and authour even though its used by many editors on wikipedia at the actual Awdal page when its conveniently mentioning the community you are promoting. Hawkers994 (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994

Could you provide a link to the text? When it is typed in the search bar, it doesn't come up which is quite strange. Could you provide an actual link to this source? Again even if we assume it, that's clearly original research because of two reasons:

1st reason: The first section you are quoting: "Haber - Awal has been in conflict with the Gadabuursi over land rights." Is not connected to this: "The second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast."

Thats a new paragraph and the two are not connected. The subject matter is two completely different issues that you've amalgamated.

2nd reason: Your original edit to the article was in the demographics section, the quote you are providing does not speak about demographics. It speaks about an area of interest for a particular community for trade and grazing.

My argument: The issue is not the source. It is using it to say what it doesn't say. If this is an issue, can you bring corroborative evidence? It shouldn't be difficult if as you say it is clear. Especially when this one is OR.

MustafaO (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

you are deleting sourced content without even checking the book on the source itself which is a violation, as states in my replies previously is on page 9 as you are going around in circles [46] Denying that a certain community lives in a region just because it doesn’t fit to your liking when you cannot refute it Hawkers994 (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:Hawkers994, maybe the content can be worded better? It shouldn't be put in the demographics section because as I have shown clearly here, the quote you're providing from this dead link, (if we even assume it, as nothing comes up when you click in the search bar), does NOT state what you state.

Possible solution, how about you reword it to match the source you state? If you agree, then I can reword it and add it to another section within the article. The content you wrote is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

To put it simply, saying a community trades and pastoralists use public land for grazing in area A does NOT mean they own area A or inhabit it permanently or are native.

MustafaO (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Demographics section is exactly where it needs to be as it also shows other clans such the isse, The particular clan on the source inhibit the region clearly as stated on the source meaning they settle there and have settlements. The actual source agrees with this rewording to fit in with your liking is not Wikipedia policy. Hawkers994 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The only problem with that is, your content doesn't reflect the source and is OR.

Mabe if I could ask you, could you provide the direct link to the source, as when I typed in keywords noted in your quote it doesn't come up.

Having said that, the quote you did provide is not speaking about a settled population. It is speaking about grazing and trade. To say otherwise is exactly OR.

MustafaO (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The source that I have added states exactly what the article states which is what I have been saying throughout this discussion, in your attempt to cloud the source u said to move it from demographics then u said leave it on one article and delete it from the other, you seem to be really trying to fit the scenario to your own personal view which is against Wikipedia rules Hawkers994 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Both of you are edit warring. By my count both of you have made more than 20 reverts of this in the last 10 hours or so. You have posted edit warring notices on each other's talk pages so you are both aware of WP:3RR. This is a content dispute but neither of you has attempted to discuss this on the article's talk page. This material does not seem to qualify for a 3RR exception. Both editors should be blocked for egregious 3RR violation. Meters (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And ongoing edit warring... up to about 25 reverts each now. Meters (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is your source: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Studies_on_Governance_Awdal_region.html?id=gny1xwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

When I click on it and type in the search button. I cannot find the quote. Can you send the direct link. This is the 3rd time I made this request. Is there something that you are hiding? If not, please share the direct link so we can look in the source.

I made the request to you previously so that you could come to some kind of an arrangement but you seem adamant on using Original research because the source doesn't claim what you say it does.

MustafaO (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Meters above, I've given both MustafaO and Hawkers994 24 hour blocks for edit warring. I suggest you use this time to take a step back and go to the talk page to resolve this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:RickinBaltimore Here is the exact link from page 9 which User:MustafaO denied and lied about which quotes that “A third clan with a presence in Awdal is the Isaaq, particularly the Haber-Awal sub-clan.” which goes on to further to say “the Isaaq are playing a growing role in two areas of Awdal. One is the agricultural” both quotes from the same source at page 9 [47] [48] different sub clans are present and inhabit this region isse/isaaq and shall be added on the Awdal page without any biased views. Hawkers994 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994

The sources you provided here are both dead links. User:RickinBaltimore, please have a look at what they provided. The search bar doesn't even come up with any results.

Also even if we were to assume in good faith. It is a case of original research because the the content that the user is writing isnt what the supposed source says. You said the source says that a particular community has grazing and trade interests. How does that then translate to having a clear huge presence in the demographic? Clear WP:OR

MustafaO (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

An absolute lie, first link is the actual book source [49] which even in the search bar can be searched “Haber-awal” which will bring you directly to the exact page quote [50] Hawkers994 (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the exact reason why its original research. Why dont you use the exact wording. The border area between the Dilla and Gabiley districts is what you could have written but you didnt write that. You mentioned they had a huge presence in the Lughaya district although the source you quote says (according to you) that the the community has an interest for grazing and trade. That is OR. If you want to quote exactly what the text supposedly says then there is no issue. But your source doesn't reflect the content you were frantically and forcibly adding.

MustafaO (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly as in Dilla too which also in Awdal, and also lughaya, it is why it adds “FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 9

.. Haber - Awal has been in conflict with the Gadabuursi over land rights . The

second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts; there, Isaaq traders and pastoralists have established a greater

presence” different subclans live and inhabit this Region and are present as stated on the source which why it shall be added on. Hawkers994 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, MustafaO's concern is that the claims being added mention "Lughaya" but the source doesn't say "Lughaya". Is that correct? Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Have asked for pages to be fully protected. Editwar still ongoing with what many may see as puppets involved now. Moxy- 00:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The source states that a particular community has an interest in Lughaya for trade and grazing. The user wants this to mean thay said community make up part of the inhabitants and my contention is that the source doesn't state that. Nomadic communities have always travelled to graze in public land but that doesn't mean its inhabitable which is what the user is trying to explicity state. I asked for better sources, the user cant get any. I explained that if it's contentious then bring corroborative evidence. This is what they are refusing. The issue is that they want to divert from what even the user says the source states.

MustafaO (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Many communities live in this region what this user is denying is a certain community to have presence and inhibit in this region despite the sources provided, question is why is he agains a certain community to be added or mentioned to this region Hawkers994 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say that, it says between Dilla and Gabiley. Is Gabiley part of Awdal? It isn't which again shows you that you are making it say what you want it to say. Dispite about the border area between districts doesn't mean one is a huge and clear inhabitant like you wrote in the article. That is original research. When you initially edited it, you did not conform with what you even say the source states.

As for the Lughaya district, same issue. It does not say what you wrote. A particular community having an interest in trade and grazing in a certain locality doesn't mean that locality belongs to them or that they constitute an inhabitant demographic. Why dont you bring corroborative sources? Add one or two more sources to show. But the reason why you dont want to do that is because it doesn’t exist.

By you adding what you want despite the source not conforming to your desired content shows you dont feel any responsibility towards the community in my views.

MustafaO (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Many communities live in this region what this user is denying is a certain community to have presence and inhibit in this region despite the sources provided, question is why is he agains a certain community to be added or mentioned to this region When sources clearly staye “A third clan with a presence in Awdal is the Isaaq, particularly the Haber-Awal sub-clan.” Hawkers994 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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

HazemGM

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

Previously raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#HazemGM where it was archived without resolution. He remains socking, now at 102.45.7.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), full list of IPs at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM, can we get some range blocks please? GiantSnowman 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Now at 154.180.60.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which looks to be part of the most common range. GiantSnowman 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Now at 41.47.176.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted, obviously. I'm in favour of rangeblocking as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

New IP: 154.180.192.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

New IP - 154.180.34.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 11:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman 41.44.245.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)edit, probably results in another 3 day block. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked - that's 4 IPs in under 24 hours. We need a range block(s) ASAP. GiantSnowman 15:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Confederate monuments fall under topic ban

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

---

Does posting about the removal of confederate monuments fall under a post 1992 topic ban on politics? It’s not directly political but they were voted on to be removed. I don’t want to get banned so I came here to ask before I did anything. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• In my opinion, yes, User:Lima Bean Farmer. It's a good thing to ask: thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Lima Bean Farmer, I agree with Drmies. Confederate monuments are highly politicized in contemporary US politics. And politics encompasses much more than votes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Uncivil personal attack by IP 87.196.74.126 at Talk:Spanish Empire

Recent editing at Talk:Spanish Empire#Inaccurate Map (October 2023) has evidenced uncivil behaviour and personal attacks, enough for me to issue a general warning that such behaviour should cease (here). Immediately after, an IP made three edits that IMO fall to being a personal attack against another - [51], [52] & [53]. The nature of the edits indicate a long-term editor that would probably meet the definition of being a sock - quite possibly of a banned editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31h for disruptive editing. Clearly not here to contribute productively. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is transparently Roqui15. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15. TompaDompa (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ingenuity, this edit by IP 87.196.80.123 would appear to be the same editor evidencing much the same behaviour first reported here. I believe it is appropriate for me to delete their post in these circumstances and will do so. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:180.150.112.245

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

---

This IP was blocked in July for a month for block evasion. Since coming out of a block it's talk page has already been littered with warnings for disruptive editing. This is clearly a static IP.

Refer to here, here, here and here. TarnishedPath^talk 05:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Alawi Mohamed Alsakkaf

Hello. I'm here to request an indefinite block for User:Alawi Mohamed Alsakkaf. The user has made 28 contributions to Wikipedia, every single one of which has been reverted as vandalism. You can see the user's edit history here. Every single edit was reverted. The user comes back to Wikipedia sporadically to make vandal edits, is what it seems, since they have only edited Wikipedia on four different days. Most notably, recently, the user went on 2023 Ballon d'Or to make this edit, which was just complete vandalism. This edit perfectly encapsulates all of the user's edit here on Wikipedia. It's clear that Alawi Mohamed Alsakkaf is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Per WP:BLOCKP, it is a reasonable risk that on any given day, the user will return to make more such edits to Wikipedia. The user should therefore be indefinetely blocked per the blocking policy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I reported to WP:AIV because I agree it seems to be vandalism only, some of it "subtle vandalism". —siroχo 06:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the user has been blocked. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Personal Attacks against User:WWGB

My fellow editor WWGB has been repeatedly been vandalized by IPs over the last couple of months. Here from one IP: [54][55][56]. Another: [57] [58]. And another: [59][60][61]. It got to the point where my own talk page was attacked by the IP after I reverted the vandalism on their talk page: [62][63][64].

I don't want to take action on this without WWGB's permission... but holy expletive this is getting out of hand. I know this is technically vandalism, but it's gotten to such a point I think an ANI discussion might be necessary. Maybe an IP range block? It is obviously the same person, but different IP addresses. Are they IP hopping? If so, it's definitely block evasion. I'd like to hear others' thoughts. (I will notify WWGB on just a second).

The most recent IP also attacked me personally. See [65]. This has gone waaaay too far. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• The IP also edited my report to ANI: [66]. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• If you want your user talk page semi-protected for a while, WWGB, say the word. It seems warranted, and without too much in the way of negative consequences from a quick perusal of its edit history. You've apparently had just two people without accounts come by in the past year. Is keeping the good-faith one from Greece worth the hassle of the other one from the United States? Your decision. Uncle G (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be a good course of action —- but like you said, it’s up to WWGB. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know why this IP vandal is so upset. I must have reverted him previously but I don't remember. He comes out at random times and defaces my talk page, while addrerssing his phallic fixation.

@Uncle G: I think semi-protection of my talk page is a good idea. I seldom have IPs leaving (useful) comments there.

Thank you both for your assistance. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I semi-protected User talk:WWGB for three months. Any future similar attacks should result in an immediate and lengthy block of the IP or account. Feel free to notify me if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully we won’t be seeing any more of that IP any time soon. Professor Penguino (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Only thing left to do here is to remove the talk page access of IP 174.203.242.80, due to the attacks they've been posting on their talk page, especially after being blocked (diff). — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Would an IP range block be in order? I am pretty certain they are hopping between IPs; it's only a matter of time before they'll be able to evade this most recent block. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Personal Attacks in Talk:Death of Armita Geravand

An IP is cursing there. Parham wiki (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have identified the user in question as 178.131.168.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and have notified the most recent IP from that range. They have not edited since October 30, but the discussion where they used personal attacks, Talk:Death_of_Armita_Geravand#Information_about_Mahsa_Amini_is_irrelevant, has also received participation from 133.106.47.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Rkieferbaum (talk · contribs) on the opposing side, up to 01:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

They're the reason the article had to be protected. They're quiet now, hopefully they're done. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t thing it’s a one off. Same IP also made personal attacks on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_veiling_practices_by_country&action=history (the one calling another user biased feminist and basically calling them a know-nothing). I think this user needs a long ban to preclude further WP:NOTHERE behavior. Borgenland (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Alumim massacre WP:V issues

Alumim massacre is a fast-evolving WP:V disaster. Most of the page simply fails verification outright. It was created on 31 October out-of process by an non-EC confirmed editor (in the ARBPIA CT space) before being draftified, and then moved back to mainspace by an EC editor. Unfortunately, the page was only superficially improved, with citations added alongside statements, but with no adjustments made to the statements. The result is a mess of a page that superficially looks verified, but if you actually go through the statements and check the associated links, it largely fails verification. This is not a complaint against a specific editor, but this content urgently needs experienced eyes to guide what is currently a debacle of unexperienced editing. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another ARBPIA page created by a non-EC user, where the broader issues of non-EC ARBPIA activity has been raised. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I ec protected it without looking at other issues. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Unverified claims galore. I'll try sorting it out a bit, and if that doesn't work then I'll start a talk page discussion. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I also see what Iskandar323 means. Some of the refs are not relevant. The article should focus on the specific event and not rehash the war. Most of the refs incl. those in Hebrew are on point but very POV, so need to be written more neutrally (including the terrorist / militant issue). I’ve wikignomed some other similar articles so I’m happy to help with rewrite. The newbie editors also seem to not understand what Iskandar323 is telling them, so I’m going to explain how Wp:V works on the talk page again. Ayenaee (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User: Jawaan1 Is Not here to edit constructively

User: Jawaan1 Is Not here to edit constructively

• Jawaan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edits made by this editor have all been non-constructive, and have included creating BLPs of Muhammed Luqman or Muhammad Luqman, and moving Muhammad Hassaan from draft space to article space, and then removing the AFD tag from Muhammad Hassaan. I haven't had time to research whether this is a sock, or who the sockpuppeteer is. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's worse than that. I've restored the status quo ante after the wholesale removal of one of the Mohammed Shah's, and another administrator has revoked the editing privileges. But see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lh1011, at least two open AFD discussions (Muhammad Shahzad Mohmand (AfD discussion), Muhammad Hassaan (AfD discussion)), hoax userpages, and a whole bunch of mucking around at AFC, for all of the time of everyone else cleaning up afterwards that 1 person is wasting. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I did delete those 2 articles as G5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Cammm3ee - vandalism only account

Newly registered account, sole purpose appears to be anti-semitic vandalism. Eg [67]. WP:NOTHERE block required. WCM_email 12:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Troll go by bye. No ifs. No buts. Not even talk page access. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster You can probably just use WP:AIV for crap like that. Best, Seawolf35 (talk - email) 14:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I would normally use AIV but was in a rush on my way out but didn't want to leave it for Someone Else to report as Someone Else is an unreliable editor. Thanks @Canterbury Tail:. WCM_email 16:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

46.31.118.92 - block evasion and disruptive behaviour

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

46.31.118.92/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of the /21 range of this IP was blocked for sockpuppetry. The IP currently editing is no doubt the same person. Note their similar edit summaries, both refusing to add citations for their additions, instead telling others to "add the citation needed template" [68] [69]. In other words, this is just WP:BLOCKEVASION. Can this IP please be added to the block list? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 months. If they come back from a different IP, let us know and we can look at a separate rangeblock. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Gotcha, thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Block please

nothere Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) and now this Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, edits revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, this looks behaviourally and technically like the same person behind the Hussienpour account, along with a few other troll accounts that I see have been globally locked; there don't appear to be any connected accounts that are unblocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Xihuaa - Failure to engage with other editors' concerns

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

Xihuaa has repeatedly created articles about individual events at Asian Para Games without providing proper independent sources. Examples include Canoeing at the 2022 Asian Para Games, Shooting at the 2022 Asian Para Games, and many others in the same mold. Multiple editors have now explained to her that these contributions fall afoul of WP:NOTINFO, most extensively by myself (see Special:PermanentLink/1182182464) and ToBeFree (Special:Diff/1181878927), but also more obliquely by other editors who have tagged her article creations with {{notability}} or nominated them for deletion. Despite these messages, which Xihuaa has read and removed from her talk page, she has continued in the same pattern of WP:FAITACCOMPLI editing (the articles linked earlier in this report were both created after I sent her talk page messages, and are only a fraction of the articles edited). In the course of discussion on her talk page, it also became clear that Xihuaa is heavily relying on translation software to edit and communicate on English Wikipedia, which, in tandem with the other concerns, raise CIR issues, whether relating to communication or competence. If she is not able to acknowledge and adjust her behavior in line with these considerations, I'm afraid that a block may be required. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rosguill. Xihuaa, please join this discussion here and explain your position. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

1- I don't understand the reason for all these negative messages. My aim was to contribute to the articles (and of course to give hope to the athletes who are interested in these games in the Asian continent). I looked up articles on the Olympics and similar events on Wikipedia. There were sports articles in it. I also looked here. They were here too. I did not create them. They were just one line leading to the main article. I thought it would be nice to complete them.

2- Is there a more important source than the official site of the games themselves? If so, tell me.

3- You told me that more resources are needed. I said I understood. There may be no more resources available at this time. The site of the games usually disappears shortly after the end of the games. The link is sold. I realized this when the Olympics were held. I used to think that these sites will remain forever. I was looking for results from the Paralympics but found it on another site. So I realized one thing. After some time, the results are archived on other sites, and sometimes they are not. Maybe a few months or a few years. I noticed that the results on the games site are gone. It was not even on Wikipedia. After a lot of searching, I found only a part of them with difficulty.

4- Currently, there are other sites where new resources can be found. But it takes a lot of time. I did my best for the articles. I spent several hours daily over a week. Not only did I get no thanks, only a few warning messages to discourage me.

5- Here you say why I deleted the message. Because I read it and understood it. I planned to make many more articles because even now the articles related to these games have many problems. There are many articles. There is a lot of information on the games site. But after seeing the discouraging messages, I gave up on it. It is not true that you say that I continued the behavior before the messages. I noticed that instead of thanking the user for his free time, he is not thanked here. She is questioned. I only completed the papers that were there because the competitions were over and I completed them.

6- Currently there are no other articles that I want to create. Because you did not give me positive feedback. If you look closely at my edits, you will notice that I tried to make them clean and complete. My effort was sincere and I did not upset anyone.

7- I am not feeling very well right now. I got a little sick. I am also very busy. Therefore, I will not make an article at all. All these negative messages for completing some articles made me sad.

8- You can complete the articles with the following sources. A user says that articles should be popular. Aren't the following articles famous? All of them (similar articles) exist. Many of them have only one source. In any case, I gave up on the article. Maybe a few small edits if I had time.

NPC official websites :

https://asianparalympic.org/

https://asianparalympic.org/members/ (45 countries all of them have website)

Such as: https://www.paralympic.org/jordan / https://www.paralympicindia.org.in/ and so on ...

https://www.paralympic.org/

https://www.hangzhou2022.cn/paragames/En/

https://www.paralympic.org/feature/hangzhou-2022-asian-para-games-top-moments

World para sports website such as: https://iwbf.org/event/hangzhou-2022-asian-para-games/

and many more web that are good source.

Also, many similar articles have been created by your other users. such as:

Pan American Games sports, Swimming at the Pan American Games, Swimming at the 2023 Pan American Games, Template:Pan American Games Swimming, Template:Mediterranean Games Sports, Judo at the Mediterranean Games, Template:ParalympicSports, Shooting at the Summer Paralympics, Shooting at the 2020 Summer Paralympics and more ................

also some articles from past games: Chess at the 2018 Asian Para Games, Shooting at the 2018 Asian Para Games

Template:Events at the 2018 Asian Para Games

9- Article should be a sport in the Asian Games and not in the Para Asian Games?

Go at the 2022 Asian Para Games

Go at the 2022 Asian Games

10- By the way, most of the mentioned articles were completed or created by the following users and I was just a follower. It is good to ask their opinion or ask them to add more resources.

@Achmad Rachmani: and @Hariboneagle927: and @Nyoman Juniarta: and @Vikram maingi: and @GlashaLeo: and @WikiEdits2003:Xihuaa (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Badminton, Athletics, Swimming, Table Tennis and so on ....... completed by this users.

These users created or completed the 2018 and 2022 articles. Achmad Rachmani corrected many of my mistakes. I think he can comment.

Negative messages make me very sad. I have nervous disorders and I take pills for it. Many arguments are bad for me. But I did not intend to upset others. My intention was to make the athletes happy. With this situation, I am not at all interested in editing. I have a lot to do in real life and doctors have told me not to get angry or argue too much. Solve the problem yourself. Thanks in advance.

Thank you all. Cordially yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xihuaa (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In case you wanted to read a response to your points, see WP:THERAPY, WP:OSE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG. It is further very clear from your communications thus far that your level of English is not sufficient to understand and engage with other editors’ concerns. Your use of translation software makes gibberish out of Wikipedia jargon; if you require translation software to communicate in English, you do not have sufficient skills to be contributing prose to this project and should focus on Wikipedia in a language you actually speak. All that having been said, this discussion is now moot from an administrative perspective if you are intending to stop editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia also doesn't want a complete history of medallists on an article on a specific edition of an event, as done here and [70]. Those articles are clearly just for the 2022 Asian Para Games event. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK queues

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

---

All Did you know queues are empty. To avoid a missed DYK update, admin assistance in moving preps to queues is required within 23 hours' time. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 00:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:46.134.62.195 requests update of a protected article with potential connection to LTA Wikinger

An IP user, @46.134.62.195, recently contacted me on my talk page to ask me to update the data on Code2000 based on [71]. After updating it, looking at the talk page made me realize the history of long-term abuse of this page by WP:LTA/Wikinger regarding this page, and especially their impersonation of James Kass, one alleged account of which (User:CodeJames) the IP user was referring to. The IP furthermore appears to be familiar with Wikinger, referring to them by their username w:de:user:Wikinger08 which isn't mentioned on the LTA page. I've reverted my update. Are my suspicions reasonable, and what should be done next? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

IP has been blocked, and I blocked a couple of sleeper accounts as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi again! I noticed that one of the accounts you blocked was User:Openmicȣnt. Is User:Openmichunt also a sock, or is it another case of impersonation? (The latter left messages on my talk page today, which were edited by the former with the signature changed). Thank you very much again! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's a WP:DUCK if I saw one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again. When looking at the history of User talk:Openmicȣnt, I saw that he claimed in one of his edit summaries to be Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Projects. Might we have two different LTAs? (The other edit summaries were weird attacks against a so-called "Antandrus") ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

On that page, it does say that Wikinger copies Projects and vice versa. At this point it really doesn't matter since it's all the same, a LTA causing disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Promo editor posting the same article with different names

Editor user:ChoudharySamrat has posted Icaria (fest) article under different names that have been G11'd, twice in a row. This one is at Afd. The editor has been paid to update ICFAI University, Tripura article. A coi report has been made, but editor only seems to be here to promote this event now. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

sorry my intention is to provide only neutral point of view the previous I myself proposed for deletion if you check please ChoudharySamrat (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why didn't you submit a draft and go through the AFC process that you clearly know how to go through? DarmaniLink (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've deleted Icaria (fest) and salted all three known names (Icaria (fest), Icaria (event), and ICARIA (event)), as well as blocked ChoudharySamrat as not being here to create an encyclopedia (recreating the same deleted promotional article several times under different names is extremely disruptive.) Bishonen | tålk 18:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC).

Please note that I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChoudharySamrat as I believe them to be editing through another account now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IP(s) repeatedly using talk page as forum for rants

• 109.107.230.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.220.116.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.107.228.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These IPs, most likely the same user, keep posting racist or otherwise non-constructive, partly nonsensical comments on Talk:Berbers. At best, a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:FORUM, including some personal attacks. Even their first comments ([72], [73]), which are superficially on topic, are still unconstructive and were added hours after the claims they're objecting to (that these two historical figures are Berber) were removed from the article ([74]). Their subsequent comments make it clear that they just want to rant and respond by attacking editors: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. They've been warned about their behaviour several times: [81], [82], [83].

I don't think their latest comment ([84]) should be allowed to remain on the talk page, but they've already shown that they're willing to edit-war over it if removed (see [85], [86]). Given that the IP number changed twice, I'm not sure if blocking them is the best solution, so any other advice is also welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've partial blocked 37.220.116.0/22 and 109.107.228.0/22 from Talk:Berbers and Talk:Lebanon for two weeks. Let me know if they get around the blocks and I'll take another look.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help. R Prazeres (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Unsourced" deletions

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

---

GlasssixstringV2 has decided to edit a bunch of articles about musicians with the comment, "Removed all unsourced information". This doesn't seem to me like the appropriate way to go about improving the sourcing on articles. Could someone take another look and see if there's a reason not to revert all these changes? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty deliberate antithesis of what WP:PRESERVE recommends, a ton of it is completely benign information for which sources could immediately be located, paradoxically, making it harder to determine whether any actually objectionable information might've been removed. Remsense聊 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Examining the changes at Tommy Roe there are a few concerns. Quickly,

• Some deletions are implicitly verifiable to published material, such as the discography and the TV appearance.
• WP:FACEBOOK is allowed for WP:ABOUTSELF and is referenced in-text. Such a reference can be improved with an inline citation.
• And while it's a matter of opinion, statements like In 1986, Roe was inducted into the Georgia Music Hall of Fame, and his pioneering contribution to the genre has been recognized by the Rockabilly Hall of Fame. should be uncontroversial enough for such a famous artist to merely require a {{cn}} tag (or, a quick Google search of: "Georgia Music Hall of Fame" "tommy roe" can quickly begin the process verification for that claim).
• There are also some "See also" entries removed for no apparent reason, not even verifiability, eg List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, which is verified elsewhere in the article, and The History of Rock & Roll for which an explanation should have been provided for removal. So the edit summary is either not accurate, or a mistake was made in confirming verification. It's great to improve "See also" sections, sometimes that includes removing links, but it's clear this is part of the broader removal and inaccurate to some degree.

I haven't examined other removals here to see if they are verified by sources in the article, nor have I examined any other articles, but there is a reasonable overshoot in removal of information here. Note that there are many ways to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM beyond simply bulk removing information. —siroχo 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above and with @Remsense. These changes should be reverted absent a specific reason why the content should be removed. A good reason, for example, would be negative unsourced content on BLP. The fact of being unsourced isn't enough by itself. Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

GlasssixstringV2's first account, User:Glasssixstring, created the article Robin Shaw. The Shaw article was tagged for notability and sourcing on October 15 and GlasssixtringV2 objected to the notability tag being added. It was only after the notability tag was restored to the Shaw article that they began systematically stripping content from the articles of other musical artists. Prior to that, they had only tagged a small handful of articles with notability tags, leaving the content in situ. This looks rather WP:POINTY. This all seems very familiar to me...-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked GlasssixstringV2 as a suspected sock: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red plosion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I will point out that it is perfectly acceptable, as stated at WP:BURDEN, to remove unsourced claims. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Edward-Woodrow, In a vacuum, absolutely. But I'm sure everyone understands how WP:PROVEIT and WP:PRESERVE work together to make a better encyclopedia. Remsense聊 21:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    • There is also an entire paragraph at WP:BURDEN that explains how and why alternative methods may be preferable to outright blanking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Blaxoul, part 2

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

On 16 June 2023, Blaxoul was blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment", which was against me, as seen in the ANI thread at that time (where it's also shown that they accused a historian for being "biased" due to simply being of Armenian stock). After that, we didn't communicate even once. However, today they randomly made yet another attack towards me; "Why are you so obsessed with editing articles about turks? I don't think you're a volunteer who's just "contributing" to Wikipedia. Something fishy is happening, but I will never know.".

This user has been here since 2020, making 59 edits since then. As you can see here [87], the majority of these few edits have been related to nothing but trouble. I think it's safe to say they're WP:NOTHERE, I fail how to see they're a networth to this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Like there's no way you are a single person. You are 7/24 here. I am just checking your edit history and there's nothing wrong with that. Blaxoul (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There are so many people who got banned for simply disagreeing with you. Am I the next? Blaxoul (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a Russian-Armenian historian named Arakelova who says Iranian Azerbaijan has only 6-6.5 million Azerbaijani turks and calling that a bias is wrong? There are countless examples of this. Blaxoul (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Blaxoul as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need angry ethnonationalists who create no new content. Like there's no way you are a single person. You are 7/24 here. is a ridiculous, evidence free accusation of sockpuppetry, as can be seen by a glance at HistoryofIran's time card, which shows when this editor sleeps. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, saying someone is on WP 7 hours out of 24 isn't that much of an accusation ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"Is" or "Isn't", Gråbergs Gråa Sång? There have been many times when I haven't edited Wikipedia for quite a few hours when I was not actually sleeping. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But, like me, there have also been times when you were on WP 7 hours in a 24 hour period, right? And to clarify, I actually read Blaxoul's "7/24" to mean "24 hours a day, 7 days a week." Which obviously is incorrect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What is this 'sleep' thing referred to? Seriously though, some of the less fortunate amongst us have (excuse the language, but when you know, you know...) utterly fucked-up sleep patterns. Or, in my case, at its worst, nothing that could reasonably be described as a pattern at all. It's probably only the consistency with which my increasing irritability shows through that convinces people that its all me, and not a GrumpGPT simulacrum set to post at random. Chronic insomnia shouldn't be taken as evidence of sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The timecard on XTools is a long-term record of an account's editing history, not only the last week or month. This may be clearer if you look at the numbers on the right side of the chart, or the ones that pop up when you hover over / mouseover the circles on the chart. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my timecard doesn't represent the waking hours of the majority of my timezone due to the non-normal hours that I work. So I tend to be about 12 hours off the cycle of most people over here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IP constantly resubmitting AfC submissions

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

This IP has been consistently resubmitting AfC submissions without changing a single thing in the draft. This has been going on since June of 2023 (Proof) and is still ongoing to this day. This IP does not listen to any requests on the drafts or their talk page. I'd recommend something be done about this, as this is starting to get annoying for AfC reviewers and unnecessarily clogs up the big backlog (well maybe not anymore). Kline • talk to me! • contribs 03:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked them from Draftspace for 3 months. BeanieFan11, I noticed that you fixed one of this IPs football player articles - I suspect there might be others that can be rescued by someone who is actually willing to add sources? Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite and Kline: Ugh! And I just began getting the time to clean up all their submissions too! Around 70% of them are notable, and we kind of worked together (along with Scorpions1325) to get the notable submissions to mainspace as the IP doesn't have access to the sources but knows most are needed articles and I do have access to the sources but don't have time to create all of the articles myself. Would there be some way to allow this user to continue creating drafts but them be put in some sort of category "Reserved AFC submissions for Scorpions1325 and BeanieFan11"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

COI editor (Georebekah on Rebekah Jones)

Per the VRT confirmation at commons:File:Rebekah_Jones_Photo.jpg, their pattern of editing on the article, and referring to the person as "me" in this edit, it seems reasonably certain to me that Georebekah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Rebekah Jones. They were given a couple warnings about COI editing in 2020, which they've ignored several times just recently. In this circumstance, a partial block from the article seems appropriate for me, but since I have not been doing this for very long, I would like to get some opinions here first. jp×g🗯️ 08:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

JPxG, pageblocks are, in my opinion, a very useful tool for dealing with this particular type of disruption. The editor should be instructed to make neutral, well-referenced Edit requests at Talk: Rebekah Jones instead. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

While I agree, recently is in the eye of the beholder. If she comes back and does it again, that would be the time to P-Block. It's been over two months since she last edited her own article. spryde | talk 15:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IP making accusations that an editor is being paid by the Russian government

On Talk:Scott Ritter, 129.7.0.14 made a comment accusing User:Philomathes2357 of being "on Putin's payroll". I removed this, only for the IP to re-install it, saying "RussianTroll2357 definitely is". After removing this one last time and leaving a NPA warning on their talk page, they again reinstalled it and accused me of "protecting a Russian troll". These allegations are flagrant WP:NPA violations and having spoken to the editor about it only to be repeatedly reverted, I'm left with no choice to come here. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IP Blocked 31 hours for the repeated personal attacks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

this is just more of the same - it's been going on for a year. The trolls usually derail any conversation that I start. Thanks for jumping on them. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I was directed here by Slatersteven after sharing some concerns on his talk page. I don't think from reading things the past few hours that you are being trolled, I think there are some big concerns about your behaving in violation of WP:TIMESINK. The block log says you were previously blocked for that. I was initially thinking you were just a really anti-USA user when I saw the stuff on [88] but after reading your history of warnings and asking, Slatersteven showed me the WP:NOT policy and I think a lot of what you are doing is that. USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That may be so and you're free to file a ANI report if you want, but this one is about them being personally attacked, so let's not reward the IP's unacceptable behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Note I was asked where they should report their concerns. I will add that Philomathes2357 does seem to have some issues with refusing to accept consensus, and it seems motivated by POV pushing. Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and vandalism

More than 90% of the contributions of the user User:Pedantic Aristotle are related to the politician Javier Milei. This is clearly an single-purpose account. But it's not just that, this user is also resorting to vandalism, as he has tried to extremely and massively delete information with sources from Javier Milei article. It's not the first time he's done it. He has also attempted to massively erase information with sources from the La Libertad Avanza article, a political coalition to which Javier Milei belongs. I show some examples of mass deletion of information with sources that this user has carried out:

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95] Uniru288 (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uniru288: Would you please provide a link to the talk page discussion where you tried to work with Pedantic Aristotle on this dispute? Also, would you please provide a link to the warnings you left them regarding what you believe is vandalism? Also, would you please provide a link to the edit where you notified them that you started a discussion here? Also, would you please provide a link to the report that was just filed against you at the edit warring noticeboard regarding your behavior at Renewal Front, where you've done at least five reverts in a little more than 16 hours? Also, would you please provide a link to your block log that shows that you've already been blocked twice for edit warring? City of Silver 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I became aware of this discussion because Uniru288 made an identical comment at my talk page, presumably because I have previously blocked both Pedantic Aristotle and Uniru288 for edit warring. Outside of one comment to their own talk page and two edits to my own, Uniru288 has only ever made a single edit to a talk page yet is quick to revert with little or no explanation. I've blocked Uniru288 twice for edit warring previously and there is an open discussion at WP:ANEW (Permalink), and the only reason I haven't acted on that report is because I don't want to give the appearance that I'm consistently "picking on" them by being the same administrator blocking them yet again, but there has been no attempt by Uniru288 to discuss the issues that they have with Pedantic Aristotle, and I find the continued edit warring concerning, especially when combined with the absence of any attempt at discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)