Dustfreeworld claimed that sourced information cannot be verified [1]. I provided verification [2] using sources already in the article. They did not engage in the discussion but removed the information [3] [4] and placed a warning on my talk page, even though there is nothing wrong with most of my edits [5]. This seems like a WP:CIR issue. Vacosea (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This case is mostly a content dispute, but Dustfreeworld has failed to discuss as part of the BRD cycle. I am not an admin, but if Vacosea wants to reinsert the information they feel is not covered, I would be happy to support the inclusion temporarily until discussion is completed, acting as an informal third opinion. Be careful not to revert, thereby deleting the many changes that have been made since your edit, simply make a minimal edit which includes the information you wish to see included.

Dustfreeworld probably needs to show awareness that following a revert which the other user takes exception to, discussion is not optional. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like that at all, in my reading. Dustfreeworld has not removed anything put by Vacosea, except take out small details due to BLP issues (changing of "cheated three times" to "cheated", or changing "separated for more than two years" to "separated", as these are sourced to breaking news reports). Has Vacosea done anything wrong? No; these are editorial calls. Is Dustfreeworld required mandatorily to comment on the talk page of the article? Absolutely not. Is Dustfreeworld's warning to Vacosea uncalled for? Well, yeah... I think Dustfreeworld did not realise the impact that such a template may cause to an editor who is excitedly placing, whatever can be sourced, into the article. Like what is mentioned above, it is an editorial issue and need not be discussed here. Vacosea, request Dustfreeworld again to give his pov on the article's talk page. For future disputes, please follow the procedures listed out at dispute resolution. Thanks, Lourdes 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dustfreeworld said there was speculation/wrong information, but they have offered nothing to question the reports. Allegations of Rockowitz cheating on Lee and their marriage problem were covered before [6] [7], so they are not breaking news, only Lee's death was. If the problem was sourcing, the same or similar English and non-English sources are used to support their own edits about Lee [8]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "one more time", see context from previous comments. Vacosea (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, out of the 30+ edits made by User:Vacosea to the article Coco Lee, 16 of them involved removal of content, most of which was added by me. You can see that from the page’s history [9]. And yes, I DO think that “Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time”, too. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not explain their refusal to check with the sources and engage in discussion, and placing a warning template on my talk page about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information. It just goes on to show the contradictory and ever changing nature of their complaint. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree DustFreeworld answered a reasonable request to discuss with a warning template, that is treading into personal attack territory. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, scrub that, the warning came first, it wasn't warranted, but it wasn't in response to the request to discuss. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarification Boynamedsue :) Perhaps you can strike that as well? In case people may misread. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the warning [10] came after the talk section [11] [12]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much appreciated if you can stop confusing people. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I’m really surprised to see this discussion about me.

• 18:58, 12 September 2023 User:Vacosea made this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175089915

They misinterpreted the source as “Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home” (in the source it said Lee moved out of their previous home).

So I added the “Cite check” template to call for source verification:

• 22:52, 12 September 2023

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175121745

My edit summary: Added { {Cite check} } tag. The page now reads: “Lee and her husband had been separated for more than two years before she died . . . In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home”? And the source cited mentioned nothing about “early 2023”. I think there maybe more. . . WP:GROWNUPS

What I mean is, if they had separated in 2021, how can THEY moved out of their previous home together in 2023? It’s simply wrong, and the wrong information was added by User:Vacosea.

After that edit of mine, User:Vacosea posted the “verification” they mentioned above to the article talk page and also edited the article and added a parameter (talk=September 2023 verification) to the Cite check template

Cite check|date=September 2023|talk=September 2023 verification

And then, they edited the article again to removed the wrong information they added, per what I had pointed out:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175233034
  • From: In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home.
  • To: In early 2023, Lee reportedly moved out of her previous home.

In short, they KNEW they were wrong on that, had corrected it and had posted a “verification” on talk (that post is somewhat redundant IMHO, but now I know how it can be used). I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue). NOW I know I was wrong. I never anticipated that it will turn into an accusation of ME being incompetent. They knew they had put in wrong information to the article and they knew why the template was added but still make such false and misleading accusations (that I didn’t engage on talk and show “incompetence”). I suspect there maybe behavioural issues. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of my edits were accurate. After the cite check, I adjusted some details. Moving out and separating are not always the same thing anyway. On the other hand, Dustfreeworld didn't seem to have checked with any sources before reverting other information again, even though I showed the sources for correction, including early 2023/early this year. They placed a warning template, out of nowhere, about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information on my talk page. Just because their talk page has received many notices from other editors in the past doesn't mean they should be doing that with mine. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are interested in Coco Lee’s marriage and what problematic content User:Vacosea had added may visit the talk page. I have posted some old evidence that support those. If you want the latest BREAKING news, 20 September 2023 (no, not old news), here you are:

• https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/256329/Husband's-'affair'-triggered-Coco's-downward-spiral
  • “The couple started to live separately on October 15, 2022” - you said they had separated for 2 years?
  • “A month after Lee filed the divorce application Rockowitz issued a response through his lawyer admitting his affair in 2017, but not the continuation of the affair his wife mentioned.” - He only admitted having cheated on Lee once.”

I’m very doubtful about their saying that “The vast majority of my edits were accurate”, respectfully.

From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Vacosea is still adding the contentious and likely wrong information to the article today. Surely this is not the first time that this user is warned on sourcing and content additions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1158777818
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1165129803

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353#Suspicious_edits

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1176765896

I’m not familiar with the procedure, but a ban maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [13], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [14][15], or highlighted their source here without mentioning 6 other sources against them on the article's talk page all this time. Is it also good faith behavior for Dustfreeworld to omit information from my history in order to push for a ban? [16] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [17] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve posted on the BLP notice board as well: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Coco Lee. I believe the issue is important as it may have real life consequences on the financial arrangements of the subjects’ family, and that the dubious information may also be defamatory. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles"... It's important for an editor to be able to point out stuff that is potentially defamatory. We might actually be effecting a chilling effect by telling editors to not point out such stuff. Thanks, Lourdes 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. We can do that without using legally-charged words. BLP covers it sufficiently, we do not need to use "defamation" / "libel". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“A discussion as to whether material is libelousis not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” WP:NLT --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Key words: a discussion about, not just lobbing the word into a comment and leaving it there like a ticking time bomb. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [18]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacosea May I reiterate what another user said above: “Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity”. Thanks :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one who is engaging in baseless personal attack is Dustfreeworld, however hard they try to change the subject or reframe around it. Vacosea (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are trying to make use of the “Goebbels effect” (or “big lie technique”), in the hope that “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. But experiments tell us that it won’t,

• ″For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable … the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies″.
  • https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And IMHO, what’s more important is that, people who are able to make the right judgement (believe the actual facts) may also have very negative impressions on those who keep repeating the lies (no matter those are organisations, governments or individual). Besides thinking that those are liars, people may also think that they are not reasonable. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some administrator should put an end to this trolling. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that, when you are being accused of making personal attacks, it is probably better not to respond by comparing the other party to a genocidal war criminal. Also, ixnay on the rolltay word, would have thought that was obvious, especially here. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Boynamedsue. No, it’s not a comparison of any party to anyone, definitely not. The term . . . Effect just come up in a webpage and it sounds like a professional psychological term to me so I used it. I’m just describing a psychological phenomenon. No offence indeed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repost just to add highlight:

From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier

(add: and I believe no consensus on talk is required before the deletion as it’s contentious topic) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repost just to add highlight:

I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read your mind from edit summaries only or a warning template [19] if you skip discussion on the talk page [20], even though you were active on Coco Lee and other articles and talk pages, including ones I was also editing [21]. The times cheated and separation time were not "another issue" or "corrected". They had been there since early on, through all the time you placed your recent death template [22], was reverted [23], and your cite check template [24]. "No consesus on talk is required before the deletion", while you could argue for it, is a very recent new point. Vacosea (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a content dispute where both users became quite aerated at different times. It's been moved back to the talkpage, so perhaps this should be closed now? It is just a parallel venue for argument. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see some potential behavior issues that resemble forum shopping [25] (not because they posted there per se but their focus on linking to this ANI) and canvassing [26] (in the edit summary). They may have couched their aspersion of "lie"/"lies"/"liar" here, but repeat it so often that it feels gamey [27] [28]. Overconfident in their ability but quick to cast suspicion [29] [30]. Excessive text and highlighting [31][32] dance around the fact of their baseless personal attack [33] and what has been described as [34]. Vacosea (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is you keep linking to the BLP board.

No it’s not canvassing. It’s an attempt to let the other user know that, it’s possible that what they had suspected two months ago maybe true. As for your translations, I still find them suspicious after a second look. And I hope you are happy with your excessive linking. If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [35] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [36]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [37]. Those edits were unrelated to this, and when you attempted to raise suspicion about my translation, you did not comprehend the source material fully. Vacosea (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be my first edit on August 23 [38]. The number of citations Dustfreeworld kept could make short sentences. Multiple empty section templates had been added since August 2 [39]. I'm not out to get anyone and can take their word for it. What motivated me to come here, beside their warning template and skipping discussion, was that overall, what they were doing defied any easy explanation, at least to me looking from the outside. Vacosea (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which one was false? Vacosea (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all are false. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than a week after saying similar things [40], you have not provided evidence. See Accusing others of bad faith. Vacosea (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith, but then I know I was wrong and is am deeply disappointed. [41][42] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are not getting the point. I'm talking about your claim that I lied or falsely accused you deliberately [43] [44]. Vacosea (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume the good faith assumption that everyone has the assumption of everyone assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming the assumption of good faith^[1] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even new discussion about edits are turned into "false allegations" and "misinformation" [45] [46]. This last sentence may be why [47] and what's influencing their outlook. Vacosea (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion reminds me of children fighting incessantly in the back seat of the station wagon during a family road trip. "Just cut it out ... Don't make me pull this car over!" Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, there are completely evidence free accusations being thrown around without care. This is not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Don't tell me s01 is going to get archived now... Lourdes 06:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  Someone close this and let the highlighted paragraphs go back to the talk page.... And if anyone is willing, keep an eye there. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Archived..... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Lourdes 06:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now with an RfC in progress, they are repeating suggestions [48] [49] about how their comments were "altered". I put their wall of text into sections, that was all, and why would anyone think they began the poll after I began the RfC? Dustfreeworld has also made changes again [50] in a way that makes parts of the RfC no longer match the article, after there have been responses to it already, and after I told them to wait for it to end following their first time at this attempt [51]. What they are saying "much" or "serious misrepresentation" about the RfC, telling "anyone who is reading" not to reply to it, is misleading and unduely influencing the process. Vacosea (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the kids are still bickering in the back. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links. May I suggest you read these?

• WP:RFCBEFORE
• WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, WP:INTERPOLATE, WP:TALKNO
• [52] (my edit summary)

Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more experienced editors Lourdes HandThatFeeds CapnJackSp Cbl62 can answer one question, what would you do if someone were to tell other editors not to participate in an RfC, start another section bypassing it, suggest that you have deliberately made false accusations [53], lied [54], added misinformation [55] related to some Chinese entity, or insinuate someone is editing on behalf of it [56]. I think even with "children bickering", there are lines that should not be crossed. Vacosea (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, we're dragging this out further? What I would do at this point is suggest you both step away from the article and let others handle it for a while. There's been no appetite for sanctioning either of you up until now, but this should've died out last week. WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following that suggestion and trying to let more editors in. You can check the article's history and talk page from last two weeks to see who held the stick.

If nothing described here is actually sanctionable, then say so for the benefit of all editors now and in the future who do not understand the mechanisms here as well as you do. Vacosea (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I went through the linked comments. I would propose here that both @Dustfreeworld and @Vacosea can make one final comment to the RFC summarising their points and no more. The rfc is mostly them fighting and is the main pain point here.

Additional comments regarding the RFC procedure - @Vacosea your last line here [57] regarding what editors should be aware of vis a vis guidelines is not exactly in line with neutral starting statement. Also, you should have structured as votes and discussion separately from the start and if you wanted a change midway, it should only be done with consent of those who had already voted. @Dustfreeworld Im think your comments could also be edited to fit the new format, so it was not exactly the hill to die on.

About the article in general, it is very poorly written. It doesnt even mention her death in the lead, and weird grammatical mistakes that usually happen when its drive by editing rather than a coherent writeup.

Beyond this I dont think any action necessary, if participants want to escalate its up to them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had I known Dustfreeworld's response becomes 20 new lines signed 9 different times, yes, I would have started the RfC with separate sections. The statement about BLP, maybe not worded in the best way, links to the response to Dustfreeworld's request from an uninvolved editor on the BLP board, which was in addition to the discussions on Coco Lee's talk page.

If they keep editing [58] the sections related to the RfC [59] [60], are the changes going to be reverted if the RfC passes in the future, under any of the versions proposed back on October 8? Making changes this way without waiting for consensus only increases the potential for more disputes in the future, which an RfC is supposed to reduce. Vacosea (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard#Bmchedlishvili

Help and eyeballs needed at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, please. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly why we're WP:NOTNEWS. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty neutral at the moment though. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS does not say what some editors think it says. Read it, please. The relevant policy language is: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.. Wikipedia covered the September 11 attacks in its very early days, and has covered every historic news event since. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a shame it does. If we forbade creation of an article on a news event until it's been out of the headlines for 30 days, we'd reduce traffic at ANI by 50% and release incalculable quantities of editor time for useful pursuits. Readers can and should find out about current events from news sources. EEng 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News source can be paywalled and have many articles as the event progress, while Wikipedia only have one article and its sub article (summary style). As a reader myself Wikipedia has been a great place to avoid propaganda/misinformation/disinformation in this current conflict. Hddty (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't put too much trust in that method, considering Wikipedia is wrong due to the fact its material comes from the same sources that propagandize. It is only natural that Wikipedia includes the biases of sources. Whether Wikipedia waits or does not wait in cases like this, there is no immunity from sources (while waiting can allow time for clearer source consenses to develop, there is no guarantee that those sources are any more truthful than original reports). JM2023 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Hddty's comments, no one compels editors to follow or participate in the various drama boards. You are entirely free -- as is every other editor -- to spend your time in such other useful pursuits as seems to you good. Never mind that forbidding creation of articles on news events would just divert incalculable quantities of time into playing whack-a-mole. Ravenswing 03:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• no one compels editors [etc etc etc]] – You could say the same about anything that consumes editor time inefficiently.
• would just divert incalculable quantities of time into playing whack-a-mole – Whack-a-mole is a very easy game to play. In contrast we've got three threads on this very board, at this very moment, centered on the hospital explosion; undoubtedly there are dozens more on other boards and talk pages. 30 (or 60 or 90) days from now the fog of war will have lifted to a large extent on that incident, and a good article can be written from solid sources.

EEng 01:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:, I suggested exactly that, once, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_191#Moratorium_on_recent_events. It was not a happy episode. I think the culmination for me was "No. This is one of the weirdest suggestions ever put forward". It was quite a while before I ventured back into the village pump area! I still hold that trying to be a newspaper as well as an encyclopaedia creates a lot of editorial difficulties; we have to write on subjects without the perspective of distance, which needs a totally different skill-set. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I probably should have read this thread, and the one you linked to, before opening this: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTNEWS/unfolding news stories. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I stumble on anything, as this is the first time I've ever opened an ANI case.

Anyhow, User:Super ninja2's behavior regarding the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been nothing short of disruptive, repeatedly disregarding the consensus and advice of other editors seemingly in order to enforce their own view of the subject. I've divided their behavior into a few sections below:

The initial RM:

1. Super Ninja2 opens a RM, requesting the page title be changed from "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital airstrike" (as it was at the time) to "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital massacre."

2. After multiple editors suggest the user might be jumping the gun, considering the disputed responsibility and lack of reliable sources referring to it as a "massacre," the closure of the RM is suggested by SelfStudier, to which Super Ninja asserts that SelfStudier has "no right" to do.

3. After the RM is SNOW closed due to overwhelming opposition (namely on the rationale in point #2), Super Ninja2 unilaterally reopens the RM, asserting in the edit summary that, "You don't have the right to close the it! Don't take the decission (sic) by yourself without asking for a consensus!" They also assert the same in a comment, removed by the undoing of the reopening. For the record, there were nine official oppose votes with rationale, as well as several other unofficial "this is premature" comments; comparatively, there was just one other support besides Super Ninja2 as nominator, and that support argued for the change seemingly on emotional grounds rather than rational ones.

4. In the meantime, the article title is uncontroversially moved to "explosion" rather than "airstrike," again owing to the reporting of reliable sources and disputed resonsibility. An aborted RM (closed as the page was moved anyways) further backs that move as uncontroversial.

Blanking Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Super Ninja2 then blanks the page, redirecting it to Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike, stating that "no consensus has been made." As the airstrike link was already a redirect to the explosion, this created a redirect inception, with no actual article.

User talk page warnings and incivility; failure to get the point

1. At approximately the same time of the page-blanking and redirecting, I placed a Template:Uw-disruptive2 warning on User talk:Super ninja2 due to the reopening of the RM. Nearly immediately afterwards, I see the page blanking, and place a Template:Uw-disruptive3 warning instead.

2. After SelfStudier seconds the latter warning, Super Ninja2 accuses him of censorship.

3. Super Ninja2 similarly does not react well to my warnings.

An RfC to move the page, again

1. Half an hour after the warnings, Super Ninja2 opens an RfC to change the page name to "massacre," despite the prior RM being SNOWed.

2. Unsurprisingly, the RfC is quickly closed due to further opposition, the above SNOWing, WP:NOTGETTINGIT reasons, and procedural reasons regarding the use of RMs vs RfCs.

3. Super Ninja2 then again unilaterally reopens the RfC, stating that, "can you not close the RfC because no one outside of the page watchers has seen the discussion yet, right?"

4. The RfC is swiftly re-closed.

5. Super Ninja2 then complains about the RfC closure, claiming that they wanted a "third opinion," but, "litteraly no one aside from User:Cullen328 participated in the disscussion as a third opinion because all of them have already voted in the disscussion above! Closing it like that making RfC with no use!" Again, consensus had been firmly against their proposed move.

While I was typing this, a new issue

Super Ninja2 then, against consensus, asserts blame for the attack based on one (non-RS) source. This also broke the page due to an open ref template. This last bit's more of a content dispute, but it doesn't hurt to include.

So in total, they've been a wildly disruptive presence on the article and its talk page, repeatedly refusing to get the point and/or accept others' viewpoints despite being repeatedly warned and told off. As I'm again fairly new to ANI, I don't know if a warning, TBAN, total block, or whatnot is appropriate, but I'd greatly appreciate everyone's input. The Kip 22:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I have not been a participant in the drama in question - although I've done edits in regards to the war, like creating the page for Battle of Sderot - I find the current name for the article to be outrageous frankly ("explosion" instead of "bombing", almost making it sound like it was an accident when someone clearly bombed the hospital), and considering emotions understandably raise to a fever pitch in such situations, I feel like maybe we ought to be a little bit more tolerant towards users who act this way in this situation relative to what we would do during "normal" times. A disruptive user would be someone who's intent on ruining parts of Wikipedia, but we have to really ask ourselves if the user in question intends to do that or is simply pushing for a better article. Just my two cents. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user is just pushing for it to be called a "massacre", without any sources. Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the very first source quoted in the article, Al Jazeera, opens up the article by saying: "Israel-Hamas war live: Israel kills 500 in Gaza hospital ‘massacre’". So how can there be no sources? --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's in quotes and its also WP:HEADLINES. not RS. Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they had simply proposed the RM and moved on after it failed, or opened up a larger discussion on the talk page, I’d have no issue; what’s made it disruptive (and not simply pushing for a “better” title) is the repeated hammering of the issue despite consensus going against them, in responding to said failure by unilaterally reopening the RM, blanking the main article, opening an RfC, unilaterally reopening that after it also failed, reacting angrily to the talk-page warnings, and in general failing to accept the wider consensus initially generated on the RM. The Kip 00:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

editors are supposed to wait until they are calmer to act. going against consensus, unilateral re-openings and other actions, blanking the page, and acting in the cited ways toward other editors is disruptive. regardless of the emotional state of the user due to their beliefs and investments into the conflict, the behaviour is still disruptive. JM2023 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue was with closing the discussions too fast instead of giving it a chance for other people other than page watchers to participate. Page watchers act like they don't want any other users to participate in the discussion. The discussions did NOT have a fair chance. And as Dynamo128 stated, explosion is not a fair name for the article. Plus, consensus is not a vote count, so even if the majority of the voters voted against the move, one can't just "SNOW close it" only because the majority voted with "oppose".

I didn't make disruptive edits, I participated my rights when I made the RfC and the RM.☆SuperNinja2☆ 23:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, consensus is not a vote count, so even if the majority of the voters voted against the move, one can't just "SNOW close it" only because the majority voted with "oppose".

As has been explained to you repeatedly, on both your talk page and that of the article, the consensus was not just vote count but the fact the opposes had solid rationale (RSes not reporting it as such, disputed blame, fog of war, etc) and the supports did not (simply arguing “well it was a massacre.”). If you still fail to see that, you’re either intentionally being obtuse or we’re approaching WP:CIR territory. The Kip 00:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given this falls under ArbPia, the disruptive behavior by SuperNinja 2 is really problematic. I'd be lenient but a 48 hour ban from the article and talkpage seems reasonable. Also, Dynamo128, please keep unrelated content discussion on the article page. ANI really doesn't need that. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I just felt that in this case, a little bit of context was necessary, but I digress. I agree that the article renaming is not something that should be discussed here otherwise. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen yesterday the user needs an ARBPIA topic ban. May be someone can take the issue to WP:AE? Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with AE processes to do so competently, but if someone else wants to do so I'm all for it. The Kip 16:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and 1RR/3RR violations

1. 18:16, 17 October 2023 Blank and redirected Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to Al Ahli Hospital massacre
2. 19:51, 17 October 2023 Blank and redirected Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to Al Ahli Hospital massacre
3. 22:33, 17 October 2023 Switched perpetrators from "Disputed" to "Israel"; who to blame had been subject to considerable edit warring from various editors.
4. 10:43, 18 October 2023 Restored Guardian quote, partially reverting this edit.

BilledMammal (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this 3RR violation? Editing controversial content is not prohibited. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if it isn't a 3RR violation; 1RR is the restriction applied to this topic area.

However, each of these is very clearly reversing the actions of other editors, and none of them are such that you wouldn't be aware that you were reversing the actions of other editors. See here for the definition of revert: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, as far as I can tell Super ninja2 has never been given the 3RR warning. I've done that now so they can see what it means in full. But as you say 1RR applies on that page. DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. This does not apply to 22:33, 17 October 2023 and 10:43, 18 October 2023 edits. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were 243 edits between those reverts? BilledMammal (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who said there should be 243 edits between them? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No! BilledMammal is saying there are edits of others between each of your reverts which means that the 4 reverts listed above are treated as 4 separate reverts! You seemed to be claiming that 2 of your reverts could be treated as a single revert. they can't. DeCausa (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is well beyond the pale, and the absence of a warning for this particular article is no excuse. Anyone trying to edit it is met with a big red warning informing them of the 1RR in place on the article. All of this, together with the facts already established above prior to BilledMammal´s report, makes it clear a topic ban from ARBPIA is in order. I´d recommend not being too strict, and go for a time-limited topic ban of one month, hoping SuperNinja2 can use that month to edit constructively in other areas. Jeppiz (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone trying to edit it is met with a big red warning informing them of the 1RR in place on the article Wrong. There's none. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not red, it is yellow, but it is there. Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the formal edit notice but that's not really an excuse. +1 to a sanction, Arbpia first offense (1R breach) for a newish editor is usually a warning but the behavior here appears to go beyond that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the Arbitration Committee news to be familiar with the 1RR on Arab-Israelie topic. I am not very active editor on Wikipedia. I don't follow up with the updates of the rules here. And I am not a member of any project. I only do edits every now and then. So, a warning in this case is necessary for me to know about the rule. Else, how can I know about it? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification given here plus it is on the talk page in a big box at the top. In any case that deals with just the 1R aspect. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notice was sent on 21:03, 2023 October 17. There are only two controversial edits after this notice. One of which is not a revert (22:33, 17 October 2023) and the other was of good intention as I didn't see this edit. So, I didn't violate the 1RR. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plus it is on the talk page in a big box at the top they said. I'm sure Israel-Palestine has had a 1RR restriction for at least a decade. "I didn't know" is not an excuse for violation. JM2023 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. 22:33, 17 October 2023 edit is not a revert. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. An editor had put in the word "Disputed" against the Perpetrators parameter in the Infobox and you reverted that to insert Israel. What are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on topic - discipline proposal

Considering the list of incidents initially provided, the ARBPIA circumstances, the newly accused 3/1RR violations, and the continued refusal to get the point regarding all of the above, I'd like to propose a temporary topic ban from Israel/Palestine-related articles for Super Ninja2. The exact length of that ban is up for debate, but I'd believe at least 1-3 weeks to be appropriate. As SelfStudier mentioned above, while an editor with no prior history would typically only receive a warning, I feel that the conduct here has gone above and beyond that point in its disruptive nature. The Kip 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pretty clear cut to me. If this is a problem here because of the venue I don't mind moving this all over to AE as long as I don't get accused of forum shopping or something. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue with that is to put it bluntly, I'm not well-versed enough in AE's procedures to competently open a case there. If you or another would like to do so, however, I'd be happy to support it. The Kip 17:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef'd. Not an AE block. Happy for it to be lifted if they're willing to drop the stick and do something useful. But this thread shows an attitude incompatible with editing contentious topics, and their talk page and block log sugest it's not just one topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wowza. That was unexpected, but I can't say I disagree.

Thanks for the prompt response! The Kip 18:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the article and this thread so it's not quite as out-of-the-blue as it seems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eladkarmel has this morning uploaded a series of gross violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and pretty much any other policy one could care to mention, in relation to the recent event at Al Ahli hospital in Gaza. The first edit was on Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and attempted to stand up the Palestinian narrative as "disinformation", in contrast to the Israeli narrative. To be clear, this is early stage news, and none of the sources are currently at the stage of what is or is not disinformation. The second edit added material to the event page itself from Abu Ali Express, a known psychological warfare and propaganda platform set up by the IDF, and some other IDF-connected site hosting raw uploads of video footage, i.e. not a source at all, let alone a reliable one. This level of editing, and Eladkarmel's attempts to push fringe sourcing, is unacceptable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I added reliable sources to every edit I made.

The link from Abu Ali Express is a sharing of a photo published in the Shehab News Agency so I don't see it as a bad source.

the recording published by IDF officials is an important source for understanding the war of versions between the parties.

Regarding Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, there is no doubt that the incident at the hospital is a clear example of disinformation. From one side or the other (and it is worth discussing), the event is a classic case that fits the article. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iskander, the first edit you have linked seems absolutely okay on NPOV. The second and third seem primary (if I were to go by what you mention). These discussions are best taken on the talk page of the article, not here (unless there is evidence that you can show of repeated fringe pushing behaviour over a long-term). Thank you, Lourdes 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously bad faith report by Iskandar323. Like Lourdes, I find the first edit perfectly fine. Abu Ali Express is not reliable, but this comes nowhere close to being actionable. Jeppiz (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to the use of propaganda sources is not bad faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit is totally unverifiable: none of the source involved mention misinformation or disinformation. How does this not fail WP:V? Sources merely questioning certain narrative is nowhere near demonstrating that there was misinformation or disinformation. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely WP:OR. We don't get to just pick and choose random debates over information in news sources and declare it a case of misinformation or disinformation before there are any kind of resolved facts. This is serious cart-before-horse editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rather poor edit, we agree. Nowhere near enough for action to be taken. Jeppiz (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit has now been restored by @LUC995 with an edit summary containing the words "We'll find out who's wrong and who's right soon." - ok, then why are we adding any information now? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LUC995 has incidentally made 500 gnoming edits on geography articles followed by 100+ largely ABRPIA or vaguely related edits. That's just a pure description of their editing. I have absolutely nothing more to say on that. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I see no real problem with Eladkarmel's editing, while LUC995's comes across as a bit more problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed LUC (since renamed HaNagid). For fuck's sake, Tombah. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single source that says the explosion was "disinformation"? Because none of them are cited. So no, the first edit does not "seems absolutely okay on NPOV". This should have gone to AE, a user placed in an article on disinformation an event that not a single source said was part of any dis-(or mis)-information campaign. That is OR and it is non-NPOV and it misrepresented the cited sources by claiming they support that it involved disinformation. Even here they say "there is no doubt ..." Well you can doubt what you like, but we dont base our articles on your lack of doubt. We base them on sources, and there were no sources that supported the inclusion there. nableezy - 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Id also add continued edit-warring at Israel without even an attempt at discussion. See here and here where a long-standing consensus is repeatedly reverted out. Then see if you can see that username at Talk:Israel. nableezy - 18:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Talk:Iraq_War#Result Ali36800p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on insisting they have sources supporting this edit [[69]] they have (despite being asked more than once) [[70]] to produce a quote all they do is posts wall of links [[71]] (while promising to provide quotes if we ask), that fail, wp:v (which they claim to know [[72]].

It is a huge time-sink. when all they have been asked to do is to quote and provide 1 source that backs their edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok ok, go to Talk:Iraq_War#Result and i'll quote from every source, just please chill out Ali36800p (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is you have been asked to do so (3 hours ago [[73]]), and not done so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may be blind, but this [[74]] is a violation of V as it does not support either that the US was defeated (only that it had not yet won) or that they were overwhelmed. Read wp:or and wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And wp:cherrypicking, as removing the last few words of a qoute to alter its meaning is a violation [[75]] (full quote "These DOD sources indicated that U.S. and coalition forces were overwhelmed by the number and size of these sites,..." it goes on to talk about ammo storage sits nothing to do with insurgents). Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you have still not read wp:or [[76]], it does not say anything about an American defeat. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i cant quote more if you want Ali36800p (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-war-iraq

quote: "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011." The report goes on to describe how the US-led coalition forces were successful in many battles, but the urban fighting was costly and the insurgency persisted. Ali36800p (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources that explicitly mention the fact that the US failed to defeat the Iraqi insurgency:

A report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, which states that "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."

An article by The Guardian, which describes how "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."

A report by the Congressional Research Service, which notes that "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011."

These sources provide further evidence that the US was not successful in defeating the Iraqi insurgency and that the insurgency continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the US withdrew its troops.https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/19/iraq-war-10-years-on https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31339.pdf Ali36800p (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need I say more, they have not read or understood wp:v, wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

who me? no you're just not understanding Ali36800p (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali36800p has been made CT aware here and these edits [77], [78], [79] and [80] would indicate edit warring and disruptive conduct. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now dishonest edit summaries [[81]] And at 3rr at the moment (for just today, not the last 24 hours). Over them removing sources they themselves added (i just noticed). Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it was an empty source citation problem but now it's fixed Ali36800p (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting two things. 1) That was a good-faith error, where the citations were in a bad format, but were fixed. (See Special:diff/1181084145 for explanation.) 2) I'm currently discussing with Ali36800p and Cinderella157 on the talk page. Ali36800p seems reluctant to engage the argument on policy grounds, but I'm hopeful getting another editor to chime in will convince them which way consensus lies, and to abide by it. If they are so convinced, there may not be a need for administrator action.EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My good faith has been exhausted. There seems to be IP socking by Ali36800p. 5 hours after being told that the only way their preferred version would stand is if other editors came in and agreed, an IP comes in and makes the same unsupported assertion that the insurgents defeated the US for its first ever edit, then with its second makes the same argument as Ali36800p. And then, 18 minutes later, Ali36800p comments "see look, [IP] agrees with me".

To illustrate, editors have explained to Ali36800p many times (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) that MOS:MIL instructs that an infobox result either read "X Victory" or "See aftermath". I have not yet seen them engage on a policy level, only insisting that the reader needs the bullets in the infobox, which is coming across as either WP:IDHT or WP:CIR.

They also reverted the attempt to fix the info box 3 times (1, 2, and 3 in which they claim they "don't need any objections [but their own]") in the span of 3 hours. I suspect if I'd reverted a third time (and not warned them about 3RR) they would have breached 3RR and been blocked for that.

Combined with the misrepresentation of sources initially, I now believe this need administrator intervention. I would suggest a short block, to impress upon them that they must follow the rules and guidelines, and also to allow the infobox on the article to be brought to community standards. Further disruption can be dealt with by escalating blocks if needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Finland. I'm not convinced that that's socking. Could be a joe job, could be coincidence. Totally could be socking but I wouldn't hang a block on it. But what we do see here is either misrepresentation of sources or a failure to understand what they're saying. Either is disruptive, so I have indeffed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:TompaDompa and User:Cakelot1 have repeatedly reverted edits in regards to the 1993 video game Doom, as well as the greater Doom franchise, on the article Mars in fiction.

This began when I made a minor edit to clarify incorrect information present in the article, only to have my edit reverted by TompaDompa. I then remade my edit, citing the original Doom manual, only for TompaDompa to delete the passage about Doom entirely for WP:PROPORTION.

A long and lengthy discussion took place on the article's talk page, with numerous attempts at finding a compromise and numerous attempts to explain how Doom, a game franchise that prominently features Mars, is worthy of being mentioned in the article, but it all fell on deaf, goalpost-moving ears.

TompaDompa in particular is taking Ownership of the article and discouraging contribution despite a general consensus that Doom belongs as a mention on the article. I would like a more official consensus on this instead of myself and others continuing to debate this fruitlessly.

Unawoken (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've only reverted one of your edits and clearly (hopefully at least) explained why I did so both in the edit summary and on the talk page. I think some amount of OWN on TompaDompa's part is understandable seeing as he completely rewrote it from a very bad article that amounted to a list of every time something is mentioned and turned it into an FA. Per WP:FAOWN a certain amount of care is needed when adding content to articles that have gone through a FA review, particularly if the source for said edit is a primary source such as a game manual. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something being "understandable" does not make it acceptable in any way. Unawoken (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This forum is not for content disputes. If you cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, you can try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My complaint has to do with how TompaDompa is handling this content dispute. Unawoken (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They are doing a good job at keeping mentions of Mars in fiction that are not recognised as important in scholarly literature about Mars in fiction out of the article. Mars appears in thousands of works that are important for various reasons, but do not have recognition in works about Mars in fiction. This was widely debated at the FAC. We can't use our own judgement of what is important and what is not without engaging in WP:OR. —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) I don't see anything wrong with their actions. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, which means that generally all content decisions are decided by discussion and agreement. You proposed an edit, some editors agreed and some didn't, and now you're discussing. That's how things are supposed to work. I don't see anything wrong with TompaDompa or anyone else holding this featured article to a high standard for what is and is not included, and they suggested a way forward: that you provide a high-quality source which discusses Doom as an important example of a fictional depiction of Mars and why, rather than simply demonstrating that it's a popular video game which coincidentally is set on the planet. These standards exist so that our articles feature high-quality content relevant to the topic, rather than endless lists of tangential topics with little context or relevance. I don't think you have provided that source yet, but that should be your next step if you want this to be included. If you don't agree, you can try dispute resolution, but if you still haven't located a source then I don't think your arguments will go very far. But at any rate, I don't see how there's anything for admins to do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He repeatedly insisted I should bring this to your attention if I felt he was taking ownership of the article, which I feel he is. Unawoken (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Plenty of editors have already tried to explain that they're not. If you take a look at the WP:OWNERSHIP policy, you will find a section below the descriptions of ownership behaviour titled Ownership and stewardship, which better explains the activity here. Featured articles go through a vigorous peer review to be considered the "best" Wikipedia articles, and it's reasonable for an experienced editor like TompaDompa who has done the work of improving the article to that level to be considered an authority on maintaining that article's featured status. Stewardship can degrade into ownership if experienced editors begin to reject reasonable improvements, but in this case I don't think that's happening. TompaDompa has outlined a very reasonable method for you to demonstrate the relevance of your proposed addition (by providing a context-appropriate reliable source, really a bare minimum for wanting to add content) and you have not done so. If you do find such a source, I'm sure they'll be willing to discuss it with you. If they don't, then come back here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Yes but at some point you need to pick up on the fact that no one is agreeing with you. It is too bad that you have devoted all your energy to explaining why you think TD is wrong, instead of to listening and understanding why they are correct. --JBL (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are other people making similar edits and debating this with similar arguments to me on the talk page. If that doesn't count as "agreement", you and I must both clearly fail to understand what is. It's disappointing to see an admin get snippy about "devoting all my energy" when this is clearly a much bigger point of contention for someone else who is not me. Unawoken (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not an admin.

  It is not surprising that fancruft gets added by multiple fans (this happens all the time all over Wikipedia); the fact that several people have added it does not mean that the addition is good, and moreover in this particular case very strong reasons have been given for why it is not good. You called my comment snippy, but in fact it was entirely sincere: I hope that you continue to edit and improve Wikipedia, and while you do so I hope you learn that an important part of helping here is allowing yourself to be convinced by what other people have to say. --JBL (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• TompaDompa seems to have very patiently tried to explain the essence of WP:PROPORTION to Unawoken, to no avail. There is no "general consensus" on the talk page, and no "deaf, goalpost-moving ears" as alleged above. No action necessary for a fairly well-handled content dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My edit and others have been disregarded and reverted for numerous reasons that have increased in pedantry since this discussion began. First it was an incorrectly flagged minor edit, then it wasn't relevant at all, then others made similar edits and were told their edits lacked sources before being told that they were in the wrong section, and then I was told that adding it to the "See also" section was irrelevant. All of these were issues already present in the article, but they only became noteworthy and worth discussing when a 30 year old video game was mentioned. Unawoken (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PROPORTION was outlined in TD's first reply; the fact that you don't think it worthy of mention in your list is certainly indicative of the lack of attention you are paying to others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Choosing to needle your own point as your sole method of acknowledging anything I have said in my above comment also reflects poorly. Unawoken (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As you wish. Let's analyse the "increasingly pedantic reasons" for reverting your edits.

  First it was an incorrectly flagged minor edit referring to this edit, marked as minor. As explicitly said on your talk page, this revert was not because it was incorrectly marked, but instead "had to do with the sourcing". Thus, the above "reason" clearly misrepresents other editors.

  then it wasn't relevant at all see WP:PROPORTION above, mentioned on many occasions, and each time ignored. Let's mark this down as classic WP:IDHT.

  then others made similar edits and were told their edits lacked sources before being told that they were in the wrong section you may remember this is a simplification; the problem was not "lacking sources", but rather that the 1993 Doom manual is the "high-quality reliable sources" demanded by the FA criteria. On the sections—no, 1993 is not the third millennium, but I think we can AGF your conduct on this.

  then I was told that adding it to the "See also" section was irrelevant indeed you were - you were provided with a relevant quotation from MOS:ALSO, which you didn't feel the need to reply to, instead stating "I have no option but to escalate this to the admins". Again, classic WP:IDHT, maybe with a small dash of WP:RGW.

  and finally, All of these were issues already present in the article, but they only became noteworthy and worth discussing when a 30 year old video game was mentioned. which makes no sense whatsoever, and we should probably move on from it quickly lest we move into WP:COR territory (if you can come up with an explanation of how it makes meaningful sense Unawoken, that would be much appreciated).

  So, there you go. I've substituted my needle for a hammer, and hopefully banged your jumbled mess above into some sort of comprehensibility. It's been a very fun exercise in source analysis, so thanks for providing me with the opportunity and materials. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Brilliant work. Unawoken (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do the editors want to request moderated discussion at DRN ? McClenon mobile (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that twice or maybe three times above, but Unawoken does not seem interested. As they said, a few editors in the talk page discussion did refer them here, I think mistakenly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested and willing to cooperate. Unawoken (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of you needs to file the case request at DRN. You should be aware that I will tell you to "Comment on content, not contributors", because the purpose of content discussion is to improve an article. I will not be interested in the past editing of any article, and will begin by asking each of you what you want to change in an article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two days later, I haven't seen a case at DRN. Of course, DRN is voluntary, but compliance with policies and guidelines is a required condition of editing. I am still ready to mediate, but only if asked via the template for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Unawoken: As an alternative to pushing for inclusion of unsourced content, you could do some legwork and find reliable sources that discuss Doom as an aspect of Mars in fiction. For example, M. Keith Booker, Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Cinema (2020), p. 275, stating that a "monster-on-Mars theme (clearly moving into the territory of the horror film), is something of a throwback to the Martian exploration films of the 1950s, as is the ultraviolent Doom (2005), a video-game adaptation". @TompaDompa and Cakelot1: as this is from an entry on Mars in science fiction generally, would this satisfy your criteria for inclusion of the topic in this article? BD2412 T 04:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a good source to use for List of films set on Mars, but that passage doesn't really create a strong case for covering the Doom video game at Mars in fiction (the game itself is mentioned only in passing). Hm. I managed to work in a mention of the franchise as part of the point that source makes about monster movies set on Mars. TompaDompa (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I grant, it is somewhat weak for mentioning the game as the subject matter from which the film is adapted; how about a link to Doom (franchise), a multimedia affair that covers both iterations, among others? The Mars in fiction article as it stands says nothing about horror fiction set on Mars, which includes this franchise and a few other films mentioned in the source. BD2412 T 05:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doom (franchise) is linked in the added sentence Monster movies set on Mars have appeared throughout this time period including the 2001 film Ghosts of Mars, the 2005 film Doom based on the video game franchise of the same name, and the 2013 film The Last Days on Mars. TompaDompa (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think that is exactly correct and proportionate. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UnbiasedSN had been making disruptive edits on the page Battle of Kartarpur pushing an overly aggrandized, embellished version of religious history based off wholly unreliable sources. It was explained to him and the article's creator on the talk page that primary sources from the 18th century as well Raj era sources are not to be used on Wikipedia [82] , [83] and later again reaffirmed here [84]. Despite this, it appears as he is continuing to do the same thing, this time logged out, and apparently with a proxy. See edits on Battle of Patti and similar edits on my talk page-UnbiasedSN's copy paste of the message I posted on his talk page and IP's message-[85]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you genuinely make a false accusation that I used a proxy IP address? I've never even visited that page, yet I can't help but suspect that you may be engaging in the same biased content promotion here as you do on other pages, and you've just decided to pin the blame on me to get your way.UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UnbiasedSN: Note the words "appears" and "apparently." You haven't been accused of anything. CityOfSilver 17:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why mention it? UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UnbiasedSN: It's extremely suspicious that you and the anonymous editor are making similar, highly contentious edits. Suthasianhistorian8 probably wants an administrator to investigate whether you and that anon are the same person. CityOfSilver 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSilver: Can you clarify on the edits? Other than Battle of Kartarpur & Battle of Rahon. Even when Battle of Rahon was reverted I reread the source and accepted that there was a case to be made. Then can you kindly gander on his edits and see how he engages and pushes his agenda vehemently.[86] UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UnbiasedSN: The striking similarities are in the links in this thread's first message. The last two, both made to Suthasianhistorian8's talk page, are almost exactly the same even though one came from you and the other came from the anonymous editor. CityOfSilver 18:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An unbiased SN? What? How dare any serial number be unbiased on my watch!  ;) Serial 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! It was supposed to stand for social network, but I can see how people can take the "Unbiased" personally when editing. I'm new here and I just make minor edits most of the time. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the same format as what I posted on his talk page. It's evident he engages in this type of behavior with many other users. If anything this is establishing that they are a polarizing passionate individual with an agenda. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UnbiasedSN: From my point of view, the first message and most of the second message are exactly the same thing but I'm not an administrator so if you deny that you and that anonymous editor are the same person, that's that.

Suthasianhistorian8 has made a lot of contentious edits to sensitive articles in this topic area. Thing is, though, they regularly appear at articles' talk pages to explain themselves and move towards compromises; see Talk:Battle of Lahira and Talk:Battle of Rahon (1710). Why not start a new thread at Talk:Battle of Kartarpur? (Although before you do, please read WP:FOC.) CityOfSilver 18:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's now proven beyond any shadow of a dobut that HaughtonBrit is behind at least the 65* proxy and likely UnbiasedSN. See this comment on Courcelles' talk page where the 170* IP/proxy geolocates to and has the same ISP (FedEx) as HaughtonBrit's confirmed sock IPs-[87] and [88].

Can an admin please block these sock proxies being abused by HaughtonBrit-[199.81.206.0/24], [192.189.187.0/24], [

170.170.200.0/24], [216.126.35.0/24]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really going for a two for one. UnbiasedSN (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suthasianhistorian8 had been making disruptive edits on the page Battle of Kartarpur offering a his own version of religious history, driven by personal preferences while overlooking substantial sources. An examination of the user's edit history and interactions on their talk page reveals a notable pattern of receiving numerous complaints and engaging in similar behavior with multiple users. Persistently advocating their personal agenda and beliefs, they frequently find themselves embroiled in editing conflicts with others. Their willingness to resort to falsehoods as a means to achieve their objectives is evident from their talk page. [89] It is imperative to address this disruptive behavior to ensure a harmonious online environment. UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an AI/LLM-generated retaliatory report to #Disruptive editing by UnbiasedSN, above. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponder at their talk page. [90] It's a wonder they haven't been banned yet. If known about this board earlier I would've gladly have posted it sooner. UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the user's correct spelling is Suthasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not Southasianhistorian8.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [91] and my message on Courcelles' talk page [92]. It seems extremely likely that this is HaughtonBrit trolling as usual. He has an extensive history of trolling and intimidating people to push an overly aggrandizing narrative of his religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic coming from the fact that majority of your edits being one sided to one religion. Do you even edit anything else that doesn't promote your agenda? And can you stick with one user rather than going at scorched earth policy with anyone who goes against your beliefs. UnbiasedSN (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With increasing frequency, I'm encountering new-ish accounts devoted to rapid copyediting with mixed results. For many, I'm guessing English is not the native language. One such account is LevMax10 (talk · contribs), who has received notices since April regarding speed of editing, inability to discern promotional content, trouble with WP:ENGVAR and MOS:OVERLINK, and gratuitous changes that don't really improve anything, among other issues. Speed and not proofreading their own edits may account for numerous grammatical errors, though many edits suggest basic grammatical difficulties--by way of demonstrating, I offer a few, mostly from the last week: [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104]; [105]; [106]; [107]; [108]; [109]; [110]; [111]; [112]; [113]; [114]; [115]; [116]; [117].

Not gross violations, but an example of encyclopedic quality being pecked to death, a nibble at a time. The latest volley of edits--notwithstanding determination to continue wikilinking names of countries--looks better. But their belated response isn't terribly encouraging, and they appear to be plowing ahead, regardless: [118]; [119]. I don't think they get it. Does anyone believe this is a capable copyeditor? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR. Looks like a problem here. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR, if someone does not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to be copyediting then they shouldn't be copyediting. This is an increasingly prevalent sitewide problem. JM2023 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who are engaged in copyediting on the English Wikipedia while lacking basic English language competence should be warned, and blocked if they persist, and advised to edit the Wikipedia version in their first language or their truly fluent languages. Any editor who can write comprehensible, well-referenced, policy compliant new content should be encouraged and forgiven for writing non-standard English prose, because that is easy for fluent English speakers to correct. But attempting to carry out a function that requires excellent English language skills without possessing those skills is a non-starter. Warn, and block if the disruptive edits continue. There is a widespread notion among people not fully fluent in English that the English language Wikipedia is the "mother version" or the "master version". We need to disabuse such editors of that notion at every opportunity, and encourage such editors to contribute instead to the language versions where they are actually fluent. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a result of the newcomer task copyedit idea; imo new editors even when fluent in a variety of English should rarely be encouraged to copy edit, as they never know enough of the labyrinthine details of MoS to contribute without introducing errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, which at the bottom includes a horrible aspersion about other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Courcelles (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iammb8 has now created at least three times this Patange (2023) on a non-notable film, and I don't want to keep draftifying it. I believe they have a COI as one of the makers of the said film; I've asked them to disclose this, but so far nothing (that I can find at least). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Patange (film) before noticing it was being discussed here. Any objections to me simply raising an AFD for it? There doesn't seem to be a damn thing about it online apart from notices that it exists on Plex, YouTube, etc. I'll try to find RS coverage in other languages in a WP:BEFORE search first. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, just been speedied A7. Probably just as well. Wikishovel (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked the editor for blatant promotional editing. It's quite obvious from their edit summaries, the name on theiruser page and edit history that this is their movie that they're just here to promote. Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quinnbradlee, formerly User talk:Qbradlee82 and User talk:Qbradlee (see User talk:Quinnbradlee § November 2021 per Smartse), has been repeatedly creating original research pages with bare citations about their family members:

• Draft:Bradlee family (draftified by myself yesterday and then warned, given guidance about submitting COI pieces)
• Nathan Bradley (colonists) (created today, nomintated for deletion).

Including past contributions to the pages

• Ben Bradlee, presumably the main figure to the family, despite
• and Quinn Bradlee, their own page if their username is to be believed.

It doesn't make sense to post a collection of the Diff links when you can see a complete history of the abuse and disregard on all three talk pages. Following the warning yesterday, I'm concerned I'm now involved and want to bring this to the attention of the admins. I've simply tagged the recent article for deletion at AfD.

Note: I've pinged admin User:Smartse who originally caught the multiple usernames issue. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this User:MicrobiologyMarcus. This has been going on for 12 years now and despite numerous warnings, they have still not got the message. All of their edits violate WP:NOTGENEALOGY. If I wasn't somewhat involved, I'd have blocked them already, so I urge someone else to do so. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed with a note that it applies to them, the editor. Not just this account. I've left Qbradlee82 unblocked as they haven't used it in 11 years but heads up to @Deepfriedokra: who blocked the other account. Star Mississippi 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over User:Quinnbradlee's comments on the Nathan Bradley AfD, if this is indeed the same person, Mr. Bradlee has to be employing a battery of ghostwriters for his extensive bibliography. Ravenswing 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors are kindly asked to keep an eye on this recently recreated article dealing with a highly controversial subject with significant potential NPOV issues. Article has been EC protected by another admin. Full disclosure I am WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently being discussed at WP:NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now sent to AFD. Unless there are behavioral issues with participating editors, I'm not sure there is much else to do here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's impossible to assume good faith here and it is a case of willful POV pushing. The creator of the article (Iskandar323) is too intelligent not to realize that this article entirely omitted any competing point of view on the foundation of Israel, its causes and its justifications, and that the premise of the article itself excludes any such views being included there as they will not use its loaded terminology. I would go so far to say that this may be a blatant, calculated attack on Wikipedia due to international events.

Please see This (my edits except for one or two by Dimadick) and this (which Iskandar323 did at my prompting). Iskandar and Trilletrollet are even tagteaming to keep the "who" tags off of the completely unattributed quotes under the premise the reader can deduce the attribution of any of a string of quotes by the following footnoted citation (when it could be the author, it could be someone the author is quoting, it could be any use of quotation marks).

The article willfully takes the point of view that Israel is wrongful in its foundation, the Palestinians are victims, and there is no other POV. I see this as done by design. I realize I may not be AGF but I cannot AGF when all the hallmarks of bad faith are there. This is no accident.

Whether the article topic is plausible or not (I think it is a POV fork and designed as such) the version I encountered initially [120] is not something any competent, good faith editor should ever introduce to Wikipedia.

Stated as fact in Wikivoice: Such narratives blame the the victims of settler colonial violence for their expulsion. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to get incredibly tedious. DIYeditor has been constantly assuming bad faith and delivering personal attacks to other editors. Hopefully this will be a WP:BOOMERANG moment. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why you were tag teaming[121][122] to remove my flagging of unattributed quotes with {{who}}, leaving them apparently in quasi-Wikivoice or unattributed, contrary to MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and all normal Wikipedia style? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't tag teaming, I just didn't agree with your revert. Sometimes 2 people can have the same opinion, not everything is a conspiracy. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tag teaming is a fact and AFAIK not allowed under 1RR or WP:EDITWAR. I'm not saying you're working together beyond the fact that you did work together. Do you care to justify your opinion there, what's your belief that quotes need not be attributed based on? Just personal opinion? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unevidenced accusation of WP:TAGTEAMING is but the latest installment of this editor's incivility. It seems like almost every other talk page comment from them is filled with some form of invective, and it's frankly getting tiresome. A WP:BOOMERANG would be highly appropriate at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be a BOOMERANG from bringing light to an editor who made this and who fights along with another editor to keep the quotes from even being attributed in text? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number and to some extent the tone, of comments made at the noticeboard at the AfD and here (along with a claim that you don't really know much about the subject) are a cause for concern imo. Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if taken out of context. Why should I need to be an expert on this topic or familiar with it? I'm not even being allowed to introduce views from published and widely cited scholars in the field[123][124][125]. We are not relying on my knowledge of the topic (basically none), I just noticed an extreme, extreme POV violation (stating opinions as facts in Wikivoice) along with misuse of quotes in a mystifying way. I'm desperate here to salvage some semblance of NPOV, I admit it, and if ANI thinks I should just walk away, so be it. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A case in point. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

an editor who made this

@DIYeditor, you have linked to an edit by Iskandar323 in which they added a single space character. Is that really the edit you are trying to point to as an example? CodeTalker (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that page version as a whole, with the issues I have pointed out via other diffs, and repeatedly explained. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel is wrongful in its foundation, the Palestinians are victims" Your point being? The Palestinians have been facing an illegal occupation of their areas for decades, and Israel is little more than a project of European colonialism in the area. The Balfour Declaration (1917) has caused bloodshed for more than a century. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a POV, but the nullification of the legitimacy of Israel is not a universally held fact, versus say the Nazi Holocaust or Armenian Genocide. To equate it to such blurs the line between fact and opinion. Further, even in articles on the most heinous topics, we usually do not get into attributions of right and wrong, just or unjust, we simply report opinions as they exist. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little work on the article, it still needs some work but not to the point where I think suspending AFG is reasonable. There is significant coverage here even if you don't agree with what that coverage has to say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article allow for opposing points of view on the foundation of Israel and its causes and justifications if they are not explicitly phrased in terms of "Nakba denial"?

Even just addressing the NPOV issues could go a long way. I am more concerned with drawing attention to the atrocious NPOV violation that the original version was, some way, some how. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem off topic, an on-topic source would use Nakba denial or similar even if they did not endorse the concept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems problematic to me. If the phrasing of the "topic" of the article precludes competing points of view on the objective topic, isn't it possibly a POV fork? Let's say I start a "God denial" article and the only sources that talk about "God denial" are religious advocates, can I express the overwhelming POV of those who talk about "God denial" in Wikipedia's voice as fact? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't mention Nakba denial or similar then it isn't a competing points of view on the objective topic... Its a point of view about a different topic. We don't only have sources from Palestinian advocates. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a total "God denial" situation. No atheist philosopher is going to talk about "God denial" yet they have competing points of view with the people who do talk about "Denying God". Potential POV fork for this reason. But this is a content issue, not behavioral, and this board is for behavioral issues. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal for an administrator to come to ANI requesting backup with a highly subjective framing of the issue? Is that really how things work here? Didnt think so. nableezy - 21:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extremity of the NPOV issues in the initial versions of the article, I felt this was somewhere in between NPOV/N, AFD and behavioral (AN/I), leaning toward behavioral. Can't speak for Ad Orientem. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor I have not acted at any time as an admin with respect to the article in question due being WP:INVOLVED. My request for extra eyes here was based on concerns which I have explained both at NPOVN and at the AfD discussion. I also posted neutrally worded requests for experienced editors to chime in on the talk pages of the Wiki-projects Israel and Palestine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy I assume. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what was the urgent incident that needed administrative assistance with here? nableezy - 21:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What looked like, and still does, POV editing. There is nothing unusual about requesting extra eyes from experienced editors on articles where there appears to be problematic editing. I recently made a similar request for extra eyes on RMS Republic (1903) where I was also involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this claim of POV editing has been substantiated with citations to reliable sources showing a POV problem, right? Right? nableezy - 21:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this (my edits except for one or two by Dimadick) and this (which Iskandar323 did at my prompting). It's the blurring of fact, Wikivoice, and opinion, which seems to be intentional. If not intentional, I'm mystified as why it happened, because Iskandar seems intelligent. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats not a good edit, which is also why people should understand the topics they are editing before pressing save page. nableezy - 22:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? When do we use quotes, extensively in this case, without attributing them in text? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you there is not a single WP policy page I am not familiar with. Are you familiar with any of the sourcing on this topic? You can start with, for example, footnote 44 for why your phrasing of what is held to be is itself the NPOV violation there. You cant manufacture disputes that dont exist and claim what there is no dispute about is a POV, and you certainly cant determine what is a POV or what is undisputed fact in a complex topic area based on feeling and intuition. nableezy - 23:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All scholars in the "God denial" field say that God is definitely real, therefore it is a fact to be stated in Wikivoice for the God denial article. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Ill let that comment stand for itself. nableezy - 23:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously the subject of ongoing discussion at AfD and NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So there was no evidence for any issue, instead there were claims of POV that have yet to be anywhere close to substantiated and are still closer to WP:ASPERSIONS than they are to evidence based accusations. Thanks. nableezy - 22:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well. you are certainly entitled to your opinion, which you have not been reserved about expressing. I will confine myself to noting that based on the commentary at the discussions at NPOVN and AfD, I am hardly alone in my concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are not alone in making unsubstantiated allegations and then being unable to later substantiate them. I agree with that entirely. There is at least one more person doing it in this very thread for that matter. Thought we had rules against that though. nableezy - 23:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should perhaps take a deep breath. Your own commentary might reasonably be seen as being a bit snarky and lacking in AGF. Operating on the basis of "I'm right and everybody who disagrees with me is wrong and acting in bad faith" is not usually conducive to a collegial discussion of differing opinions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not operating on such a basis. I am however operating under the assumption that accusations of wrongdoing against editors, and yes purposefully POV-pushing is an accusation of wrongdoing as well as lacking in AGF, require evidence. Not one bit of evidence has been presented. Just bogus accusations made, apparently without the slightest familiarity with the sources. Oh, and Im totally calm. The condescension in that opening isnt exactly conducive to a collegial discussion of differing opinions. nableezy - 23:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My customary practice when I run into situations where I have concerns is to open a discussion, post my concerns and then invite other experienced editors to chime in. After which I usually sit back and await the opinions of my colleagues. Sometimes my concerns are validated, and sometimes not. However the discussion goes, I try to extend courtesy and respect both to individual editors and also to the final consensus. Usually that courtesy is reciprocated. I regret that this does not appear to be the case here. Under the circumstances I think it would be best if we agreed that we disagree and move on. This back and forth has reached a point where I no longer think it is productive, and seems to be veering towards personal acrimony. Have a good evening. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: Just wanna say that I'm taking an indefinite break from this topic area. These "discussions" have been horrible for my mental health (which was already bad to begin with). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear it. As I said to another editor, I am deeply saddened by all of this and I think I understand what you are feeling. Hope you feel better and find your way to any topics you find interesting, including this if that may be. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trilletrollet Although we have differing views on this matter, I completely understand. Since the events of Oct 7th emotions have been running high on the WP:CT/A-I related articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to follow suit and disengage from all Palestinian-Arab conflict articles because I find sectarian conflicts extremely distasteful and disturbing, it is not my fight, it is not conductive to mental health, and it is not what I want to do with my time on Wikipedia. There are much more rewarding things to work on that actually feel good and like something worthwhile is being accomplished. I will address any more issues related to this ANI thread. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 Asia Cup was hosted by both Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is cited with reputed references and even the matches which were held in Sri Lanka can be found in the schedule. However user @Pirate of the High Seas has removed the co-host Sri Lanka here without any reason - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Asia_Cup&diff=1180253758&oldid=1180236968 which was reverted.

And then again the user did the same here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Asia_Cup&diff=1181003179&oldid=1180996765

The user has a history of using IPs to hound and was blocked from editing for a week - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas/Archive

The user also nominated an article unnecessarily for deletion (The article was first added by me, maybe that could be the reason) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Biofuel Alliance

Also the user is reverting improvement made by me to this article, the user did that for three times - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mizoram_bridge_collapse&diff=1181002544&oldid=1180592203

Requesting administrator intervention in the user not following 3 revert rule, removing cited information without explaination, hounding and nomination notable article for deletion Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request the admins to employ WP:BOOMERANG and block OP for WP:CIR. It is a classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

1. The second sentence of the 2023 Asia Cup article already has two references (from ESPNcricinfo & Forbes) with quotes verifying Pakistan as the 'Official hosts' of the tournament but still OP is making uncited edits.

2. Thewikizoomer is the one here who is continuously hounding me and during the week I was blocked, they removed well-cited additions I made on multiple articles. The Editor Interaction Analyser will make that clear. The editor hounds me, makes unconstructive edits by removing/altering cited text I added and tried to get two articles deleted which I had created. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

3. AfD nomination that I made for an article with just 2 refs is as per guidelines and the reason for which is already provided. Unlike the OP who adds CSD tags and PRODs articles for no good reason other than to hound me.

4. They lack competence and as such should be blocked to prevent further damage to WP. They lack knowledge regarding how to WP:CREATELEAD. In this edit, they removed 5Ws from the lead, removed a cited sentence from the body and also removed a Wikilink yet still call it an 'improvement'. Specially concerning are edits like these with false edit summaries: unsourced content removed.

5. I reported the 3RR violation by the OP earlier, however no action was taken just because I got blocked for a week. I believe their actions should also have been scrutinized.

6. Firefly had already warned the OP about their behavior before.

It is time admins take appropriate action against the user. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found 3 reliable sources in 30 seconds showing Sri Lanka is the co-host. Neither of you could add them and solve part of this dispute? Focus on the content and sources rather than each other. spryde | talk 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did add an additional citation which confirms Sri Lanka as a co-host. The history of ones contribution speaks well on who's the one focusing on content and sources and who's the one hounding Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "competence", the non-neutral statements that a user adds to the pages associated with a specific country frequently displays how much of "competence" they have. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thewikizoomer Actually, I think Pirate of the High Seas is correct here. Pakistan was, indeed, the official host of the tournament [126] but multiple games had to be played in Sri Lanka as the Indian team refused to travel to Pakistan ("India would play its matches outside Pakistan and the PCB would retain hosting rights.") The current wording ("The matches were played as One Day Internationals (ODIs) with Pakistan as the official host and Sri-Lanka as the co-host for select matches involving India") is fine - the wording that you inserted ("The matches were played as One Day Internationals (ODIs) with Pakistan and Sri Lanka as the official host") is technically wrong. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately we have reliable sources possibly getting things confused. I added two that flat out stated they were co-host. But that discussion belongs on the talk page. spryde | talk 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Zviad Gamsakhurdia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A455bcd9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Silveresc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long term POV DE edit warring in Zviad Gamsakhurdia and has continued through today in a DS area. Edit history is fragmented but there is an edit war. Please review article history. Silveresc seems to be the main problem. This I believe is the lst edit before the problem.  // Timothy :: talk  03:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial/2 weeks. Lourdes 05:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As recommended by Timothy, I note here, for the record, in case of any future ANI, what may constitute WP:PA:

• "Basically you are Armenian and your edits are all about Turkey and recently about Georgia with the aim of casting it in negative light."
• "Basically almost all your edit history is about Armenia and additionally unhealthy amount is about Turkey (in bad light), which might indicate something."

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors that make comments such as the ones above, are sure to see more of ANI.  // Timothy :: talk  09:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Problems continue, this time on Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), see User talk:Silveresc#Abkhazia.

I think this is some addition edit warring from this morning, [131], [132], [133]/[134]  // Timothy :: talk  17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Can an admin take an urgent look at this, relatively new, editor's work. They are creating some wholly inappropriate, offensive and anti-Semitic re-directs. Jewnited Kingdom and Jewkraine are two examples I've come across. I'm sure there will be more. I've notified them on their Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what on earth is this, [135]? I seriously doubt this user's intention is to help build an encyclopaedia. KJP1 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's enough of that. Indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary has just been cleaned up, [136] but the history shows it was stuffed with anti-Obama, and highly racist, trash. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. I think their edits will need a fuller check. We've also got Jewnited States, Killary Clinton, Jew's star, multiple variants of Ziyonism, Demonrat, Jewgle, Soviet Jewnion, Juden Peterstein, Jewnited Snakes and that's just from a quick look. A similarly quick look at the editor's wider editing pattern shows a very heavy emphasis on the American far/alt right. KJP1 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested global lock, since this has spilled over onto Wiktionary. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Draft:Influence of Johnny Depp and related SPIs. Thanks in advance, NotAGenious (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NotAGenious (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:8805:D609:3800::/64 (talk · contribs). Lots of reversions, but they keep returning with new IPs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing [137], without responding at talk page or here. All unsourced changes to multiple articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadech4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if this is a language-related WP:CIR issue, a simple refusal to listen to what they have been told, or both, but User:Ahmadech4 keeps asking how to create an article on Farzad ghaderi, an Iranian MMA fighter who clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria, after their multiple recreations of the article have been deleted, and the article has been creation-protected. [138] See both Ahmadech4's talk page and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#why delete Farzad_ghaderi article for this chronic failure to take the slightest notice of anything anyone says. An indef block would seem appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the coat of arms of Lebanon, here Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Lebanon#Coat_of_arms and here Talk:Lebanon#Coat_of_Arms_2. However this user is edit warring based on his original research, and removes the cn tags regarding the "coat of arms" claiming I'm spamming links, instead of providing proper evidence. Also on the talk page, [139] he's calling You seem to be heavily biased in all of this however, spamming this page with the same thing over and over again. Perhaps, we need someone else that isn't as heavily invested in this as you are to decide which is a personal attack. I'm saying the page is wp:or, he calls Prove it.[140] failing to understand. What am I supposed to prove? Beshogur (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think two edits over several days is really considered edit warring, although I may be wrong. Also, I removed seven of the eleven cn tags that were being spammed all over the page in question, which is a very small article to begin with. It's very hard to read that page with them all over the place. And the last bit, I too would like to know what wp:or proves. Which part exactly? You've yet to answer.

Also, you could have put this on my talk page or tried something else other than coming here immediately. But I guess it's too late for that now.So I just thought I 'd point out that Beshogur has several archived pages of other users discussing his disruptive edits. Not sure if that helps figure out what is going on here or not. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EW, 2 edits over several days could indeed be edit warring. More to the point, it shouldn't be necessary for someone to put something on your talk page as an experienced editor. There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk pages which you should continue to participate in rather than trying to force through your edits without consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean casual discussions on my talk page archive?

You're mislabeling these emblems as "coat of arms of Lebanon" on x emblem/flag. Which is not true. You still haven't provided an evidence this being coat of arms of Lebanon. Beshogur (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mislabeling anything. That's literally the name of the article. Putting a cn warning after everytime the term "coat of arms" is used is spam. It's already front and center on top, and in the relevant areas in the infobox and first paragraph. Why do you need to spam it seven more times across the eight image descriptions? The article isn't even one page long. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally the name of the article doesn't matter. The article name Emblem of Turkey is wrong as well. I asked for a requested move. Beshogur (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and when the move occurs put the warnings back. Until then, what is the point of seven more cn tags other than to make the article unreadable? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly call this an article. Beshogur (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EW, 2 edits over several days could indeed be edit warring. More to the point, it shouldn't be necessary for someone to put something on your talk page as an experienced editor. There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk pages which you should continue to participate in rather than trying to force through your preferred version without consensus. If the two of you cannot achieve consensus among yourselves and existing participants, then use some form of WP:Dispute resolution rather than simply continuing to try and force your version and hope the other side gives up. That said, I do agree this doesn't belong on ANI. Beshogur also should have tried some form of dispute resoluton rather than coming here. (If you refused to participate in any form of dispute resolution or continue the discussion yet continued to try and force your version in, then it might be suitable to bring it to ANI but it's way too early for that.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: there is nothing to dispute. Those pictures are random pictures of Lebanese embassies, with OR descriptions. Also the sources present are random sources with texts like "coat of arms is also present on x emblem", which the sources do not even mention. There is one legit source, that's from 1973, and it's most likely not even a RS. There is no single official Lebanese source claiming this is the coat of arms or emblem. I'm trying to explain this all the time. I am planning to move the page to Emblems of Lebanon. There isn't a rule in the world that a country must have an emblem. Beshogur (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if I came with "Emblem of Turkey also present on Turkish flag / random ministry emblem". This can not be acceptable. Sadly moderators do not check the content itself. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need proof, like the government using these symbols. Which is what the government of Lebanon is doing with the symbol is question is several different areas - military, president's office, and embassies. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal definition of what constitutes an emblem or a coat of arms isn't really relevant from what Ive seen. Many people disagree with you, I think maybe three or four others, hence why it was never moved. To try and push these changes before any consensus is made is wrong and should be reverted. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal definition of what constitutes an emblem or a coat of arms never moved? I didn't even open a requested move, what are you saying? Largoplazo (talk · contribs) told you The cedar is obviously a common motif used in representations of Lebanon (such as the flag), but is it, itself, considered an emblem? If not, then we shouldn't present it as such. as well as Furius (talk · contribs) extrapolating from those to the claim that the cedar is the official coat of arms/symbol/emblem of Lebanon is WP:OR told these. Falsely claiming that other users disagree isn't going to help. Beshogur (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about your push to have the article deleted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coat_of_arms_of_Lebanon Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here [141] and here [142]

Please do Revision Deletion on both these edits. Thanks. 103.180.171.40 (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be straight-forward vandalism and not something that rises to the level of revdel. --Yamla (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do Revision Deletion on both those edits, so that legal issues can't happen for anybody. 103.180.171.40 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked reporter for vandalism and legal threats. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was blocked for personal attacks last month and now I see that they did not learn from this and decided to vandalize someone's user page (twice) such as "Hello, I am dolboeb!" (Russian for dumbfuck) following an edit war on 2023–24 Moldovan Super Liga with also personal attacks in edit summaries there. Mellk (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of edit wars with a lot of reverts, but this one...wow...I stopped counting. I'm not taking any action against Kolya77, although, frankly, they should at least be talked to. I have indefinitely blocked Andriyrussu for the personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look like logged out editing/block evasion? Mellk (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and before that WP:LOUTSOCK. I've blocked the /64 range for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bergenoslo (talk · contribs) - this editor is edit warring at Domenico Berardi, having reverted both me and @PeeJay: despite our explanation that their edits are in breach of MOS. The MOS in question is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#International, and discussions have been attempted at 1 (where I was ignored) and 2 (where is consensus that their edits are disruptive).

From a review of their talk page I note this user has been warned about edit warring previously - they have also made multiple comments in edit summaries and at 2 above that those reverting are engaging in vandalism and engaging in personal attacks.

This is not about whether the MOS needs to change or whose edit is 'correct' - this is about an editor who edits disruptively and against consensus and who accuses other editors of vandalism and personal attacks. GiantSnowman 13:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bergenoslo has been edit warring for one week, I have blocked them for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll let you know if they continue when they return. GiantSnowman 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so, GiantSnowman. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're popping up quicker than I can list them, but the main accounts are

• Ssaaofficial (talk · contribs)
• Gobyernodepilipinasicorporated (talk · contribs)

They also appear to be using a bunch of IPs to create promotional drafts Draft:Yacob Lumenda Piang Ampatuan, User:Gobyernodepilipinasicorporated/sandbox and add links to said drafts at other articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Rajah Buayan and Zamzamin Ampatuan, each of which may require protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion about the reliability of planespotters.net, SurferSquall has shown a variety of disruptive behavior. In a similar discussion back in July, SurferSquall was asked to follow the consensus set at WP:PLANESPOTTERS, in which planespotters.net was found to be unreliable. In October, SurferSquall re-added a planespotters.net source to Etihad Airways fleet with the edit summary "WP:PLANESPOTTERS does not meet WP:CON and thus cannot be used as justification", not only ignoring consensus, but outright rejecting it. This prompted the current discussion, where SurferSquall assumed bad faith and alleged that several editors had "some odd personal vendetta" against planespotters.net, twice. After that, SurferSquall seemed to make a genuine attempt to get the consensus changed, but was still overwhelmingly against planespotters.net being a reliable source. Nonetheless, SurferSquall continued with WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE behavior, including reopening the discussion after it was closed (with a rather ironic summary that the wording of the close was "quite defeatest"), tagging WP:PLANESPOTTERS, an archived WP:RSN discussion, with a POV tag, and stating that the consensus needs to change. SurferSquall appears to be a clear case of WP:CIR, so it might be time for a block to prevent further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. An utterly ridiculous refusal to comply with clear consensus. This is disruptive, and at absolute minimum a topic ban is needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked SurferSquall for one week for disruptive editing. Discussion can continue about the possible topic ban recommended by AndyTheGrump. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a topic ban is needed, to make sure the disruption does not return; this guy is persistent and doesn't understand either half of "No". (FWIW I endorse all that ZLEA has said, in detail. There are many archived discussions, including here (WP:PLANESPOTTERS), here, here and here - the last two of which SurferSquall participated in. All these discussions are linked from the Aircraft WikiProject guide on Common sources to avoid, and this user is well aware of them. Yet they persist in trying to push their PoV past our thoroughly tried-and-tested community consensus. This is wilfully WP:DISRUPTIVE and needs to be stopped permanently.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They completely refuse to get it at this point and refuse to follow community consensus on this point. At this time their sealioning on this topic and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK are indistinguishable from trolling. Topic ban from aviation I think at a minimum, but considering their inability to communicate with other editors in a collegial and WP:AGF manner an indef could be a discussion point. (Remember indef is indefinite, not permanent, and they would need to convince the community at large that there would be no repeat of their behaviour if unblocked rather than just serving out a time.) Canterbury Tail talk 19:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's proposal seems reasonable. SurferSquall was blocked 3 times since May, as his talk page shows, and all three blocks were due to his behavior in the aviation topic. And that's not to mention the collection of warnings he has amounted from multiple other users before. Also, this June thread, where people were complaining about the same behavior that this user continues to display to this day, was opened only about a week after SurferSquall was blocked for edit warring and then unblocked after promising to behave. SparklyNights 23:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban at minimum... In June, it was suspected case of WP:IDHT and/or WP:CIR. But now, he really proved himself. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User 39r3i93 a new account (10 edits total as of this AN/I start) and their first three edits were to revert/page blank 3 times on October 2023 Tulkarm incursion to, and I quote their first edit summary, "making a point". Note, this is a CTOPS 30/500 article, to which they removed the CTOPS notice from the talk page saying, "try enforcing this first". The third of their page blankings was reverted by me, to which they responded on my talk page to. After this, I mentioned they needed to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which I assumed was obvious for the page blanking + "making a point" edit summary. To this mention as well as me pointing out they duplicated a page protection request, they responded with, "WP:POINT does not mention this. Clearly a troll or WP:CIR issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such an assumption falls in violation to Wikipedia:Assume no clue. --39r3i93-2 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! WP:SOCK time! (Reply to their alt, User:39r3i93-2). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I scrambled the password because I thought we were done with. I was wrong. --39r3i93-2 (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, a similar think happened on Battle of Re'im where vandalism was necessary to enforce an ArbCom restriction, but unfortunately that IP, trying to be a hero, was blocked for 31 hours.The article in question is still not ECP. --39r3i93-2 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, three points: 1) ECP is discretionary on the part of admins, even to enforce ARBECRs; 2) RFPP is the correct place to request it; 3) I do not believe for a second that you knew about the ECR but not where to find RFPP, and besides your conduct here has been trollish, so I have blocked both your accounts indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good block, and I agree with Weather Event Writer this is a also a CIR issue, on the grounds that anyone who thinks for a moment that we wouldn't instantly associate a first-day newbie who somehow knows about ArbCom restrictions with sock/trolls just doesn't meet basic competency levels. Ravenswing 20:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. To Ravenswing's point, such folks usually think of themselves as far more clever than they actually are. That being said, October 2023 Tulkarm incursion is a terribly written article. I am trying to keep my substantive editing regarding this latest war to a minimum, and am instead observing and being prepared to act as an administrator. Anybody else is invited to clean up this article. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified on my user talk page regarding this incident. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in the revert reason mentioning it as disruptive, even though the comments appeared to disrupt the flow of the article when I came across the revision. Those comments should have been directed at the appropriate noticeboards or the article's talk page. I apologize for this particlar revert for an edit that may be problematic in the flow of the article, but might not be considered vandalism. Tropicalkitty (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It was disruptive as an article was being page-blanked to "prove a point", which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I 100% agree that the article needs massive rewriting and improvement. I added the CE tag to it earlier today because of how the quality of it was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Rich has been removing |via= and |subscription= from citations related to HighBeam for over a month. Discussions on their talk page User_talk:Srich32977#HighBeam_edits and at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Subscription_and_via,_when_link_is_dead. Multiple editors are against it (User:GreenC, User:Isaidnoway, User:Mr.choppers, User:DIYeditor). Nobody but S. Rich is for it. Thus consensus is against it per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Requesting they immediately stop, until consensus is established. They are operating at a large scale Special:Contributions/Srich32977. I have recommended they stop editing multiple times (last attempt), but they continue, contrary to the present SNOW majority of multiple editors. -- GreenC 22:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very concerning as well, especially considered the scale, and that I found that not only were the edits misguided in premise, in some cases they were actually corrupting citation templates. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. DIYeditor pointed out how some of my edits caused format problems. Those errors were corrected. (And DIYeditor was satisfied with my explanation of my project.) So I've been more careful in my work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC and the others cannot or will not discern between which of my edits are acceptable and which are not. (They have not reverted any of them.) Indeed, this notice itself is defective in that it seems to combine the "via" and "subscription" parameters. Do they mean that all of the "via" parameters should stay in citations? Or should all of the "subscription" parameters stay in the citations? Or that only those edits involving the combination of "via" and "subscription" fixes are improper? In the commentary cited above they basically say they don't like what I've been doing. (Except that they cannot say what editing guidance is being violated.) Another point -- there is no SNOW here. I've had editors send thanks for my edits. – S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time Srich32977 has done something like this. They tried doing this with ISBN hyphenation but were rebuked here and you can see people's exasperation with Srich's edits at the end. People "thanking" you for edits is meaningless. When multiple editors tell you to stop doing something, you stop doing them. End of story. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a lousy argument! People thanking me is "meaningless", but 2 or 3 or 4 editors presenting vague objections becomes a multitude. – S. Rich (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thanking feature has no bearing on Wikipedia's editorial decisions/discussions. People have been banned in the past for trolling with/misusing the thanking feature. It's meaningless. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't feel helpful at all; it's like removing cites to the Rocky Mountain News in Denver-related articles under the specious argument that 'it no longer exists'; you'd be rightfully reverted and warned. We shouldn't be penalizing a former source with removal of credit for the sin of being acquired and merged into another database. These links aren't broken and just feel like busywork and edit number-padding better spent on actual writing rather than needless pruning, and this 'clutter' is in the references section, which isn't visible in article text. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the collapsed section: ANI is for reporting and resolving behavior problems, not to resolve content disputes. That is what the other linked pages above are for. You said in the above collapse section: "I will limit/discontinue my removal of the "via=HighBeam"s. I will, however, continue to remove the "subscription" admonitions." As Mr. choppers said below, hold off removing either until consensus is resolved. -- GreenC 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off until consensus has been reached.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Rich says the objections are "vague". But the objections are clear:

• "If those two specific parameters (|via= and |subscription=) are not harming anything, they shouldn't be removed." (User:Isaidnoway) [147]
• "Definitely leave in the |via= field, agnostic on the rest." (User:Mr.choppers) [148]
• "Please stop removing via until you have consensus" (User:GreenC) [149]

Removing |via= and/or |subscription= from HighBeam citations is controversial. ANI is for reporting behavior problems. He needs to stop removing |via= and/or |subscription= from HighBeam citations until there is clear consensus for removal. We have established S. Rich's editing is both controversial, and without consensus, concerning the removal of |via= and/or |subscription= from HighBeam citations. -- GreenC 00:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You said at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Yes, this is a clutter-removal project. And I think it comports with WP:DEADLINK. Need more be said? How does your removal of these two parameters comport with DEADLNK? Based on the guidance at DEADLINK, shouldn't you be 'trying to repair a dead link'. For instance, in this recent edit of yours, a quick search with the headline found this source, which supports that quote. Here's another one, that you could have fixed with a quick search, source. I see more value in trying to fix the dead links, than this "clutter-removal project". You say you don't think its of any benefit to the reader, (leaving these parameters intact) but doesn't leaving those two parameters intact inform the reader that the source was obtained through a subscription to HighBeam? Even though the link is dead, at least the reader knows where it came from. 👻 Isaidnoway (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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" [150], 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" [151]. 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 [152], 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)[reply]

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: [153][154][155][156][157] 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[158]; 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."[159] (Tracked that edit down, too, and it's more unreasonable hostility [160], taking someone to task for citing an album.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]