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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support With a 1-year autoexpire. I've had some interactions with them. A good faith editor and even with the flaws in articles, a valuable contributor. But they need to wiki-evolve into more emphasis on quality and other aspects and less on quantity. This could be a nudge in that direction. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with everything that North8000 said. An editor acting in good faith, but needs to focus on getting articles ready for mainspace before creating anymore. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose, I also echo and support asilvering's view and new draft moratorium suggestion. Remsense聊 17:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Give them a chance to work on their drafts now that they know others view it as an issue. No need for formal restrictions at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Topic ban from Shinto

Immanuelle is indefinitely topic banned from Shinto, broadly construed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference, here is the earlier ANI thread about machine translations and AI-generated drafts that resulted in a number of editing restrictions for Immanuelle: [1]. The focus was on errors introduced by machine translation and AI, so broader issues got a bit lost in the shuffle, but the concerns raised are still relevant. -- asilvering (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Remsense. Lightoil (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think a topic ban is warranted or useful here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: At this point we should just give Immanuel the benefit of the doubt. They've heard the feedback and they are willing to cut back and work on their existing drafts. We should end this already and allow them to do so and only re-examine possible sanctions if it becomes a problem. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: See my comments under the first proposal for restrictions. As an alternative proposal, I think that Immanuelle should focus exclusively on Shinto (I think their bungles in other topics, e.g. Confucianism, modern Paganism, have been even worse than those in the Shinto topic), and on a relatively small number of drafts, with a very close supervision by experienced users.--Æo (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Remsense. NotAGenious (talk) 15:31, 31 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" [2], 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" [3]. 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 [4], 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: [5][6][7][8][9] 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[10]; 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."[11] (Tracked that edit down, too, and it's more unreasonable hostility [12], 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]

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

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

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

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

You stated on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Or_variants:

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

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

And again we're right back to the underlying competence problem: criticism is not "disrespect". No one is owed special "respect" here, just the equal respect of regular human dignity. Iterresise is clearly looking for the deference sort of respect, and seems not realize he is just one among a vast sea of equals, any of whom may raise concerns about edits and unconstructive behavior patterns. For this editor, any criticism is a reason to dig in and battleground repetitively. When someone is at ANI for meatbot and fait accompli actions and avoids addressing these actions (even after an administrative warning to stop them, because they've continued during this ANI), never indicates any understanding why they were disruptive, but instead verbally waves their hands around trying desperately to distract people away from the topic of the ANI with claims of victimhood, this is absolutely, positively, unmistakably handwaving. "Do not look at the man behind the curtain", turned up to 11. So is pinging me to a talk page and then trying to make me out as having been wiki-stalking him. Same with implication that I've falsely accused him of something ("What evidence to you have that I am?", after I already provided the diff [13]). And so on. I am starting to doubt my own belief in this user's behavior probably improving over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Also, in the first of the above cases, it's Iterresise making a statement then unilaterally acting again without any input pro or con [14]. In the second, Iterresise misrepresented me as having said something in support of his removal actions, which I had to correct [15]; he has been met with no agreement on the talk page and is doing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU thing again with regard to clear and well-stated rationales for the template's use. It's as if because Iterresise has excercised his own pre-judgment that the template is an evil and the guideline must mean "always no matter what" where it says "often", the die is already cast.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Update: Here's the smoking gun on that: [16]. Since Iterresise doesn't like that the guideline says "often" instead of his preferred "not permissible", he's just proceeded as if it said what he wished it said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try reading the entire discussion, and absorbing it, and thinking carefully about what to do next, instead of picking things at random you don't like and then engaging in "I must get the last word" behavior. You were administratively warned, twice, days ago: [17][18]. And you need to stop this "poor me, I'm such a victim" act. No one is buying it. No one is being "abrasive" or otherwise inappropriate toward you (and you sure do like to make such accusations [19] any time you meet resistance or advice). You have been disruptive, on a pretty large scale, everyone is pointing that out to you, and you are just not getting it, even slightly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• And it's getting worse. I wasn't even looking for anything like this; it just came across my watchlist. Iterresise has now very inappropriately accused someone of WP:OWN [20] simply for reverting [21] an undiscussed change Iterresise made [22] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. Iterresise's change had nothing to do with grammar, as they suggested, but with adding unecessarily legalistic wording. I'm starting to think that a broader topic-ban from MoS (which is covered by WP:CTOP) might be in order, since the problem this ANI opened with comes down to Iterresise mistakenly believing that an MoS line-item that reads "often" equates to "must" and empowers him to go on an across-the-board "enforcement" rampage. Even where MoS does not have use-editorial-discretion language like "often" and is more emphatic, we still treat it as a guideline to which exceptions may apply, and use consensus formation processes (WP:RM, etc.) to go about implementing changes at articles to comply, and listen to principled objections, and don't act as robotic enforcers, much less ones who accuse anyone who opposes them of being OWNers (and all the things Iterresise has accused me of). If Iterresise is going to react this way every time they are reverted making a change at a guideline page (where most any undiscussed change by anyone gets reverted), then this user should not be editing any guideline pages at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see any very recent bad contributions from Iterresise. Making systematic changes against objections and with no clear consensus is very disruptive and must stop. If there is evidence of future problems, please reply here (or notify me if this gets archived) and I will see if a block is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Casting of ass

Persians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block, please

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

I need help. I'm at a complete loss as to how to continue with this issue. For six years now, this editor has been edit warring all sorts of "examples" into this article. In general, these "examples" lack a citation wherein the source claims the example is a choke. I have engaged in discussion with them previously at the talk page. Some years back, AbrahamCat disengaged from the conversation and largely stopped editing. The list was paired down to include only examples where there was a citation referring to the examle as a choke.

AbrahamCat returned to editing with four edits over the last four months. Two of those edits have been to restore an example to this article regarding Australian Rules Football [23][24]. Precisely the same text was added by AbrahamCat in 2017 [25] and 2018 [26]. In essence, this is a slow burn edit war lasting six years.

The citation that has been used in all of these edits is this. There's two significant problems with this citation. First, per perenial reliable sources list, this source should be treated as a blog. Second takes a bit more explanation.

All along I have maintained that "choke" should be used in the citation to sustain that a given sports performance is, in fact, a choke. AbrahamCat has maintained, without sustaining reliable sources, that other terms are also chokes outside of North America. To wit, AbrahamCat has added this edit to assert (without citation) that "bottling it", "lose one's nerve", and "panic" are synonyms for "choke". Let's assume for a minute that's true (even though no citation has been given to support that). The Guardian blog post makes no mention of any of these terms, much less "choke".

After AbrahamCat made their 21 October 2023 reinstatement of this "example", I removed the "example" [27] and then pinged them to the conversation they left five years ago [28].

Today, AbrahamCat reverted the removal [29], and ignored the ping, refusing to engage in further discussion.

I would like other eyes here. If it were me, I would partially block AbrahamCat from this article. I'm very open to other opinions on how to proceed here.

AbrahamCat has been notified of this conversation. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft has been engaging in unjustified content removal from this article for many years, on the basis that his definition of 'choke' alone is the correct one, and that no other synonyms of the term should be accepted in the citations of the examples. Perhaps he should read the wiktionary defintion on the term, which states: 'To perform badly at a crucial stage of a competition, especially when one appears to be clearly winning.' The term is also colloquial, and that many other similar terms exist for this is indisputable. AbrahamCat (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now AbrahamCat in this diff is accusing me of "ranting", asserting my "attitude on this stinks", and not editing in good faith. Further, he goes on to assert that it is well established that there are "many synonyms in other nations" for the term "choke", but has not provided any citations to support this assertion. Some help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to bully people over definitions and synonyms you know to be true?

At which point have I refused to engage in discussion? AbrahamCat (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many personal attacks do you think it will take to convince people you are correct and I am wrong? According to you, I'm a vandal [30][31], my attitude stinks [32], I don't edit in good faith (same diff as last), I'm ranting (same diff as last), I'm a gatekeeper [33], and now I'm a bully? I think you need to carefully read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and rethink your approach to how you interact with people here.

You refused to engage in discussion when on 22 October 2023 I pinged you to Talk:Choke (sports) with this edit. You ignored the ping and three days later reverted my removal [34], without engaging in discussion at the talk page. It was only after I started the discussion here at WP:AN/I that you returned to the discussion [35] (of course attempting to insult me in the process).

I don't know any synonyms to be true because you've never provided any reference to indicate any terms are akin to "choke". You claimed on the talk page of the article that "The term and its synonyms were agreed upon back in 2018", yet it wasn't. 3 days ago, User:City of Silver pinged you to the talk page to ask you to indicate where it was agreed upon [36]. You've not responded to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For repeated failure to provide reliable citations while reinstating challenged material, for repeated aspersions on the talk page (such as this) and for failure to back up consensus claims, AbrahamCat has been partially blocked from the article. Lourdes 05:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided multiple reliable citations. Your blocking my editing does not change that a) the term choke has multiple synonyms accepted on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and b) that the citations were reliable.

It was Hammersoft who initiated this conflict and they are the ones who should be blocked from editing that page. Your decision only facilitates edit-warring and vandalism. AbrahamCat (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we have a second opinion on this matter? AbrahamCat (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure AbrahamCat. I have no issues with any other administrator unblocking you if they deem fit. The three key issues remain unanswered in your response:

1. You have claimed repeatedly that consensus has been reached on Wikipedia with respect to multiple synonyms that can be used in lieu of the word "Choke" on the article Choke (sports). Can you please provide the link for this consensus?
2. You have claimed repeatedly that you have multiple reliable citations that confirm that synonyms and the word "Choke" can be used interchangeably. Can you please provide these multiple reliable sources?
3. You have claimed repeatedly that Hammersoft has vandalised the article. Can you please provide the diffs that prove this?

You have been blocked for failure to provide evidence for these three issues. Once you do that, it's all clear for you from that point onwards. Thank you, Lourdes 07:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not commenting on the block or the dispute, but just pointing out that the first source used in the article to define Choke also says it has related words and phrases. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related, yes. Synonym? No. Choking in sports as a concept is studied psychologically. It is not generic for "lose", which is also in the related set [37]. That it's related to other words is meaningless. See the related words for "driving" from the same dictionary and note it says "pull" and "push start", which are hardly synonyms. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thermicknight7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dale Earnhardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could we get a closer look at this user? What seemed to be a normal contribution history for their 11-month tenure has, since October 20, turned into nothing but vandalism at and about Dale Earnhardt. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, look, I apologize, I know that was very uncalled for and I will make it my mission to not do that. Thermicknight7 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an adequate apology for someone who may turn out to be a very good editor. Why vandalize a page all of a sudden? Who knows, Madness. But if given a one-time chance maybe this Wikipedian will turn it around and live up to their name, 7. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the user self-reverted at Walter White (Breaking Bad) before posting here.[38] Hopefully that's the end of it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Pirate of the High Seas: is engaged in persistent revert of WP:NPOV on the article despite previous user warnings (including removal of warning from talkpage), and despite asking to discuss first. User is also ignoring the already-building consensus on the same subject(under move request heading).

Article: Indian espionage case in Qatar

Talk Page warning: Talk:Indian_espionage_case_in_Qatar#Persistent POV edits by some editors

Edits concerned:

• user adds POV material which was previously NPOVed by another user.

• User adds POV again here mentioning "unexplained" removal which was explained and removed

See also: removal of warnings from self talk page

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Pirate of the High Seas He is constantly reverting my edit and other editors edit to back to where his edits were saying to discuss it on talk page of article Indian espionage case in Qatar. Please guide where the responsibility lies and who is acting irresponbily here. On 28 I did an edit explaning in good words what I did (pre) . I did in good faith and User4edits also came looked and supported it later. I explained reasons in my summary but still Pirate has no option, not coming on my talk page, not opening new section in artcle's talk page but outright saying i pushed a POV and reverting it back to where it was. Please look at my edit, I mean does that look like POV push. I tried making article consistent with my dicussion on BLP noticeboard with another editor.

Pirate of high seas's earlier records are also not that good, but why I have to suffer this back and forth. Please some eperienced editor settle this. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 11:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ANI is not for content disputes. Since there appears to have been very little discussion of this particular content dispute, I have protected the page for two weeks in order that discussion can take place. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The comment laid herein refer more with the user behavior. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also I don't understand how protecting a POV version of the page is going to help. User4edits (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You see, administrators are required to protect the wrong version of articles. Getting the right version can result in desysopping. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok... I have pointed out in talk page what the right version should be.

  But here me and User4dits did not only come for article, but also for the behavior of Pirate of High seas. I am simply requesting that action be taken against the same editor. Isn't assuming good faith a basic principle of wiki while editing? He called me POV pusher in edit summary. See below DSP2092's concern. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 19:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, this is a content dispute. You think the article should say one thing, they think differently. You think your edit was NPOV, they think their edit was NPOV. No action is going to be taken here; now please discuss on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to bring to your attention a series of issues related to the creation, redirection, and content handling of articles on Wikipedia, specifically pertaining to the concerning behavior from Pirate of the High Seas (talk · contribs).

1. Article Creation and Title Issues:

  - "Pirate of the High Seas" initially created an article 2023 Kerala bombing. However, this article encountered problems associated with close paraphrasing and its its title did not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for precision and conciseness, as outlined in WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. 
  - I was unware of the existence of this pre-existing article and I created a separate article Kalamassery convention centre bombing (also referred to as 2023 Kochi convention centre blast).  After discovering the existing article, I decided to redirect it to my own article due to the copyright violation problems and naming discrepancies in the original. My intention was to address the copyright violation issues and discrepancies in the original article title.

2. Redirection and Cut-and-Paste Moves:

  - After  that Pirate of the High Seas redirected my article and engaged in cut-and-paste moves, adding whole content contributed by multiple editors, including myself, into their own article.
  - In response to this, I reverted their actions and nominated their article for deletion using the Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD), (which I shouldn't have done).
  - In retaliation, "Pirate of the High Seas" initiated multiple CSD nominations for my article.

While I acknowledge my own mistakes in this matter, particularly in nominating their article and engaging in reverts, I would like to stress the importance of avoiding cut-and-paste moves and ensuring that article titles adhere to WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE guidelines. Now I will not remove CSD from my page but the behavior of Pirate of the High Seas is very concerning, and I believe it is crucial that appropriate actions are taken to address these issues. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Pirate of the High Seas did acknowledge (through edit summary) that the material merged into "their" article was copied from "yours", which is all that is required for attribution. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i don't have problem with that, I know he acknowledged that. Title of the article should be about precise incident and his title is very generalized. 2023 Kerala bombing is not WP:PRECISE title. He is edit warring over like I created this article. I don't mind but after deleting please 2023 Kerala bombing should be moved to Kalamassery convention centre bombing naming. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 20:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you to consider the First Rule of Holes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both User4edits and Ankraj giri are more than welcome to discuss the content dispute on the article's talkpage as I had already advised them to do so even before they brought the matter to ANI : here, here and here

As far as DSP2092 is concerned, they twice removed the CSD A10 template from an article they created even though it says, "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" and in fact I asked them twice not to do so in my edit summary (see: Don't remove the template and This is not the proper way to contest deletion.). I also advised them the same thing on the article's talkpage here. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been generating a sock range that has extended to at least 10+ IP's, all generating the same racist and hateful edit summaries and edits, each one getting more and more racist and mostly focused on targeting pages related to human intelligence and mental health. One example can be seen here. Is there any way else to completely block this IP from editing the site entirely other than to keep reporting and blocking each individual IP at AIV?

Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmssssssssssss: IP-hopping vandal admits to using IPSharkk to evade blocks; see Special:AbuseLog/36242496 for more info. Eyesnore ^talk💬 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P2P VPNs are tricky by nature. I recommend following the WP:RBI process until they get bored. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 15:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Ngunalik is engaged in multiple vandalisms at Lango, Ateker peoples and Kumam people. Their behaviour appears to show that they are not willing to understand the rules about editing on wikipedia and that they are removing sourced information and adding unsourced information without a reliable source. I have warned them on their talk page. See my warnings on the talk page of Ngunalik and their edit summaries on Lango, Ateker peoples and Kumam people for evidence. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree: these edits (I wouldn't call them vandalism, just ignorance and disruption) are not positive. None of their edits seem to be properly verified, and the level of reliability can be gauged in this edit, one of many where they introduce "Hamitic", a long discredited term. Here is another example of "Hamitic" and unverified information. C.Fred was asked by the editor to kick Cookiemonster to the curb; I wonder if they have an opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can they be blocked or given a warning by an administrator over their edits? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've reported the user to the wikipedia administrators intervention against vandalism but no administrators blocked them and my report was there for more than 4 hours than deleted by another user where i was told to come here to report the incident. Many of their edits appear to be removing information and adding unsourced content without a reliable source or source to begin with. Surely this would constitute disruptive editing and would get a user blocked?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cookiemonster1618: You've failed to notify Ngunalik of this report. As it states at the top of this page, you are required to do so. Please notify them now.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cookiemonster1618 I have replied extensively to your comments. You have been relentless in your accusation against my editing. I edit and lots of other editors also remove sources that I place. Are you honestly saying I did not add references in the Ateker nor Lango articles? All the references I added were consistent with what were already on those two articles. The latest being reference number 7 on the Lango people's article. The other references 9,10,11 were already on the Article before I contributed. These all show Ateker peoples, Nilo Hamitic, Teso, Lango Kumam. On what basis are you accusing me for these? All the clans and names of clans origins of Lango Kuman are in Teso language. None in Lwo/Luo groups these are separate ethnic groups entirely, although they neighbour each other presently. Ngunalik (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618 I am not someone who vandalises. In facts most things I have edited and referenced have been supported and opened many areas of new information which were not in Wikipedia. Some editors have commented that what I placed where substantive. You will never find any evidence that Lango or Kumam are originally Lwo/Luo - they are Ateker people. I have sourced this from reliable evidence. The languages of Lango, Kumam and Teso have common origin and grouped as Ateker peoples together with Koromojong etc. Ngunalik (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngunalik While you may be placing references, are they reliable sources? In this edit to Lango people, you add a monograph with no statement of authorship that appears to be self-published to a blog (based on the /wp-content/uploads/ segment of the source's path). Blogs and similar user-generated content are, as a rule, not reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred I did not cite a monograph, I cited an article although I may not agree with everything they wrote in that article - they wrote it in 2020. There are plenty of research work some I cited before, I am not sure whether they are still there in these Lango wiki articles as people change edits from time to time. I have lots of sources available, when I have time I will bring these up. As for ~~1618, the editor gets in to war, keeps bringing the same reference "Ethnolgue" which seems editable or a wiki page of some sort. In the meantime if you look through the Lango or Ateker articles in Wikipedia, ~~1618 removed reference then aserted that Lango and Kumam are not Ateker groups but FAILED to substantiate this claim, to cite any reference or justify the deletion. There are already several references bringing up the same points am bringing - nothing is new from me. You can search these online. Thanks. Ngunalik (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem completely ignorant in that Ethnologue is a linguisitic website that does research on all of the world's languages. No linguist classifies the Lango and Kumam languages as Ateker languages. You went in to these two articles and edited information that was not sourced and also incorrect so i reverted your edits. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cpploe,pmster1618 You have been only citing Ethnologue are you saying that it is the only reliable source? When last did ethnologue do a primary research in that area of language? Did you see other research work, there has been extensive research on these areas. Vast work is already online, some are still coming. There has been big debate too against wrongs things which had been published by scholars before, so be aware of this.

In my last edits I did put in the comments that I was still editing and have lots of references to bring up but you deleted this in a hurry before I finished. There should be evidence of that comment in the preview part.

https:www.jstor.orgstable41856972

This shows linguistic research work that the Lango Teso are Ateker.

https:lughayangu.comkumam

This group is currently doing work on the kumam language.

https:academic-accelerator.comencyclopediaateker-peoples

Currently I am in the middle of something but will bring out what I am talking about. These are just but a few. Ngunalik (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried posting some things but Wiki kept blocking it so trying other ways

Search the following

1) THE BEGINNINGS OF LANGO SOCIETY

2) Ateker Peoples

Encyclopedia, Science News & Research Reviews

3) Lango,Ateker language dictionary

Try searching these for now. ThanksNgunalik (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fix those for you:

• Lughayangu.com (repaired link, appears to be user-generated content)
• Jstor (repaired link)
• Academic Accelerator appears to be blacklisted on Wikipedia.

Schazjmd (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cpploe,pmster1618 Thank you for pointing my ignorance. Be aware that I have brought in lots of topics on wikipedia which did not have new articles before and so many editors have built on this. Did you see Nilotic pages before on Wikipedia? several topics I placed and other editors build these. That is what we call team work and it is the essence of research. Some people have been greatful about my contribution. Thank you 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Ngunalik (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngunalik Monograph, article, call it what you will: the point is it's something on the web with no byline and no way to ascertain the editorial rigor that it was subject to. Accordingly, it is not a reliable source. Ethnologue, on the other hand, has an about page that demonstrates editorial rigor and its qualifications as a reliable source.

Thus, I have a specific behavioural concern with your edits, Ngunalik, in that you appear to either not understand or be disregarding the policies governing reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred are you calling this a behavioural problem of mine? I stated that I have edited and cited lots of references what I last put there was not a monograph but a research. There would be some references already removed. I have not had the time to check all but I remember I added some research from North American University . Which monograph are you referring to? As said it could not just be one monograph that I have added ever since I started editing - it can't be. At the moment I am a little busy but will go search this up. Let me know which monograph you are talking about. Ngunalik (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the interaction between Ngunalik and Cookiemonster1618 on Cookiemonster1618's Talk page where Cookiemonster1618 repeatedly accused Ngunalik of "vandalism". Ngunalik may be insufficiently familiar with our policies and guidelines about proper sourcing but it seems clear to me that they are editing in good faith. Wikipedia:Vandalism states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Are you aware of the difference between disruptive editing and vandalism, Cookiemonster1618? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby Thank you for your encouragement.

RegardsNgunalik (talk) Ngunalik (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

her edits constitute vandalism because she added information without a source and changed sourced information to what she sees fit that is vandalism. She also added unsourced content to those articles as evidenced in Kumam people and Ateker peoples. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does not fit the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. It may be incorrect, but it's not vandalism, so please drop that argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She added unsourced information at Ateker peoples that is vandalism so no the argument is not dropped. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618 Adding unsourced information, in and of itself, is not vandalism. Even adding it habitually does not rise to the level of vandalism. There has to be malice or bad faith in the edits for it to be deemed vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poetsrogue1 has been making persistent disruptive edits, as seen here [39], here [40], and here [41]. When I addressed this on their talk page, their only response was "lmfao". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The facts are getting distorted: [42], [43], [44], [45]. 76.89.194.44 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See initial comments about this at WP:BLPN. Classifying an adopted person as unrelated is defamatory to that person as well as being false per what adoption means legally. My reverts back to the correct status quo on those articles reflect the fact that adoption created a real relationship equivalent in all aspects to that of a biological one. Classifying an adopted child as a step-child is factually wrong and degrading. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has now been blocked, but I've gotta say that I think you could have done better here, Geraldo. The seven reverts in just over an hour on Tony Huston rely on WP:3RRNO#7, but given that exemption specifically says What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption, I'm really not convinced that "describing two people who share exactly one biological parent as half-siblings" fits this bar. It was the IP who reported to BLPN and here; I see you did report at AIV but I don't think that the issue was so urgent you couldn't have waited until the IP was blocked to revert to the last stable version rather than getting in a stupid edit war. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP added this report to ANI, AN and BLPN and reported me to AIV. I just reported it to AIV after the final warning for blatant BLP violations. I was very surprised the AIV report wasn't acted on quickly like most BLP reports for continuing after final warnings generally are. BLP violations should not be left in articles, thus my reverts. Stating that two people who have the same parents are half-siblings, or that an adopted child is a step-child is incorrect and demeaning to the adopted person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reported this user on 5 October 2023 for persistent vandalism (see archived report), but they paused their editing and nothing came of it. Since then, they've resumed editing with additional unsourced and disruptive edits. Summary:

• They made multiple unexplained unexplained deletions in July and August 2023, all clearly disruptive, e.g.: [46], [47], [48]).
• Those edits and others got them multiple warnings in August on their talk page.
• They continued to vandalize without interruption after that, mostly POV disruptions, e.g.: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54].
• After I reported them on 5 October (and also gave them another warning), they've continued with unsourced edits, nearly all reverted (not just by me), including: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].

At no point have they responded to any talk page messages and they've provided almost no edit summaries throughout this time, except for a few early edits in June. R Prazeres (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: Indef siteban as the user is either WP:NOTHERE or has serious competency issues. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial indef till they respond. Lourdes 04:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• In the Bazaars of Hyderabad; close paraphrasing, source-to-text integrity issues, leading to a failed GA review in July 2023: [62], [63].
• Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha; extraordinary claims being made with poor sources; considerable uncited content. [64] (ongoing)
• Golconda diamonds; rife with sourcing issues, see DYK nom (for the record, I was the admin who pulled this from prep) and GA reassessment (October 2022 to September 2023). See also this contorted history.
• Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Memorial; GAN failed due to sourcing issues [65] (September 2022)
• This edit to Telangana adds two sources; the first verifies the name of the individual being discussed, but doesn't support anything to do with etymology or history; the second supports even less (September 2023)
• This edit to Asaf Jahi dynasty; added source has nothing to say about a siege. (September 2023)
• This edit to Nigar Shaji; cited sources do not support the content added. (September 2023)
• Tasmia Qwani; a randomly selected older article (2015), about a religious ritual among Hyderabadi Muslims. The article as created contains three sources; the first discusses a related custom among Siddis; the second is biographical, and makes no generalizations; the third provides definition only, and no description. The majority of the article's content is unsupported.
• Most recent talk page archive [66] lists three pages draftified at NPR, and subsequently deleted, dating back to December 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout all this, the user has persistently resorted to edit-warring when they are unable to get their way and while discussions are still ongoing, as seen at [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. They have been warned of this many times, including in edit summaries, on their talk page (which they have repeatedly blanked: 1, 2, 3, 4), and at ANEW (no action taken because they narrowly escaped the 24-hour window). They have also banned certain users from posting messages on their talk pages (WP:SOMTP), attempted to circumvent the consensus-building process by submitting an edit request for a controversial change, and even tried to recruit an uninvolved administrator to back them (the admin did not take the bait).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support tban They continue to argue about their own personal interpretation of the time line of people-in-spandex TV. From just a few minutes ago, they are arguing that company employees are reliable secondary sources for in-universe stuff - [73] Just here for the facts (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Needs TPA revoked. EEng 14:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. I told them not to remove block notice (since it was placed few hours ago). I also said that repeated removal may result in TPA revoked but they don't seem to listen. Rest rests on the community. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Note: Self strike[reply]

Rest rests. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. EEng 15:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block notices may be removed, like most other usertalk comments. Only declined unblock requests are required to be left up. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is correct. The user is free to remove their block notice. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops oop. EEng 18:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User in question: User:Hawkers994

I edited this page Habr Awal and Awdal and removed this section: "The Habr Awal also partially inhabit the neighbouring region of Awdal, namely in eastern Lughaya"^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:MustafaO i have issued you a 3RR first in your talk page to avoid complication but you disregarded as evident from your talk page [74] you are deleting sourced content which clearly shows the presence and inhibitions of certain clans in the region due to your biased attitude [75] the exact same content is on the Awdal page same Author, same book used by many other ediors. I have explained on both talk pages yet you refused to stop editing with sourced content at hand [76] you do not get to pick and choose which sources suit you to your liking. Yet you are negotiating saying to leave it on one page and delete the other [77] even though the same content just because it doesn’t suite to your liking, that’s not how Wikipedia works.

User:Hawkers994

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

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

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

User:Hawkers994

Please do not assume my intentions and let us keep this respectful. You say the source "clearly states large presence of communities". Here is the source you provided: [[78]].

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

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

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

you are even denying the source book itself on page 9 “Haber - Awal has been in conflict with the Gadabuursi over land rights. The second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts; there, Isaaq traders and pastoralists have established a greater presence” [79] why are you denying this source and authour even though its used by many editors on wikipedia at the actual Awdal page when its conveniently mentioning the community you are promoting. Hawkers994 (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hawkers994

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

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

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

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

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

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

you are deleting sourced content without even checking the book on the source itself which is a violation, as states in my replies previously is on page 9 as you are going around in circles [80] Denying that a certain community lives in a region just because it doesn’t fit to your liking when you cannot refute it Hawkers994 (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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