Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

A plethora of drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Editing restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Six month moratorium on making new drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Topic ban from Shinto

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

---

Immanuelle is indefinitely topic banned from Shinto, broadly construed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violations of prior editing restrictions

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

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

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

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

Talk page access

Can a mod possibly revoke talk page access?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, bless you, Lightburst. Here I am at 3 AM, laughing my backside off. Thank you for bringing that brilliant screed to our attention! (grins) Ravenswing 06:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No way they used the copypasta. It's almost enough to make me want to give them TPA back. AryKun (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:ChimaFan12

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

---

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 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. They have been warned of this many times, including in edit summaries, on their talk page (which they have repeatedly blanked: 1, 2, 3, 4), and at ANEW (no action taken because they narrowly escaped the 24-hour window). They have also banned certain users from posting messages on their talk pages (WP:SOMTP), attempted to circumvent the consensus-building process by submitting an edit request for a controversial change, and even tried to recruit an uninvolved administrator to back them (the admin did not take the bait).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support tban They continue to argue about their own personal interpretation of the time line of people-in-spandex TV. From just a few minutes ago, they are arguing that company employees are reliable secondary sources for in-universe stuff - [11] Just here for the facts (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support TBAN (uninvolved) per Cullen; I would also recommend the editor learn the value of WP:WALLS and WP:BLUDGEON. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN from entertainment media articles, broadly construed, like Cullen328 has suggested. I see too many problems here, trying to push a certain POV or narrative to these MCU articles in numerous ways – edit warring, gaming the system by 'narrowly' avoiding 3RR and by stonewalling, as well as not dropping the stick, and bludgeoning on talk pages, all of which altogether constitutes highly disruptive editing. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment since this got caught up in the auto archiver I guess (which I will note again here I moved back to the ANI page from the archive here and here), can we get an admin to close/decide on what should happen here? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (involved), as being on the receiving end of bludgeoning, a TBAN would be ideal. This user just does not stop until they know 3RR would get them. I feel for the longer term editors that have had interactions over a much longer time frame. Multiple times in multiple talk page comments, this user has been warned about their behavior, with links to WP:BLUDGEON and other similar type of undesirable actions, without any improvement. If this person can learn over six months to a year, perhaps allow editing in the area again.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Nationality-based attack by Rosenborg BK Fan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HazemGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Range block requested. Styx (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Now at 102.44.69.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Now at 41.47.71.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 08:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Uncivil personal attack by IP 87.196.74.126 at Talk:Spanish Empire

Recent editing at Talk:Spanish Empire#Inaccurate Map (October 2023) has evidenced uncivil behaviour and personal attacks, enough for me to issue a general warning that such behaviour should cease (here). Immediately after, an IP made three edits that IMO fall to being a personal attack against another - [12], [13] & [14]. The nature of the edits indicate a long-term editor that would probably meet the definition of being a sock - quite possibly of a banned editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Personal Attacks in Talk:Death of Armita Geravand

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

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

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

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

Alumim massacre WP:V issues

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

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

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

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

Just so you know, I’ve tried cleaning it up. Borgenland (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Cammm3ee - vandalism only account

Newly registered account, sole purpose appears to be anti-semitic vandalism. Eg [15]. WP:NOTHERE block required. WCM_email 12:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Somebody "Notme" Else is a thoroughly reliable editor, just overworked. Narky Blert (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Xihuaa - Failure to engage with other editors' concerns

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

---

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

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

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

Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPC official websites :

https://asianparalympic.org/

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

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

https://www.paralympic.org/

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

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

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

and many more web that are good source.

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

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

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

Template:Events at the 2018 Asian Para Games

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

Go at the 2022 Asian Para Games

Go at the 2022 Asian Games

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia also doesn't want a complete history of medallists on an article on a specific edition of an event, as done here and [16]. Those articles are clearly just for the 2022 Asian Para Games event. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Promo editor posting the same article with different names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These IPs, most likely the same user, keep posting racist or otherwise non-constructive, partly nonsensical comments on Talk:Berbers. At best, a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:FORUM, including some personal attacks. Even their first comments ([17], [18]), which are superficially on topic, are still unconstructive and were added hours after the claims they're objecting to (that these two historical figures are Berber) were removed from the article ([19]). Their subsequent comments make it clear that they just want to rant and respond by attacking editors: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. They've been warned about their behaviour several times: [26], [27], [28].

I don't think their latest comment ([29]) should be allowed to remain on the talk page, but they've already shown that they're willing to edit-war over it if removed (see [30], [31]). Given that the IP number changed twice, I'm not sure if blocking them is the best solution, so any other advice is also welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Update: @Ponyo, this IP appears to be the same user again. Posting similar comment on the same talk page, [32]. R Prazeres (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Blaxoul, part 2

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

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

This user has been here since 2020, making 59 edits since then. As you can see here [33], the majority of these few edits have been related to nothing but trouble. I think it's safe to say they're WP:NOTHERE, I fail how to see they're a networth to this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP constantly resubmitting AfC submissions

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

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

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

    That would only work if the IP would work with that or any solution, but they do not communicate at all. Rather than naming editors they could add something more general like Category:NLF Drafts needing more sources. I assume this is the same as 24.209.152.112 who was doing the same before. KylieTastic (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

    If the IP's submissions were automatically placed in such a category, I think they would be fine with that rather than being blocked from doing anything at all – they actually have communicated somewhat with me in the past to inform me of their drafts, see User talk:BeanieFan11/Archive 9 (also, yes, this is 24.209.152.112 as well as 65.30.134.209 – it seems I've actually been working with this IP for nearly three years now, wow!). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Black Kite, I have published 5 of the IP's drafts after they were declined or redraftified since the beginning of this month alone. I wrote a message on KylieTastic's talk page, but I think BeanieFan11's solution is better. I also noticed that I no longer have my AFC permission. Oshwah, when regranting my permissions for my new account, did you forget my AFC rights? Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Scorpions1325 you are listed at WP:AFC/P so you should be fine to review KylieTastic (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  KylieTastic I got it. My preferences were off. Thanks. Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, Kline, Scorpions1325, and KylieTastic: I just randomly choose seven out of the declined drafts, and found significant coverage for all seven (see the most recent moved to mainspace entries at User:BeanieFan11/IP draft tracker) – if its "too much work" for the AfC reviewers to take care of them, I definitely think the reserved category idea would work – also note that in three days, 20 of the drafts have been improved / made to demonstrate notability by me and Scorpions while just 12 remain (and I haven't even looked at most of those yet!). I think the IP should be unblocked, clearly their work has resulted in improvements to the encyclopedia and most of their submissions are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I literally also finished one the second I got this ping. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11, if they agree not to submit drafts to AfC without more than 2 basic stats links fine. They have been doing this for years over multiple IPs from at least 2021 with 65.30.134.209. I've never seen them even post to WikiProject American football or WikiProject National Football League. To me it seems like they do very little work other than a cut-paste and quick update of stats, it's you guys doing all the great work, it's you guys that result in "improvements to the encyclopedia". It's not that it's "too much work" for the AfC reviewers, it's that it is up to submitters (or other interested editors) to research and write not the reviewers. AfC is not Wikipedia:Requested articles. I don't think they would put any more effort in even if they had access to every source, they appear to only care that a basic listing exists, not a single extra thing about a player. If I was some of these players I would be pissed that nothing I had done merited a few words. Looking at old accepts in 2021 such as Jay Repko, Brian Glasgow and Scott Urch and so many more few have been improved beyond basic stats. They create stubs of probably notable American football subjects but require editors like you to write them. There are lots of similar stubs in draft (example) of notable subjects that need work, the difference is we don't get those submitted to AfC while still work in progress. KylieTastic (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  KylieTastic It is not solely I who is doing the "improvements to the encyclopedia" nor is it solely the IP – this has been a collaborative effort between us and, to be honest, the IP's done most of the work, I just quickly add sources which take little effort – it works because the IP is unable to get the sources to demonstrate notability but has the time to write the articles, whereas I have the ability to get the sources but not the time to write all the articles – the IP understands this which is why in the past they have messaged me to inform me of their drafts – and in the rare cases where online sources do exist, the IP has added them, see for example Al Wolden. I still stand by the IP and think they should be unblocked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11 I'd be quite happy to unblock them if they'd show some sign that they would stop simply throwing articles back to AFC, unedited, after they've been rejected - in some cases more than once. However they've been doing this for a very long time without communicating at all (apart from a few comments on your talk page about finding some articles) and haven't shown any clue as to why they're being disruptive. When they were blocked as 24.209.152.112 earlier this year, their unblock request was "I have to get back to work on Football". Yet they simply don't understand sourcing, and haven't made any attempt to fix that problem despite literally dozens of their drafts being declined and deleted (they have over 2,000 deleted edits). I'm not sure what else we can do to help the AFC people if they simply won't change. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Black Kite The reason the IP hasn't been able to add enough sources is because for the vast majority of them – most of which are notable – the sources simply aren't online – short of creating an account or spending large amounts of money for newspaper subscriptions (neither of which the IP seems to want to do – and I don't blame them!), the IP does not have access to them and has to rely on me, as I said several times above (the few times when they could get the sources, e.g. Wolden, they added them) – and I apologize that I haven't been able to get to those drafts quick enough that it takes up a decent amount of AfC time – I left them a message, hopefully they'll see it – I just must say that it annoys the hell out of me to see a long-time editor whom I've worked with as long as I have worked at Wikipedia be blocked for creating notable articles... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11 OK, you've convinced me. Let's give it a try. I'll unblock them and leave them a note (you may also want to do so). However, if thy simply carry on sending articles back to AFC after they've been rejected, then I will have to block them again. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Hopefully the IP will finally understand – and if they can't get it now, well, I guess I'd be fine with them being re-blocked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

COI editor (Georebekah on Rebekah Jones)

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

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

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

To be on the safe side, and rather than require someone to watchlist this user's contribs until they come back for the sake of a casus belli, I have partial-blocked them from the article indefinitely and encouraged them to use the talk page. jp×g🗯️ 01:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. If the editor has a likely COI, then I don't quite understand the point of whether they edited two minutes ago or two months ago; either way, they should be blocked from the article. Grandpallama (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Blocks are intended to prevent further disruption – so if your most recent diff is as stale as two months, you have to prove that it's still likely that the disruption will happen again. A good way to prove it, as was done here, is showing multiple diffs over a long period of time that show a time-independent pattern of disruption to the article. If it was a single diff six months ago, a pblock would be overkill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the intent of blocks; it doesn't depend in this case, because disruption has already been demonstrated. How recently the disruptive COI editor has edited is irrelevant. Grandpallama (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. As always, we need evidence that disruption is likely to continue and time is definitely a factor here. If someone came here and demonstrated that an editor had repeatedly edited an article where they had a CoI 10 years ago and continued even after they'd been warned but hadn't edited in over 10 years despite the article that concerned them still existing, this editor complaining would rightfully be told this is stale, stop annoying us with dumb things. If instead of stopping editing this CoI editor had actually continued to edit Wikipedia intermittently making productive edits here and there but not having touched the area where they had a CoI in 10 years there would even be a stronger case of this is stale, don't waste our time with this shit. If we go even further, and the editor had actually had many highly productive edits in that 10 years being significantly responsible for 10 FAs, 30 GAs with no one producing any evidence that any of their editing since that 10 years was a problem for CoI reasons, an editor demanding a partial block or even an acknowledgement of the 10 year old wrongdoing and their CoI and agreement to do better than 10 years ago, would be told to fuck off by the community and risk a boomerang. Likewise if someone was semi-regularly active and causing problems in an area where they had a CoI and the evidence is that they were subject A, and this disruption suddenly stopped when subject A died suddenly 2 months ago, an editor demanding a partial block is going to be told to fuck off, maybe even risk a boomerang. For that matter, if after a long period of disruption culminating in final warnings but no block, the editor with a CoI had acknowledged their wrong and stopped editing directly but instead started to make requests on the talk page for the past few days, an editor demanding a partial block would be told yeah nah; no evidence it's needed any more. You cannot assume historic disruption means a block is justified. Instead you need to look at the totality of circumstances including the time since the last disruption, how long the disruption continued, other circumstances around the disruption etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Remember also COI editors are explicitly not forbidden from editing articles. They're just strongly discouraged from doing so. Their CoI means they often will bad edits without recognising these are bad edits. So the fact that an editor has a CoI and edits an article where they have a CoI doesn't mean they have to be blocked. The editor's specific edits need to be a problem. In this case, the editor has repeatedly editing an article where they have a CoI and it seems many or most of their edits have been bad. In that case blocking may be appropriate. By comparison, it would be inappropriate to block someone just because they have repeatedly reverted vandalism or even if they've just made edits no one disagrees with in an article where they have a CoI. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but in this case, the disruption is already clear, which is why the argument that the last edit was two months ago didn't make sense. Far more sensible to enact the prophylactic pageblock rather than to leave the door open. The frequency with which we cause our own headaches is so common that I appreciate JPxG's approach here. Grandpallama (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But blocking policy and community consensus requires that we have reason to expect continued disruption rather than simply historic disruption. It explicitly does not allow us to punish someone by blocking them just because they've annoyed us a lot in the past which is what you seem to be advocating for and is IMO seriously, seriously wrong and not a Wikipedia I ever want to be a part of. In this case, with evidence that the editor seems to come back an edit disruptively every few months or in a year or two then the fact an editor hasn't edited in 2 months might indeed be not important since there is reason to think it might reoccur. But you're suggesting we should not care how long it's been since the last disruptive edit or otherwise consider how the length of time when taking with the other circumstances factors into the likelihood they will continue to edit inappropriately, which as I demonstrated above is seriously wrong. Wrong enough that I don't think I can discuss this further without risking saying something that may get me blocked so I'll leave this be. But I'll repeat this again, what you're advocating is not a Wikipedia I ever want to be part of as an editor who cares about BLP. We do not punish editors just because they've edited inappropriately where they have a CoI. We only block editors where we have reason to think their disruption may continue which does require us to look at the totality of circumstances including the editor's history of disruption and how long it been since the last disruption. Nil Einne (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Historic disruption, with an account that goes dark and occasionally resurfaces to disrupt again, indicates a strong likelihood of future disruption. To put in a pageblock is a highly limited, preventative action to redirect that editor away from the disruptive editing. It's not punitive, because the underlying action is to protect the page from demonstrable, established disruption from a known source. I'm not implying we should have a blanket policy (which you seem to have understood I was pushing for, and which may have been a miscommunication on my part) of blocking COI editors. That said, I think it is false logic to assume that preventing future disruption--based upon an analysis of past disruption--equals a punitive action. An editor's amazing work in a number of other places doesn't prevent admins or the community from taking action in a place where the editor has a demonstrated issue--that's why pageblocks and TBANs exist in the first place. I think it's worth noting that in my posts, I have very specifically included the verbiage "in this case", because in this case, the editing pattern does suggest that however long the editor in question has been taking breaks, each time they return, they resume the same specific disruption. You've raised a lot of "what ifs", but I am reacting to this specific situation. As you say, In this case, with evidence that the editor seems to come back an edit disruptively every few months or in a year or two then the fact an editor hasn't edited in 2 months might indeed be not important since there is reason to think it might reoccur. (bolding emphasis mine), which is exactly my point. I actually think we're in agreement, but somehow you have inferred I think we should not care how long it's been since the last disruptive edit or otherwise consider how the length of time when taking with the other circumstances factors into the likelihood they will continue to edit inappropriately, which I don't think I did. As I said, if the miscommunication is on my part, I apologize, but I don't think we actually disagree, unless you think this particular pageblock is somehow punitive. So please don't get so heated you say that thing which would get you blocked. :) Grandpallama (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I was directed here by Slatersteven after sharing some concerns on his talk page. I don't think from reading things the past few hours that you are being trolled, I think there are some big concerns about your behaving in violation of WP:TIMESINK. The block log says you were previously blocked for that. I was initially thinking you were just a really anti-USA user when I saw the stuff on [34] but after reading your history of warnings and asking, Slatersteven showed me the WP:NOT policy and I think a lot of what you are doing is that. USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Everyone involved in a discussion at ANI is subject to scrutiny. 216.126.35.244 (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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

After further review I think it's more than just that. USNavelObservatory (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to launch a separate ANI and present your evidence. I am merely commenting on the idea they are an innocent victim. Not everyone who disagrees with them is a troll. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a new problem so I will file a new one here in a bit. USNavelObservatory (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and vandalism

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

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

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

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

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

• Asking others to revert on their behalf is not helping either. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I will be the "bad guy", then. I have blocked Uniru288 for two weeks for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism and edit warring at Crown Jewel (2023)

Hi all, a Wikipedian by the name of Hunterguide has actively been involved in disruptive edit warring attempting to update the lede of the entry for Crown Jewel (2023) by adding information about WWE's involvement in sportswashing with their Saudi Arabian partnership.

This controversial relationship has already been called out as such on the Sportswashing and WWE in Saudi Arabia entries, and does not need to be listed in the main paragraph of the article outright.

When challenged on this, Hunterguide decided to make around 14 reverts to keeping the page as is with their edit, and continually disrupting the page, despite numerous other editors aiming to stop them, thus risking blocking or investigation under WP: Revert only when necessary.

The editor has also been using sensationalist language to highlight the relationship and explained that the "truth needs to be uncovered", despite it only being at the bottom of the Sportswashing article in a sub-section for an A - Z list ("Wrestling"), and ignoring the rule of Wikipedians are not journalists.

They have went from making minor college basketball edits last year to simply being a single-use account today aimed at plain vandalism and purposely edit warring users who challenge them, thus meaning that an administration should look at their account for the breach of the 'three reverts a day' rule.

Best, Mechanical Elephant (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ban Evasion - Trolling IP

IP 148.252.159.203 and previously 148.252.159.66 is a self admitted meatpuppet (see edsum [42] and also [43]) of banned sockpuppet MeltingDistrict, and if it isn't MeltingDistrict in the (virtual) flesh then I am a pink baboon. They have no other edits except trolling me today as I attempted to informally get this resolved with an online admin. I missed two admins but as he went quiet I decided to wait on the page protection team. For some reason the page protection request has neither been sanctioned nor declined with an IP block yet, and now the IP is trolling again. To be clear: This IP, along with 4 other sockpuppets, was involved in vote stacking an RfC that led to this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarehamOliver and then, with the accounts all banned, suddenly arrived at User talk:Gill110951 to lay into the editor, clearly demonstrating the very same behaviour that got MeltingDistrict topic banned from anything to do with Gill. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#MeltingDistrict. This is an absolutely blatant IP sock of an editor who is not allowed to edit on Wikipedia. I note that the range 148.252.159.0/24 has a few recentish edits that may be unrelated (it is the Vodafone network) so I can understand some reluctance to block the range, but would someone please provide some assistance in closing down this obvious trolling. Perhaps a very short range block in the first instance? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ETA cue trolling here to 5,4,3,2,1... Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, you have some cheek coming here and declaring untrue things on me due to a paranoid mismatch you have made in your head. Regardless of your inflammatory accusations -- you know full well that I am not a blocked or banned editor, I am entitled to make edits and to not expect you to delete my talk page contributions on the grounds of your (incorrect) assumptions that I am a sockpuppet, like here when I was just trying to defend myself against your egregious allegations against me: [44]. If you recall, you already unsuccessfully reported me (the IP 148.252.159.66) to a sock puppet investigation page as a 'suspected sockpuppet': [45] but I was not blocked. The admins and editors on that page had the option of blocking me then if they thought it was warranted, and did not. Therefore, your claim that I am consequently "not allowed to edit on Wikipedia" is just plain wrong, I am not a blocked/banned sockpuppet or meatpuppet, you've just totally bizarrely decided of your own accord that I am one. Furthermore, you claim I've confessed to being a meatpuppet -- no. What I openly said was that I had originally been notified --just notified-- about the related Rfc discussion at Talk:Michael Stone (criminal) by what it has now materialised was a sock editor. I had no previous involvement and limited understanding of what had been going on, and I believed at that time that I was being asked to take a look in good faith by an editor who just wanted to give wider notification to uninvolved editors. Me getting notified as such does not make me a meatuppet, it actually makes me an innocent bystander in all of this that was dragged into it when I was unaware of the sockpuppettry, and now as a result I'm getting accussed of it myself. I've spent the whole day today encouraging you to go through the appropriate channels to report me [46], [47], [48] User talk:Materialscientist#Banned sock causing distruption as IP if you are so insistent that I am a sock, rather than just going round and not allowing me to defend myself: [49]. Yet curiously it's only now you've decided to do so instead of going to random admins giving a very misleading part-summary in the hope that they will block me where others haven't (and surprise surprise they haven't agreed to do so). And additionally you have just also been unilaterally declaring that I am a banned sock, without any mandate to make such a declaration, which really is not on.

Now -- having failed to get me blocked before -- you are instead just going round other pages making paranoid, untrue and accusatory summaries which are really making me quite angry for being totally assaulted for something I am not even guilty of, and haven't been found guilty of. You have no right to declare that I am a troll. I have never had any "vendetta against Richard Gill" -- in fact, until I followed your edits on his talk from the Michael Stone Rfc where you had argued with the now-blocked editor who had asked my for my views -- I literally did not know the guy. But as an editor I saw the himself-blocked Gill110951's misconduct and disagreed with your comments that I saw there, which were related to the now-blocked editor who had got me involved in this in the first place. So I obviously didn't "just arrive at this page as if by magic". Yet here you are making it sound like there was no reason for me to be on the Gill110951 talk page, when I -- and I've told you this like thousands of times now -- became involved in all of this because of the antics of the now-blocked editor. But what is really quite ridiculous here is that -- having failed to get others to block me -- you've been declaring that I am a sock without any mandate to do so. I've repeatedly told you, go through the usual processes if you are so insistent that the decision of others to not block me is wrong. 148.252.159.203 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Beat me to it. If they come back again, we can do a rangeblock. We don't need to "prove" anything since neither IP has made a useful edit to improve the encyclopedia anyway, so at the moment they're effectively NOTHERE anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Many thanks to both of you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Userpage/talkpage cleanup needed

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

This disruptive user has recently gone around and messed up a whole bunch of userpages and user talkpages- including my own. It wasn't until they started this whole mess that I realized they were a sock- as such, they are currently reported at both WP:AIV and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Condoritofan2012. However, I still need help with the cleanup of all the moving they've done. They've moved so much that there's likely going to be a whole bunch of history removed due to all of this. Please help clean this up ASAP. And as I type this, they are currently not blocked whatsoever, so please block the sock ASAP if that has not been done yet. Magitroopa (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done, I think, and nothing of value was lost. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Tombury89

Tombury89 (talk · contribs) - previously blocked for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs, has a talk page history littered with warnings - but is still at it. I suggest a longer block until they start understanding? GiantSnowman 20:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User Wikishovel asking for money to publish our company

I have been contacted on linked in by a user called (Redacted) who is Wikishovel on Wikipedia, asking for $200 to publish our company page on Wikipedia. He claimed to be a Wikipedia administrator. The-symbiant (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, somebody is trying to scam you. What evidence do you have that the scammer is really Wikishovel, as opposed to the scammer impersonating Wikishovel? Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

because I thought it was genuine and paid him, he published our page then it was taken down. The-symbiant (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, so far, you have presented no evidence. What was the precise title of the deleted article? That will allow us to investigate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The article was Symbiant_(company). Note the only edit Wikishovel did was to move the page for proper titling. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiant_company it was proposed by a deleted user Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa The-symbiant (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

how did rickinbaltimore get there before I told you the article name. Very odd. Anyway you have been told. The-symbiant (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Because as an admin I can see deleted pages. And it didn't take a lot of digging to find it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well whoever was responsible for publishing that page is your scammer. The-symbiant (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

and the scammer claimed to be Wikishovel The-symbiant (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User: User:Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa is not deleted. They are an undisclosed paid editor. This was a throwaway account that made ten routine edits to become autoconfirmed, which enabled the scammer to create your article. This is typical deceptive behavior by unethical businesses. Wikishovel made one routine maintenance edit. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

then there you go. Solved. The-symbiant (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The scammer lied to you. Imagine that... Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I know, cheeky bugger The-symbiant (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well as it seems you can't trust scammers to be honest these days, the scammers real name is (Redacted) and on LinkedIn he goes by (Redacted). The-symbiant (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For your amusement, an anagram of "(Redacted)" is "(Redacted)". Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 the scammer said "Stephanie has just pushed your article Wikishovel moved your article to mainspace" is this not correct? The-symbiant (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, that was just another lie by the scammer to divert attention. All that Wikishovel did was correct the article title to the format described in the Manual of Style. That is the type of edit that happens thousands of times a day, especially to new articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we do anything regarding the username violation of the OP which is clearly their company name? I know there's been this other nonsense, but I think it's time. Canterbury Tail talk 02:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought of that, Canterbury Tail, but I think that it would just add insult to injury. We can deal with the username issue if the editor tries to promote their company instead of reporting that they have been scammed. But if another administrator chooses to block on that basis, I would understand. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

So, @The-symbiant: how about an apology for accusing me here and at my talk page, without a shred of evidence, of being a scammer? Wikishovel (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wikishovel yes I do apologise, I am sorry, the scammer told me he was you. Again, I am sorry for the mistake, I had no way of knowing this could happen. I thought it was a genuine thing you guys did to get paid for all your work. Sorry. The-symbiant (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure that I understand what is going on, the scammer claimed to be WikiShovel after WikiShovel moved the page? Or before it was created? - Bilby (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

it was after the page had been created. They obviously saw Wikishovel had moved the page and then used their name. The-symbiant (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I fit together because Wikishovel is obviously very efficient and gets on with things quickly. The-symbiant (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That clarifies things nicely. I appreciate your raising this here, and helping us figure out what was happening. - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. The-symbiant (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator offering to publish a company for $200

Duplicate, reported, oddly, at Talk:Wikipedia administrators. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

if you are a honest Wikipedia administrator you would be furious to learn that your fellow administrator "Wikishovel" offers to publish company pages for $200. He seems to imply that this is standard practice amongst Wikipedia administrators. Is it? The-symbiant (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, please be aware that Wikishovel is not an administrator. Dishonest, unethical paud editing operations sonetimes impersonate Wikipedians. Read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

He is publishing articles under a new user, then pushing them to be live. He charges for this. Should he be allowed to do this? The-symbiant (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, what evidence do you have that Wikishovel is actually the scammer, as opposed to the scammer impersonating Wikishovel? If you have solid evidence, please present it at WP:ANI. Otherwise, drop the matter. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

i thought it was genuine, he published our page, I paid him, the page was then taken down. The-symbiant (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest making such payments only with a credit card, so that perhaps you might could get your money back. Cullen328, $200? What do you make of that? Are we that cheap? Drmies (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So you agree this is ok? The-symbiant (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, I suppose that depends on the cost of living for the scammer. $200 goes a lot further in Bangladesh than it does in New York City. The-symbiant, no, it is not OK. If you give us the exact title of the deleted article, we can investigate what happened. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It was added by User:Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa, Symbiant (company) The-symbiant (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey that's funny: that editor made one edit to a spammy article I was looking at the other day. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, this is where you come in: Ifeyinwa is confirmed with User:Pavdharii, whom you blocked a little while ago. I thought, given Ifeyinwa's edit to Isaac Richard III, that they were related to User:Isaacrichard. If you don't mind, can you have a look at this one, and -- wait, you're already on it. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• So, it is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • That's my best guess so far. It's a holy sock mess, and I'm still wading through. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I brought up Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa (talk · contribs), as well as Shibliadnani (talk · contribs) and Zarafshanbatool (talk · contribs) on Drmies's talk page the other day. "Holy sock mess" seems right even without checkuser. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I've blocked Flowerkhan, Andableebkasuri, Zarafshanbatool, and Shibliadnani, as they're definitely the same person as each other. Are they related to this Abbasshaikh124? I don't have the smoking gun, but to me it seems likely, or at least eminently possible. They're all in the same country which is notorious for its paid editing and scams. As I'm sure I've seen Drmies mention recently, some of these networks are just full of spammers and scammers, and they all just kinda merge into each other. I tend to lump them all together, though there's probably a few enterprises at work. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Freescott

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

---

Having already been blocked for edit warring after fewer than 2 dozen edits, this user has turned to outright harassment, blindly reverting some two dozen of my last edits for no reason other than I made them (many of which were reversions of clearly inappropriate edits).

It's obvious this is because I clearly stated my suspicion that they're a sockpuppet on my talk page. They are obviously more experienced as an editor than their edit count would indicate, based on the sophistication of their edits. Plus I called them out for the hostile way they tried to order me to stay off an article I've been keeping tabs on for a decade. The harassment, though, is beyond the pale. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Already blocked as a sock of Evlekis, which is what I suspected. Was blocked even before I could place the ANI notice on their talk page. oknazevad (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Rawna Praveen singh solanki

A user clearly not here to contribute to Wikipedia and continuously vandalizing Wikipedia by using unverified poorly sourced materials and even moving their own moved pages from Draft space to main space by violating the Wikipedia neutrality and copy pasting Colonial era sources, and even after all giving wrong warnings to my talk page and attacking for no reason and all well explained removal of poorly sourced material, he is being added again and again. I am also leaving some examples for the examination. For using poorly sourced material [50] [51]

For moving draft space articles to main space and not accepting the neutral point of view of other editors [52]

For giving wrong warnings and attacking against Wikipedia neutrality [[53] 

Even after fourth level warnings he is continuesly vandalizing the Wikipedia articles please see some warnings given by other users. [level warnings] Fancy vißes (call) 21:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Rawna Praveen singh solanki added a fake block notice at User talk:Fancy vibēs, which I have now deleted. I agree with the above comments about unsourced/unreliably sourced additions, especially edits at Ravana Rajputs - Arjayay (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. It's simply disruptive edit after disruptive edit, and there's probably a CIR issue here too. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

List of Spider-Man film cast members

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

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

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

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

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

2603:8000:C33F:7EEC:0:0:0:0/64

• 2603:8000:C33F:7EEC:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The person behind this IP range has been making a bunch of unsourced edits across a bunch of articles going back to June of this year. Most of the edits involve changing references to companies, city names, or area codes across a range of articles. The edits are entirely inaccurate from what I can tell, which makes me believe it's intentional subtle vandalism. Some examples:

• Making various unsourced (and, from what I can tell, inaccurate) edits to area codes across a bunch of articles: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61],
• Making a bunch of unsourced (and in some cases, repeated) and inaccurate edits to the headquarters of various businesses: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], etc.

They've received at least a dozen warnings about their edits: (listed chronologically) one here, three here, one here, one here, four here, and two here. Six of the warnings were from the last four days.

IPs on the range have been blocked previously at least three times since June, see this block log here. The most recent block, from what I can tell, was for three months from July 26, 2023 through October 26, 2023. Within a week of that block expiring, the person behind the IP began making the same types of disruptive edits again.

Can an administrator please re-block this range for at least a few more months? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. firefly ( t · c ) 09:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Firefly: Thank you very much. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No probs - subtle hoaxing (which this certainly seems to be) is corrosive. firefly ( t · c ) 10:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Morjudka

It seems Morjudka finds it difficult to play well with others; see exhibits A and B. Maybe that's the end of it, maybe not, either way thought I ought to flag them up here. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Morjudka. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel

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

---

I'm not sure this is the right place to do this, but I wanted to report what appears to be a violation of the WP:DISRUPTIVE rule in the "Israel" article. The editor marked this change (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=1183621324&oldid=1183466533) as a "minor edit" and added an edit summary that this was done to "correct" the article, but in fact the editor inserted controversial text, according to which Israel is accused of genocide and apartheid against the Palestinians. One gets the impression that this edit was marked as minor only to mask the inclusion of content that would not easily gain consensus, especially when the RFC on whether to add the apartheid claim at the top of the entry is underway at this very moment. Can someone please check this? Is there anything to do about this? Eladkarmel (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Marking a change like that as minor is clearly not acceptable, but I think opening a discussion here at ANI is premature. Kablammo isn't edit-warring; the edit was reverted and has not been reinstated. I would suggest raising this at Talk:Israel, or perhaps at User talk:Kablammo. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eladkarmel: You've made an error in the diff navigation and selected a diff bracket with 5 intermediate edits. Kablammo made a single, tiny change that was indeed minor, and they are blameless of the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was wrong. A very embarrassing mistake. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Skyerise

It was suggested I move this comment here. Please merge this to the above notice if policy dictates, I mainly write and edit pages and I specifically try not to engage in debates anymore.

Since the beginning of the conflict on Western tulku-Tulku,User:Skyerise has engaged in disruptive editing, including:

• Threats;

• Refusal to assume (or accept) good faith;

• Canvassing;

• Purposefully creating edit conflicts, as they did not want to "let [me] finish" a completely misguided page per their own words;

• Censorship, removing mentions of race where it is present in the original source; and

• Merging against policy (i.e., without consensus), which is especially deceptive since they have been falsely claiming it is a fork which was split off the older Tulku page.

I think that it is important to note that according to their user page, Skyerise is a western Tibetan Buddhist. This isn't exactly a conflict of interest but it seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of attempted censorship and POV-pushing based on Skyerise's personal offense taken at the criticism academics have levied against certain Western tulku or the concept of "tulku envy".

Apologies for the long comment, but this is incredibly stressful and I have to deal with white Buddhist rage enough as it is.

References

MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also I want to note I did warn the aforementioned user with {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~, they simply have reverted the edit on their talk page. Just in case it comes up. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevant page here appears to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western tulku, which I suggest is the first starting point. Note Skyerise's comment that the article is "racist" and the comments from User:Johnbod and User:AirshipJungleman29. I actually wonder if this report belongs at WP:ANI? Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That is where I initially posted this. Another editor suggested I move it here. Misunderstood. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: this is starting to look like Venue Shopping. See also Talk:Western tulku for my actual arguments as opposed to the strawmen being presented here. Skyerise (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  User:AirshipJungleman29 suggested this should go on the noticeboard, not me; I thought it to stay on the AfD proposal. I'll concede here though: one should look all the talk pages and page histories involved as I suggested above, before making any accusations. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note I have moved this here from WP:AN as there is clearly a user conduct issue now; the page Talk:Western tulku now includes accusations of being racist [74], and Skyerise calling the OP a jerk [75] . Skyerise needs to calm down quite a bit IMO, before they get a block. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• And further - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo_reported_by_User:Skyerise_(Result:_). Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)