Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1142

HazemGM


Previously raised at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 where it was archived without resolution. He remains socking, now at, full list of IPs at , can we get some range blocks please? GiantSnowman 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Now at, which looks to be part of the most common range. GiantSnowman 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now at . 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: . Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * New IP - . GiantSnowman 11:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman 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 . GiantSnowman 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now at . GiantSnowman 08:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now at . GiantSnowman 18:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now at . GiantSnowman 19:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I’ve dropped the IP addresses into the range calculator above. There’s nothing doing on the 41 and 102 IPs. 154.180.0.0/16 is already blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at this - now at . GiantSnowman 19:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman I’ve reconfigured the calculator into /16 ranges. 41.233.0.0/16 is blocked. I’ve blocked 102.40.0.0/16, which was in use today and yesterday. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! I'll let you know if any other IPs appear. GiantSnowman 21:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Such as who has surfaced today. That's a third IP address added to the 102.44.64.0/18 range as the 101 is inbetween 69 and 109. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iggy the Swan I’ve blocked 102.44.64.0/18. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Every film is a Christmas film!
seems to be adding Christmas film categories to any old films. I think straightforward "revert the lot" would be justified, but wanted to bring it here in case the behaviour reminded anyone of anything. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember a discussion on this topic before in the past. The bottom line is that there is an enormous amount of Christmas holiday marketing in films, such that it plays an important theme in an unusual number of films.  That of course, like you rightly observed, does not make it a Christmas film.  The List of Christmas films article and talk page already covers this problem, so this is probably not the forum for it.  The talk page of the list article shows awareness of this issue ("Is it a Christmas film or not?") since at least 2008, and has come up with various solutions to it, although none were implemented. About once every five years I will go on a wild film binge, and when I do, it's always noticeable how much the cultural tradition of Christmas shows up in films that one would think have nothing to do with Christmas.  That's not to say such films are Christmas films, but there is (or was) a habit of studios/writers/directors injecting Christmas into films that probably didn't need it in the original script.  I can't comment too much as to why this happened (or continues to happen), but the anon account shouldn't be faulted too much for this confusion, and I myself have often wondered about what makes a Christmas film truly a Christmas film.  This isn't really a niche topic as it seems, and neither the anon nor myself are the first to notice it. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

IP vandalising Ayran Article
IP 108.48.81.137 is vandalising the Ayran article. Removing sources and references and adding unreferences information. Also since a lot of users (mostly unregistered ones) are warring about the "nationality" of this drink i would suggest that the article should have a certain level of protection against non registered users. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Please use WP:AIV to report vandalism or WP:RFPP to protect articles. GiantSnowman 19:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also protected the article - this level of apparent POV pushing warrants protection, IMO, but in future RFPP is the correct noticeboard. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted! Thank you!RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of minor edit flag by User:Telecineguy
User:Telecineguy continually misuses the minor edit flag on major edits. I've warned them twice (I warned them two days ago, they acknowledged the warning, but kept doing it so I warned them again). It has continued since the second warning. Reporting this here because I was recently WP:INVOLVED in a content discussion with them on Talk:Battle sled. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've haven't even looked at this, but let me offer some advice, not only to Telecineguy, but everyone: Do not ever check the "minor edit" box. Why? Because no one has ever been dragged to ANI for "not marking a minor edit as minor". Really. I challenge y'all to find a single example. It doesn't happen. Just ignore it, or even hide it with CSS. It's not worth the trouble. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be better if the flag was only available for certain specific edits such as preapproved bots and certain administrative actions. Misusing the flag seems to be too tempting as a way to reduce or avoid peer review. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Minor flag shouldn't even exist for anything, yet page moves and rollbacks are automatically marked as so. Jerium (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since they continue to mark non-minor edits as minor, I have warned them about continued misuse, and encouraged them to participate in this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoidh. This is headed towards being archived, but some additional concerns were raised below. Can you please take a look? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am sorry of the error, (Please note, that I started the page Battle sled and was editing my own work, not someone's else work. I think this should be noted, you are free to disagree). I have looked over the Help:Minor edit, as I misunderstood some of the rules. Thank you, Telecine Guy (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, looking at his recent work on Dora Hand, there seem to be deeper issues with 's editing. The added prose is poor English. The replacement top image, File:Dora Hand (Fannie Keenan).jpg, was recently uploaded here by the editor but is a duplicate of File:Full-length shot of Dora Hand.png on Commons (the source of the head shot that the editor moved down the page, though didn't note that when uploading both). Telecineguy's version is taken from a Legends of America page that he has not cited as a source in his expansion, but it's presumably the source of his uncited addition of the stage name Fannie Keenan, and his uncited passage on how she died is over-close paraphrasing: his addition, "one of the shots hit Hand in the side and killed her instantly", vs. Legends of America, "One shot struck Dora on her right side, killing her instantly." (A source that he does cite, but far too late to cover this sentence and without identifying it properly, has the less similar "One of the 44-caliber slugs pierced her side killing the woman instantly.") Of the citations added in the expansion, the only one with an access date has the same 2014 access date as was previously present for another source in the article. While I haven't made any checks for more close paraphrasing / copyvio, the omission of a source he definitely used and the copying of a 9-year-old access date cast the sourcing into doubt in my mind. (I checked the history for large deletions to see whether he was restoring a previous version, but the possibly copyvio text removed in May 2020, substantially Billy Hathorn's work, was much better.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The sourcing issues also extend to the fundamentals of what are reliable sources: diff, diff. Understandable for a new editor, but I'm baffled how someone with almost 50,000 edits ends up citing Reddit or a bare image. Ljleppan (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

is rephrased with broken English and false precision as: "In November, 1875, 50 men bodies were re-interred in a cemetery at Fort Klamath."
 * And another issue or two. Telecineguy is a prolific article creator (more article creations than me). But looking at a random creation listed on his user page, I found Chris Wade (real estate broker) so non-notable and dubious on BLP grounds that I have boldly made it into a redirect. That was created in 2007, though, when our notability and referencing standards were different. However, a creation from early this year, Das Boot (novel) (an article we undeniably needed!), is a poor job. It was started as an unattributed translation from German Wikipedia (I've just added the template to the talk page). And with this edit, Telecineguy for some reason added a section on the sequel, Die Festung (de:Die Festung (Buchheim); here, Telecineguy has redirected the title to the section), and in a subsequent edit also added a section on the author's U-Boot-Krieg (no German article, and not a novel). This makes the article a bit of a mess structurally, and I can't see any reason to incorporate those 2 other books. Moreover, Telecineguy linked the article on Wikidata to Die Festung instead of Das Boot (which I've fixed; it was the Wikidata edit that piqued my interest). granted him autopatrolled in 2020, at the request of  (link). I think that right should be removed based on the sourcing issues and lack of attribution. And I'm afraid to say his work could use some folks going back and checking it, if only for English and unsourced passages. Both Dora Hand and Das Boot actually need considerable work; if I had time, I'd have started on one or the other already. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking briefly at a recent article, Guillem's Graveyard (initial revision), it looks like some close paraphrases from websites documenting National Park Service plaques, but in the process of paraphrasing it, a number of errors are introduced: the length of the Modoc War is doubled, the creation date of the graveyard is wrong by a year, one of the sources is completely unrelated, and more. One example sentence: "In November, 1875, half of them were moved to the cemetery at Fort Klamath."


 * At the very least, all of these articles need to be reviewed although the provenance issues may be even harder to tackle. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * An editor being autopatrolled should be because there are no concerns, and a number of valid concerns have been brought up. Looking at the post-autopatrolled deleted articles I'm assuming James George Bell House was meant to be a redirect because the article consisted only of a single wikilink, and SS John Sherman (1870) was speedy deleted because SS John Sherman already existed. do you have any objection or concern with autopatrolled being removed, at least for now? - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's surprising to see these kinds of issues in new articles created by an editor with so many edits. I'm not sure it's enough, but putting new articles through NPP might help highlight these issues more consistently and would allow for better/earlier maintenance tagging, moving to draftspace when needed, and identifying potential copyright and attribution problems. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections to the removal of the permission, it seems warranted. signed,Rosguill talk 01:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case I've gone ahead and removed the permission and notified them of the removal. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Makes me sad, and I hope Telecineguy resumes editing, but too many problems for the articles not to be checked. I went back and did a quick and dirty fix-up on the Das Boot article, separating out a rewritten but also hasty article on Die Festung, which as I noted above Telecineguy had created as a redirect. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Garcha1625
As you can see from their talk page, a large number of experienced users have had problems with this user and I agree with User:Joseph2302 about WP:CIR possibly being an issue here. Every article that they have created has been given either a PROD or AfD, including 2024-25 Lao League 1 and 2024–25 Lao League 1, which in itself was an attempt to game the system by creating two articles about the same topic. The very name of the article is wrong anyway as the event is held once per year and does not span over 2 years, so it should be 2024 Lao League 1, like it is for 2019 Lao Premier League and 2020 Lao Premier League. As this is a future event, content should be minimal but this user has continued to copy and paste unsourced speculation into the article. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL, I have removed the dubious content but this user has reverted me every single time with no explanation. They have been asked to cite sources since 5 days ago, when User:Annh07 asked them to do so.

Aside from the constant restoring of unsourced content without so much as an edit summary, I am also concerned about the complete lack of any communication. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also apparent blanking following an AfD nomination. . Not sure if that would qualify for WP:G7. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I always get confused when a creator blanks the article after AfD. I never know whether it's an attempt to disrupt the deletion or whether it's their way of conceding that it isn't notable. please can you explain your behaviour?  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also sometimes a novice frustrately just giving up. Sometimes that's a good thing, when the novice is really not writing suitable articles; sometimes it's a bad thing, and it's the deletion nomination that's wrong.  Here, it appears to be a novice that has fallen into the trap of writing unsourced sportsperson biographies of living people and filler empty statistics articles for sports events that haven't happened yet.  Addressing 2024 in the past tense is also a problem.  Garcha1625, it is still 2023.  Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that my views on this user are clear, there seems to be a clear WP:CIR as well as a WP:NOTLISTENING or WP:NOTHEARING issue. I note they've created one other article that's been moved to draftspace, and one that's at AFD at the moment. All in all, probably a good faith editor trying to create pages about football in their country, however, their understanding of how Wikipedia works is poor. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They've also created Draft:2023 Lao League 1 (2), which is a worse version of Draft:2023 Lao League 1 created by blocked user Yakuzar123 (a sock of LSS 2552 apparently, and another sock of them made substantial edits too). It wouldn't surprise me if it's the same user socking again. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the same user by the looks of it. I've started an SPI but it's quite backlogged at the moment so it'll take a while for this user to get dealt with. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What‽
This was really confusing. I was going to say to ComplexRational that xe had to tell us how xe did that, but it turns out that is not. Possibly the page blanking was to replace the minus with the dash, as a bogus copy and paste page move. This is a bit messy, and might need some administrator tools intervention. Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1182983847 &mdash; creates the article at 2023-11-01T15:21:49 complete with AFD notice already in it.
 * Special:Diff/1182979483 &mdash; nominates the article for deletion at 2023-11-01T14:52:49 half an hour before.
 * Special:Undelete/2024–25 Lao League 1 &mdash; There are no deleted edits.
 * There are two pages 2024-25 Lao League 1 and 2024–25 Lao League 1. The only difference between them is a dash. The second page appears to have been created via copy-paste (including the AfD tag) about 30 minutes after the first was nominated for deletion. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all a complete mess. If they somehow survive AfD, both should be put through WP:HISTMERGE and then moved to 2024 Lao League 1, which would be the correct title anyway Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I might be a time traveler. In seriousness, though, please ping me if any cleanup is required in the unlikely event that the AfD does not end with deletion. Complex / Rational  00:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And they've re-created 2024–25 Lao League 1 again, 1 day after deletion. Clear WP:CIR issues here. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked for disruptive edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User: Botushali persistent edit warring on Battle of Kosovo page, basically since August
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diffs on recent edit warrings:
 * 1) []
 * 2) []
 * 3) []
 * 4) []
 * 5) []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: []

Diffs on previous edit warring's:


 * 1) []
 * 2) []
 * 3) []

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: []

Comments:

Despite being reverted by several editors (5 or even more) editor Botushali keeps engaging in edit war regarding a source that even they acknowledge as reliable source []. Historian in question is Dejan Djokić (historian) with his book being published in 2023 by Cambridge University Press already mentioned by one editor on tp []. Botushali′s main excuse to remove it is that they think that Djokic falls under WP:FRINGE but the main problem is that definite information about the army composition or how the battle went on are scarce, which leads that many scholars have different views including Djokic, who is not alone in that assumption, i.e. it took me just a few minutes to see that even this source [] supports Djokic′s view that Ottoman forces were confronted by alliance of Bosnians and Serbs with the  conclusion of the author that: Next to nothing can be said with assurance about the number and multiethnic composition of both armies. So the argument about Djokic being fringe doesn′t hold. On the other hand Botushali made this edit [] in which some Albanian historians claim that Albanians made a quarter of a Christian coalition. This claim is unsupported by mainstream international historiography and only by several Albanian historians and yet nobody removed it. If we are going to make any claims that according to Botushali fall under wp:fringe then we shouldn′t have double standards.

What is even more concerning is addition of Bedri Muhadri [] by Botushali on the same page, a highly disputed and criticised author who is connected with Al Hadri institute [], [] and whose claims have been heavily criticised by international sources [], [], []. And yet nobody removed it.

So the main questions are: How is it that Djokic is wp:fringe but Muhadri is not, and how come some claims are inserted without questioning them and others are not?

Being an experienced editor, Botushali knows about 4RR rule in 24 Hours, but still it is obvious that their agenda is edit warring with goal of removing sources which they don′t like, also ignoring WP:Concensus on tp in which at least 4 editors disagreed with them and one more reverting them [] with only one supporting their views. Also there is a concern of WP:cherrypicking of sources and obvious WP:OWN regarding their own personal opinion what is allowed to be in article and what is not without following any wikipedia guidance such is WP:RSN or others, believing that their word alone is enough, which leads to conclusion of WP:disruptive behaviour and should be sanctioned. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 11:36, 08 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest that any and all admins who review this case first read through the TP and understand what is occurring here. What Theonewithreason is suggesting is that I am questioning the reliability of the source from Dejan Djokic in general, which is not the case - as I have stated many times on the TP already, my issue lies with the excerpt that is used on the article and not the entire source, hence why WP:RSN cannot apply here to the best of my knowledge. Here is the full quote in question from Djokic:




 * Now, what Djokic is doing here is opening up by rejecting the general scholarly consensus on the matter (that the Christian coalition consisted of more than just Serbs), and he seems to state that it is unlikely that were present at all. I would like to remind everyone here that we know this is not the case, and both primary and secondary sources are rather clear on the fact that other population groups were part of the Christian coalition aside from the Serbs. In fact, non-Serb figures verifiably fought and died in the battle. That makes this excerpt WP:FRINGE; not the whole source, simply the excerpt in question. It is a fringe theory to suggest that non-Serb groups were not part of the Christian coalition, and the general scholarly consensus is very clear on the matter - I can post quotes, but I want to refrain from turning this page into a location where content disputes are discussed. As such, I will provide quotes and sources if admins request me to do so. Besides, evidence of the involvement of other population groups via primary and secondary sources can be found throughout the 'Army Composition' section of the article.


 * After I removed this excerpt on the grounds of it being WP:FRINGE, which resulted in an edit war on both sides of the debate, I initiated a discussion on the TP to voice my concerns. After ongoing debate regarding the matter, it became apparent that certain editors began to make claims on what Djokic actually meant using their own abstract interpretations, stating that he still agrees that other groups were present. However, no one can gage that by looking at the quote, as the quote states that it is unlikely they were present at all, which again is a fringe theory. I then went on to ask these editors to provide a quote that evidences their claim that Djokic still accepts the established fact of non-Serb groups participating on the side of the Christian coalition multiple times, both in edit summaries  and on the TP (beginning from here ), but to date, every editor who has argued against this particular excerpt being a fringe theory has failed to do so.


 * Theonewithreason became involved with the dispute here and posted a TP comment which clearly highlights how they seem to have ignored all of the concerns I raised in the TP discussion and in my edit summaries. Somehow, this editor seems to think my issue lies with Djokic's entire book, even though I have stated very clearly on multiple occasions that my issue is with a particular excerpt from the book and not the source in general.


 * I understand we shouldn't edit war, and after the initial dispute I actually held off so that we may discuss the situation at hand. However, when it became clear that none of the editors could prove that the excerpt wasn't a fringe theory and began to make their own claims on Djokic's work that aren't present in the quote, I decided to remove it yet again and wait for a quote to prove that Djokic actually acknowledges that non-Serb groups were involved in the battle. Again, no one has provided such a quote.


 * I understand that it looks bad when multiple editors are engaged in an edit war against me, but I want to make it clear to the admins that I am constantly involved in regular content disputes with practically all of those editors across a vast number of Balkan articles, and they in-turn are involved in content disputes with another set of editors and so forth. That's the volatile nature of Balkan Wikipedia articles, it seems. I don't want to point fingers and act like I am a victim of some big conspiracy against me as an editor, but I have been reverted by many of these editors on previous occasions simply for the sake of reverting me (and I can provide proof). As such, when editors are WP:STONEWALLING, making abstract assumptions and interpretations of what the author thinks beyond what is given in a quote by the original author and reverting without any legitimate proof that the excerpt (and not the entire source) is against the general scholarly consensus and therefore WP:FRINGE, then what am I to do? If it was the entire source, then I could definitely pursue an RSN-mediated solution, but that's not the case here. I do not think I can go to the RSN over a small excerpt, and I believe that content disputes on Wikipedia should be regulated by the strength of the arguments and policies given, not by strength in numbers.


 * Also, I just noticed that the title includes "basically since August". I want to bring to the admin's attention that admins have previously intervened on the article, resulting in a block for an editor who was propagating a slow and cyclical edit-war which was the result of the drama on the article in previous months (it is unrelated to the current content dispute). That same editor is on the opposing end of this content dispute.


 * All the other points regarding sources on the article unrelated to Djokic are content disputes and have no place here. Sure, I can argue against the claims, but that's not what this page is for. It's a place to discuss behaviour, not sources.


 * Until the admins make their decision (and if they could please inform me of how to best approach the matter at hand when a group of editors are stone-walling to keep a piece of fringe information on an article), I will refrain from making any further RV's surrounding the content dispute in question. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment In the past, Botushali had clearly stated his intention to continue reverting,, and he has done exactly that . Now that they have been reported to ANI, they are all of a sudden conciliatory (I will refrain from making further RV's...), but I'm wondering if this is purely tactical and the reverting will resume once this thread is archived. Khirurg (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "but I'm wondering if this is purely tactical and the reverting will resume once this thread is archived". It's not like he gets an immunity deal after this thread. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While we were just looking at the quote on the article and not paraphrasing the source, some users think that this is a poem analysis. Botushali's concerns were absolutely justified regarding the quote. On the other hand, the same users continue WP:Stonewalling and demanding for consensus to remove WP:FRINGE content. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained to you numerous times in the talkpage, a book by one of the top scholars of the region, published by Cambridge University Press is not WP:FRINGE. You are WP:IDHT at this point. Khirurg (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you are mixing the entire book with a single excerpt. Nobody is calling the entire book WP:FRINGE, only the excerpt, stop confusing the arguments of others and misusing policies to discredit fellow editors. Botushali (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not discrediting anyone, you are discrediting yourself, first by calling a top-notch academic source fringe, and then on top of that by misunderstanding WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. There is no such thing as "this part of the source is fringe, the rest is not". Doesn't work like that. You can't simply cherry-pick a part of a reliable source you don't like and dismiss it as fringe simply because you cannot do that to the source as a whole. Either the whole source is reliable, or the whole source is fringe. It's actually quite alarming you seem to think you can do that. Khirurg (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thing is, the source does not revolve around the Battle of Kosovo. The rest of the source doesn’t discuss it, only that excerpt I’m assuming, and what is cited is WP:FRINGE. Two things can be true, yes? A text could pass WP:RS standards and at the same time contain something which can be considered a fringe theory. I see no reason why that’s not possible, this shouldn’t be an either-or. Find me the exact Wiki policy that states either the whole source is fringe or not fringe at all. Botushali (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A source cannot both be WP:RS and WP:FRINGE at the same time. That is a contradiction in terms. You really should drop this, not a good a look at all. Khirurg (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s as though you cannot hear me. The issue does not lie with the entire source, only the excerpt in question - the book may be WP:RS, but this particular sentence is proposing an idea that is WP:FRINGE - again, the whole book is not fringe, rather, a footnote from the book is pushing a fringe theory. Please stop confusing the two by intentionally ignoring my concern regarding a particular footnote, rather than the whole book. Botushali (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on Khirurg's Intervention: I want to bring to the admin's attention that Khirurg here has been actively attempting to slander my name and get me sanctioned as part of a WP:WITCHHUNT ever since a failed and untrue "tag-teaming" report filed against me and a number of other editors I have no ties to back in September of 2022 . Obviously, the report failed.
 * Now, me and Khirurg are regularly engaged in content disputes across a number of articles revolving around Albanians and Greeks, and he has even followed me to pages revolving around Albanian articles that have nothing to do with Greece (by that, I mean articles which he has never edited on or shown interest in). There is a lot of back and forth, incivility, bad blood etc, particularly from Khirurg who tries to slander my name at every corner and turns every discussion into a you vs. me WP:BATTLEGROUND. Of course, diffs of all of these things can be provided, but this report isn't about Khirurg. I am simply stating this so that admins are aware of Khirurg's particular distaste for me and take his words with a grain of salt.
 * It is no surprise to see him here, as he is always looking for ways to get me sanctioned and can regularly be found at any incident I am involved in on the Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, even after his failed tag-teaming report, he continues to hold an |"evidence" page documenting what he thinks is tag-teaming. To help paint himself as a victim even though he treats fellow editors with much incivility and disrespect, he also created a | collection of what he calls taunts. As you can see on both pages, I (along with a number of other editors) can be found there. There is also evidence of him reverting me on articles just for the sake of it, such as here, where it was apparent that he didn’t read the source and just RV’ed for the sake of it. After that, I opened up a TP discussion, where he admitted that the source was falsified in the past but he clearly hadn’t checked up until that discussion despite the reverts. Another noteworthy example of Khirurg reverting me without looking at the sources (or intentionally falsifying content, that's the only alternative) can be found here , and I brought it to his attention both in the edit summary and my subsequent comments on the TP.
 * So, the reason why I bring all of these instances up (the failed reports, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, reverting for the sake of reverting etc) is to try and point out that Khirurg is chasing me around on Wikipedia with WP:PITCHFORKS to try and get me sanctioned and punished because we are regularly on opposing ends of content disputes. As such, his comments here should be viewed with suspicion and an understanding that his involvement here comes down to something deeper than this particular incident. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How long did it take you to write that torrent of vitriol, all the while claiming to be the victim of "slander"? You basically admit to trying to poison the well against me (take his words with a grain of salt), while claiming to be the victim. You are basically doing what you are accusing me of. Yet, as the above thread shows, you dishonestly tried to portray a high quality source as fringe, all the while arguing arguing that a polemical tract about "Greek Barbarities" from 1917  is a reliable source. This whole issue started with your long-term edit-warring to remove a top notch source from a high visibility article simply because you did not like what it said. You have no one to blame but yourself. Khirurg (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the source on Massacres of Albanians, as I said on the relevant TP, “Barbaritë” in Albanian is more akin to the word ‘atrocities’ than ‘barbarities’ - you’ll also notice I said the plausible issue with the respective source is WP:AGEMATTERS. I want the admins to understand that the issue regarding “Greek Barbarities” has nothing to do with the content dispute at hand. That’s part of a separate content dispute, stop trying to link them to make a point for this content dispute.
 * Again, nothing you or any other editor has said or done on the TP has proved that the excerpt (not the whole book, stop ignoring that crucial distinction as if you don’t get my point) from Djokić is not WP:FRINGE. I haven’t done anything dishonest on that TP or content dispute, the only dishonest action is editors mixing the entire source with only a tiny excerpt from said source to ignore and dismiss my concerns. It’s not that I just don’t like what Djokić is saying in that excerpt; rather, it’s against the scholarly consensus and ignores mounds of primary and secondary sources. It’s a fringe theory, plain and simple. Botushali (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been following the edits on the article and the whole issue is one quote that goes against a wide consensus in the literature. In my opinion, simply including this counter-consensus quote next to the widely approved statement before it, would give it undue weight. But regardless of the merit of the point, this certainly does not call for a discussion here. Çerçok (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is a disruptive pattern with numerous instances of wp:BRD breaching and persistent wp:OWN and using polemical sources as supposed wp:RS. I propose the specific editor to be placed in 1RR restriction. This will probably calm things down. Alexikoua (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite clear exactly how I've breached WP:BRD or shown WP:OWN behaviour here. I also did not use "polemical" sources, so please stop mis-citing policies. This is yet another editor who has a long history of engaging in constant content disputes with me and actually harassed me on my TP with false questionable "warnings" and the like a while ago - when I asked them to stop as per WP:HUSH, they deleted my section under a summary that accused me of and falsely accused me of using WP:PEACOCK language I didn't actually use . It would indeed be in this user's interests to have me sanctioned under a 1RR restriction to limit my ability to oppose them in content disputes. That hardly seems fair considering this editor's history with me and other editors in general. If I am to be subjected to a 1RR restriction, then so should they. Botushali (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am uninvolved in the dispute, but I first added the source a few months earlier which has become the point of dispute. There's a lack of discussion about the source itself and what it proposes and it seems that there are many debates which are unrelated to the core principles of wikipedia. The series "A Concise History of..." published by Cambridge University Press is intended to provide textbook material for undergrad/MsC/MA courses. The authors who were selected are all distinguished in their field. These works are intended to provide exactly what the title states: a concise overview of the history of specific countries. They're not extensive works about the history of specific countries and they don't focus on details of particular events like the Battle of Kosovo. The author discusses the impact of the battle and the narratives about it. One of them is that Serbia led a multinational Christian coalition. This is a narrative which the author disputes - rightly so, IMO. In itself, this is unrelated to the participation of specific feudal rulers like Muzaka or to the participation of contingents from Hungarians or Vlachs. The author disputes the narrative of grand coalitions in Serbian historiography and its bulwark of Christianity connotations. Hence the point of dispute between those who support inclusion or exclusion isn't discussed by the source itself. Both sides are involved in WP:SYNTH by interpreting it as something very different to what it proposes. More broadly, this problem arises from the way historiography is cited and often abused in wikipedia debates. The report itself doesn't describe any 3RR violation or any editing beyond the scope of what is permissible and because BRD applies to editors who want to include content, it doesn't apply to Botushali  who opposes inclusion but to Alexikoua (who mentioned BRD) and all others who have edit-warred to include a statement which wasn't previously in the article. Another problem with such reports is that editors cite policies and practices which either apply to both parties or in some cases apply exclusively to them - like BRD. The article's history itself highlights low-level edit-warring  by all sides in the context of a content dispute. All sides should return to the article's talkpage and focus on discussing bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was writing up this comment while Maleschreiber was posting, so excuse me for any redundancy.As best I can tell, the contentious sentence was added 16 August. On 2 Nov, AlexBachmann reverted it, citing WP:FRINGE. Over the week that followed:
 * 2 Nov: Khirurg restored it
 * 2 Nov: Botushali removed it
 * 2 Nov: Krisitor restored it
 * 2 Nov: Botushali removed it
 * 2 Nov: Krisitor restored it <--at this point, Botushali began talk page discussion
 * 6 Nov: Botushali removed it
 * 6 Nov: Theonewithreason restored it
 * 6 Nov: AlexBachmann removed it
 * 6 Nov: Theonewithreason restored it
 * 7 Nov: AlexBachmann removed it
 * 7 Nov: Khirurg restored it
 * 7 Nov: Botushali removed it
 * 7 Nov: Alexikoua restored it
 * 7 Nov: Botushali removed it
 * 8 Nov: Azorzal restored it
 * This complaint was opened complaining about "persistent edit warring" by Botushali, but this war involves multiple editors on both sides. Nobody has breached WP:3RR, and Botushali's conduct has been no more egregious than any other editor's. This is a content dispute. Warring editors are discussing on the talk page.  I think this complaint should be closed and the involved editors should continue to work toward consensus on the talk page, using the WP:DR methods as necessary, and keeping in mind that WP:ONUS states The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.  Schazjmd   (talk)  14:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor with problematic article creations
My attention was recently called to articles created and edited by Hypersite, as some of their expansions appeared on my watchlist. The articles appear to be well-written and well-sourced, but on further review, they are very problematic.

Today, they created Pennsylvania Rite. The first source used in this brand-new article gives a 404, and indeed, the article states that the ritual they purport to cite is never actually written down, and therefore would appear uncitable.

In their expansion of Operative Masonry, they place sources with access dates that were not anywhere close to the date they edited the article. Chamber of Reflection has many sources that failed verification when I actually looked at them.

I'm not sure what the best way to handle this would be, but I would prefer not to jump straight to a block, if possible. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Another article which I just found, Philosophical Scottish Rite, contained a lengthy copyvio of a French text translated to English, and a Legacy section which was not supported by the cite given. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, my preference has changed. has the following ref template (most of which they deleted two minutes later, but...)


 * Page=Out of stock? Quote=No summary available? Location=Paperback version? This is not good. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is hoaxing, it seems like the point is to either be caught immediately or to continue existing for just long enough that you can point to it like it's a scandal. Remsense  聊  21:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea why the thickness, dimensions and weight would matter for a book citation. Some books may be smaller than others due to there being a miniature version for example. — AP 499D25  (talk)  03:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their latest creation, Adonhiramite Rite, they use for the section "Influence in the World" these sources: this book which doesn't seem to mention "adonhiramite" or something similar at all (not found through search, and not in the index); this book, which doesn't mention adonhiramite (also checked volume 2), and this old book which does have infomation about the rite, but doesn't support the claims in the section at all.

I propose to block them from the mainspace until they have come here and explained these issues. Fram (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram. It's not blatant hoaxing, as the Adoniramite Rite is/was real and discussed in sources, but there seems to be some original research or wishful thinking in the sourcing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Constant unconstructive editing from IP 47.19.230.10
I know that under regular circumstances IPs aren’t people, but looking at the IPs contribs, practically all of the edits made by this IP over a span of two years have been reverted as being unconstructive, which leads me to suspect that the IP in question is static and should be dealt with as such.

The IP has also been warned about half a dozen times on their talk page, but they haven’t stopped making unconstructive edits. — Mugtheboss (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably a school. They've made one edit since coming off their most recent block and haven't edited in two days. Nothing to do here but observe. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat issued by IP


User:109.52.199.10. Post has been reverted, but according to WP:NLT such should be reported here, so you can do the necessary. Fram (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Add to this based on this edit (not to mention this) — Czello (music</i>) 14:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked. I assume this is a fabrication and that Mr. Wales does not have a criminal complaint against him in Italy? 331dot (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the claim is that a person whose Wikipedia article contains the disambiguator "fraudster" and explains in the lede that he is barred from practicing law in Italy and the UK has nonetheless posted a notice of claim on a social media website, rather than contacting WMF Legal directly as any competent lawyer would probably know to do. I'd call the post doubtful at best. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the latest Google News search result for "jimmy wales italy" is from 2019, I do not think we need to worry too much about the founder going to jail. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As well as falling foul of WP:NLT the statement is simply untrue. I have edited Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) and have not been given any notice. Is Johnny out of jail now? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * According to a (plausible but not very reliable) link on the talk page, as of April. I'll add a couple of things while we're on the topic. One is Special:AbuseLog/36319536. Another is to note that someone using the same range as one of these IPs has been doing vandalism to the article since August (see history for details). -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The IPs also geolocate to Italy, which is where the text the IP added (without a source) claims he moved to after being released from prison at the end of April this year, which is right about when the vandalism started. I'm sure that's all just coincidence. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Long history of refusal to add sources
Today I saw on my watchlist that had added unsourced content into a sourced sentence. I went to their talk page to leave them a notice, only to see that the talk page and its archives already have dozens of warnings regarding the addition of unsourced material, the creation of articles without sourcing, copying without attribution, and failing to leave edit summaries, among other issues. These warnings go back to 2005 and are as recent as a few days ago. This editor was also brought to ANI last year for repeated copying without attribution and lost autopatrolled in 2020 for repeated policy violations. I don't believe that another warning is going to be sufficient to prevent this editor from adding unsourced content. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In my defense of List of Marvel Comics characters: 0-9, I was sorting the different characters named 8-Ball so that they would remain separate from each other as they just kept running into each other and made it look confusing. The issue where a revived 8-Ball was Moon Knight's cell mate and was revived by Hood occurred in Devil's Reign: Moon Knight #1 which I forgot to add the reference to. I just wanted to let you people know that and apologize for this incident. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothere
Nothere + Inappropriate username. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

TPTB
See Special:Contributions/TPTB. Their hobby seems to be asking for the deletion of FCSB, which is WP:SNOW.

I have counted at least seven attempts. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked from FCSB for three years. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Lifetrance
is already blocked for edit warring on Trans woman, and is now resorting to blatant personal attacks. Funcrunch (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not nice. Per "Ban me and my 20 year old account, if you can", I suggest we do. Given their very limited editing history, we won't be missing much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Already done, just as I was filing this report. Funcrunch (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's me, Clarence Thomas, noted trans activist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely confused as to what they thought would be the outcome here. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Malidoma some page locked and incorrect
Malidoma some was kidnapped by a Jesuit priest at the age of 4 and taken to a boarding school where He was physically and sexually abused by the priests on a daily basis until he finally escaped after 15 years. This is a well documented fact contained in his autobiography as well as in countless talks given by Some. I personally heard him tell this story. The priest ingratiated himself to Somes father and promised to take Malidoma on a motorcycle ride only he never returned.

Kidnapping and boarding schools is a fact of colonialism and is part of what made Malidoma’s mission of peace in the west so remarkable. it is a grave disservice to him, his legacy and the historical facts to push this false narrative and to be so intimated by the truth as to make up lies about his father “giving him” to a stranger to take to a white school at 4 years old.

Someone who is monitoring this page has a larger agenda of propagating a “kinder, gentler” narrative of history that paints their religion in a more benevolent light- and it is categorically false and misleading.

please advise how to change these falsehoods immediately to represent the truth and ban this individual from suppressing the facts about Malidoma and his lived experience ever again. Fact$999! (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be taken to the article's talk page at Talk:Malidoma Patrice Somé with a strong, reliable source (WP:RS) so this information can be cited (WP:CITE). Please make sure you have read and thoroughly understood WP:BLP. There's nothing for admins to do here, as far as I can see. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Frank Borman
Immediately following the subject's death, the trolls are out. The page needs to be locked, with edits and summaries expunged. JNW (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an IP range that has been continuously harassing users and evading blocks, and I've seen this same IP evading nearly 50+ times on random articles ranging from Frank Borman to anything related to Social Skills and Human Communication 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: page has been semi-protected, IP addresses have been blocked as open proxies, and revdels done. Thanks to Materialscientist, Zzuuzz, and Acroterion! — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  04:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:216.236.148.41
It appears this user is currently block evading - see their edits to User Talk:173.220.150.234 and similar editing pattern to said IP - closing AFD discussions. User:173.220.150.234 was themselves blocked for block evasion. Eteethan (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User Paper9oll and his problematic behavior regarding articles about South Korea
The question is this: the user Paper9oll has been in conflict with other editors for some time due to edits to Wikipedia articles related to South Korea (mainly about K-pop). What happens is that he has been reversing constructive edits and when someone complains about this to him, he shows aggression (in one case, in a heated discussion with the user MotherofSnakes he acts aggressively by implying that only he has the right to make edits about Korean pop culture because he is fluent in Korean, in addition to not letting other users edit in peace without causing any problems). I recommend that this user be blocked, as he has been reverting edits that are not vandalism and acts disrespectfully and aggressively towards anyone who questions his reasons for reversing such edits. MafiaBoy123 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) you are supposed to notify them (see the red box right at the top of this article). 2) You're also supposed to provide the relevant diffs that support your claims. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I left a message on Paper9oll's talk page. It has been acknowledged with his removal. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly, his behavior makes editing on Wikipedia tiring. Every time I add some information to any k-pop related article, it is automatically re-edited to suit his personal tastes for instance: songs on an album page cannot be described as the "opening track", "closing track", "sixth song", they are re-used by him in a repetitive and monotonous way: "the song was described as". Imagine that the album has 10 tracks and each sentence starts with "song 1 was described as..." Every information that i have added to any page has been corrected or completly deleted by this person. This kind of behavior is really harmful to the Wikipedia community because it makes us question our editing skills. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @MafiaBoy123 You added a non-existence category (logged out as IP) and logged in, without explaining why you're even doing so twice, and fyi, please don't edit simultaneously while logged in and also out.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when you are questioned about your edits, you either act aggressively (when people mention repetitive harassment) or act sarcastically (when others ask about reliable sources to edit on Wikipedia). Have you ever stopped to think that instead of helping, you've just been getting in the way with your attitude? Because the big question is: my sister edited several Wikipedia articles related to K-pop. But because of what you did, she gave up being a Wikipedia editor because of your selfishness. You forget that other people also want to edit and yet, you act rudely, aggressively, selfishly. What you're doing isn't cool! 2804:14C:5B41:84B6:185B:E3F7:F802:BFBE (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And another thing: the user MafiaBoy123 is my brother and he is not at all happy with your attitude (that edit in the article about actress Kim Ji-woo that had no vandalism whatsoever and that you did the favor of reverting). You are so selfish that you made my sister give up and now my brother is thinking about giving up editing on Wikipedia because of you... 2804:14C:5B41:84B6:185B:E3F7:F802:BFBE (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So now you're getting your family to POV push? WP:MEAT - I would advise you stop the constant logged out editing as it violates WP:SOCK and will get you blocked if you continue. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 19:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @MotherofSnakes I already explained it clearly to you. Any editors are allowed to copyedit and no it isn't accordingly to my personal preferences. While I agreed that it may be repetitive, however I see it as the best way to be written, of course I'm now experimenting with newer writing styles (continously learning to improve; no one is perfect) by copyediting "the song was described as" to avoid the repetition however this doesn't means that the repetition can be avoid completely. Furthermore, I don't see how using "lead single" instead of "opening track" is considered as "wrong" writing nor using "final track" instead of "closing track". Lastly, I also see no point in adding contents concerning previous releases but introducing undue weight to the article (adding a brief sentence would be sufficient instead of a whole lengthy paragraph) nor is adding packaging useful information as from my POV, it's promotional by telling the readers that x and y is available for sell, neither is the content sourced reliably using secondary sources.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to let you know that such behaviour can be harmful to the community that we all create. You are not alone here. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @MotherofSnakes I'm already collaborative, the only content I have reverted are undue weight (lengthy paragraph writing about previous releases's achivements) and packaging, if you feel that this is important than you should have discussed it on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Other than that are simply copyediting and of course adding quotes to quoted minor paraphrased sentence, and I also stated to you that you can copyedit it if you feel that my writing is broken after copyediting however please don't add K-pop terminology (e.g. mini album, title track) here, we had a discussion previously at WT:KO to use "global" (or non-Korean; not sure what is specific term to describe) terminology like extended play (EP) and lead single. I did see Agassy was created because Soojin was watchlisted by me however I didn't touch it (but I did watchlisted it) even though I would like to copyedit it.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not the person who reported you. Just telling my side of the story because I was mentioned earlier. MotherofSnakes (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please check my recent article Agassy and re-edit everything like always. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the question is, but I do know that I do not see any diffs/specific examples of supposed problematic behavior. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please check the Drama (Aespa EP) article. Every edit of mine has been completly re-edited or deleted. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That article has a busy edit history. Being re-edited or reverted is not necessarily a behavioral problem. There are no discussions on the article's talk page. There need to be diffs provided to support behavioral/conduct issues for this to be a matter for administrators. Content disputes should be worked out on the talk page. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will not contribute to this page anymore because my edits will be reverted or deleted by this person. Check other pages like My World EP by Aespa or Invu by Taeyeon. I'm afraid to even create a new k-pop related article. I thought that wiki was a safe space but his behaviour and actions make me feel uncomfortable. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not very helpful. If you believe that there is a behavioural issue, then you need to provide specific examples and explain why there are problematic. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Check his rude comments to my edits on Drama (Aespa EP). MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you're being evasive. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments like "Read huh, you go instead", "Nice nice 'previewu'", I am sure that there will be more in the future. As of now, I will stop contributing to any of "his" articles. MotherofSnakes (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @MotherofSnakes Asking me to read carefully wasn't nice either (in my opinion) when I did make sure to cross-check that whatever is written is indeed sourced, I intrepreted the minor parphased sentence as quoted however you have another viewpoint that it isn't. I'm admit that asking you go to ahead instead isn't being nice hence my apologies. However, the latter isn't directed at you btw, I'm actually complaining about the failed translation provided by Google I believe, well kind of vague.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I don't like such conflicts, I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way. Peace and love everyone... MotherofSnakes (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @MotherofSnakes No worries, this is a misunderstanding and/or different viewpoints, we are humans afterall hence it's always bound to be different viewpoints which I hope in the future (if we ever meet path in editing), if any conflicts can be resolved by discussion on the article's talk page. I'm explained my viewpoint on the removal and also the copyediting/formatting however I also see what you're trying to say to me i.e. my bad writing (I do agreed that there is room for improvements) however I'm constantly learning to improve and looking for inspiration on other articles that has been copyedited.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  18:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment Due to an obvious WP:FAMILY, wouldn't this be good to have a checkuser find possible socks? Jerium (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can someone please close this content related report? M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that it appears that and his two sisters are all editing the same pages. According to 2804:14C:5B41:84B6:185B:E3F7:F802:BFBE. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Most definitely a WP:DUCK -- Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'll make a CU request in a few hours if someone doesn't beat me there. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 12:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234
I have had it with this user’s chronic harassment and intimidation. They have been warned three times:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1135611961

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1135673658

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1162779567

After their last visit to my talk-page, I told them that one more incident of harassment would result in being brought here. Lo and behold, they dropped another inappropriate nonsense template on my talk-page again this morning – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1184284507 – so here we are as promised. I am tired of this user’s hounding, non-constructive edits, and misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. Bgsu98  (Talk)  13:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The warning is completely appropriate. The edit in question was reverted four times by you without a discussion. That is simply edit warring and when reporting edit warring you must show the user was reported if the behaviour is continuing. Where else do you expect me to warn you about your edit warring
 * Diffs of the reverts (on the exact same edit) on the article The Amazing Race 19:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period."  I didn’t realize that May was within 24 hours of today. Bgsu98   (Talk)  13:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not the same thing as edit warring. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not obligated to warn anybody about edit-warring unless 3RR has been broken, and a report there does require a warning. Since I had not broken 3RR, your intrusion on my talk-page, despite being advised three times to stay off, constitutes hounding and harassment. Perhaps other users let you get away with your constant bullying, but your days of bullying me are over. Bgsu98   (Talk)  15:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While I don't appreciate the way that Bgsu98 responded in their third diff, I think you should respect when someone asks you to stay off of their talk page if you ask others to do the same . If a user does not want you to post on their talk page and you believe they're edit warring then you should, in the future, go to WP:AN3 and make a report. Frankly a discussion on the article talk page would have been more appropriate than the two of you communicating through edit summary. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll echo Josh's comment above, but add to Bgsu98 that it's not really necessary to be angry with someone for notifying you of a discussion at WP:ANI, as it is required to notify an editor that such a discussion has been started. Sportsfan and Bgsu should consider staying away from each other, given the apparent hostility between each other. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at Sportsfan's talk page history (2), there seems to be a lot of hostility between them and others (some them being hostile, some others). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If people don't want you to post on their talkpage, don't do it. That being said, WP:ANI notifications are exempt from that. Does this really need any admin action? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @EggRoll97, I don’t recall responding with hostility to any ANI notifications I’ve received because I understand they are required, It’s SF’s other nonsense (and generally unwarranted) warning templates that irk me. Bgsu98   (Talk)  19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The only really problematic edit summary I see is this one, ... The edit summary "Pot meet kettle" isn't great especially as it is false... ANI notification is required, its not the same at all. Its not terribly civil, its certainly not nice... But its not awful and could certainly be the result of a misunderstanding about policy/guideline. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment is referring to Special:Diff/1135673658 where you reiterated a demand to stay off your talk page in response to Sportsfan notifying you of an ANI discussion. While I understand (but do not agree with) the hostility in the other reverts, the repeat of the demand isn't really necessary in that instance, given that they're just following the instructions on this page to notify you properly. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Bgsu98   (Talk)  20:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:208.175.138.112
User continues to add undersourced content to football pages, and remove indications of sourced vacated wins. User has multiple past warnings and does not engage on talk page. Example of removal of vacated wins, example of addition of unsourced content glman (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC).
 * I blocked the IP for a month with a notice asking them to respond at User talk:208.175.138.112. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

User:71.219.49.187
Continues to make uncited edits to pages, despite multiple warnings from editors this month. User has not responded and continues to make unsourced, disruptive edits. glman (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked for 48 hours and will watch User talk:71.219.49.187 for a while. Post there with an explanation if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 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?<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 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.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 08:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This editor has been disruptive for as long as I can remember. He constantly goes around cast members lists for comic book movie franchises and keeps adding the same unnecessary stylistic changes, he mostly doesn't answer to either talk messages or edit summaries. —El Millo (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This user has a long history of being unwilling to collaborate and communicate with others. The constant radio silence from them is especially frustrating when editors are seeking to form consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like they are right back to editing the article again, only leaving 5 edit summaries out of 11 edits on November 6. And left this message on the talk page.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done a partial block on that article for a month. I'll also warn them that continued failure to use edit summaries will result in further sanctions. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Any editor that refuses to communicate when other editors object to their edits should be indef blocked until they actually start communicating. Mutism is not acceptable behaviour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to that; the timesink of a) making another editor miserable and b) taking admin time to evaluate the issue, and c) with a history of same "radio silence" = block. Not pblock, as they'll do same elsewhere. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Mass editing to change External links by Judkessler
After they hit my watchlist of Featured articles, I asked new editor what their criteria was for mass changes to External links. Without a satisfactory answer, I've asked them to slow down, then asked them to stop. They haven't, and are continuing to make the changes, while not listening. The account was created July 14, but sprung into rapid editing today, raising the question of whether this is ACE2023 edit count driven. Perhaps they will listen to an admin. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Noticed: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A list of the 17 pages (including one featured article) where I deleted some external links is available on my talk page: User talk:Judkessler.
 * Judkessler (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC).
 * This is well more than 17. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained on my talk page, I did modify more pages (probably around 60); however without deleting external links. Only to add the WHO fact sheet on relevant pages (e.g., , , and ).
 * Judkessler (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, @Judkessler. I really appreciate your efforts to help with ==External links==.  "Weeding the link farms", as we sometimes call it, can be a really important contribution to Wikipedia.  If you (or anyone else) wanted to do a bit of that, then this search string shows a pretty serious problem – a website that used to have relevant content, but it went out of business, and now it's an advertisement for a gambling business.  It was reported last week at External links/Noticeboard, and we've made progress, but there's still a handful left.
 * Generally speaking (naturally, any individual case could be different, but speaking about a purely hypothetical average situation), a fact sheet is probably going to fail WP:ELNO. Consequently, it probably shouldn't be listed in ==External links== at all.
 * But there are two possibilities. Both of them depend on these URLs being pretty stable and on people generally thinking they're important in some way.  If both of those things are true, then we could see about adding them to Wikidata (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chlamydia gets put into Q153356; we'd have to ask for advice over there on what, exactly, the best way to do that is) and/or we could see about putting it into Template:Medical resources.
 * As for the disposition of this outcome, @SandyGeorgia, do you mind if we split off link removal to External links/Noticeboard, and take the "are these WHO pages worth adding?" questions back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine? We could mark this section as resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * split as you wish (I did not realize we now have an El noticeboard)! I was more concerned that I couldn't get Judkessler to stop and listen, and the editing pace was very fast. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of edits that I looked at involved adding www.who.int links. It is generally very unwise for an editor to focus on adding links, and it is particularly unwise if that involves one website. Judging what is appropriate for external links is best left for experienced editors and should not be done on a drive-by basis with a quick adjustment to an article before moving on to another. Please let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; I'll keep an eye on it and ping you if needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

A lot more information on this case at d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2023/11. Thanks, Paucabot (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more complex than that. The to-and-fro over  both in the article and on various talk pages, and deleted edits at User:Cjayross/Mustapha ishak boushaki indicate that there are two groups:
 * One group is accounts that self-identify as Mustapha Ishak Boushaki. They oppose (by blanking the contributions of and starting talk page discussions about) a second group.
 * The second group is the huge cross-wiki sock-puppet account farm, from global block logs and also intersecting edits on the English Wikipedia. These are the ones that are really messing us about, including creating fake biographies based upon copying the wikitext of the Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein articles.  This includes but is not limited to:
 * There have been lots of articles involved. These are just the deleted ones:
 * Template:Sidi Boushaki book
 * User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki
 * That said: A 14th century theologian (Sidi Boushaki) is not close family to a 21st century physicist, presuming that it even is family. CaptainEek, you investigated and that intersects the second group in one of the AFD discussions.  Thoughts? Uncle G (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no memory of this, it was some years ago, sorry. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, it seems like this is an interesting case, especially given how some of the figures *do* seem plausibly notable. Remsense  聊  23:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note for any checkusers: There is off-wiki evidence, that strongly tallies with on-wiki behaviour, that is not a sock-puppet account, and that account can be excluded from sock-puppet account investigations and lists.  Please let us not get more specific than this.  The deleted edits in that account's user space are by .  Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been lots of articles involved. These are just the deleted ones:
 * Template:Sidi Boushaki book
 * User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki
 * That said: A 14th century theologian (Sidi Boushaki) is not close family to a 21st century physicist, presuming that it even is family. CaptainEek, you investigated and that intersects the second group in one of the AFD discussions.  Thoughts? Uncle G (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no memory of this, it was some years ago, sorry. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, it seems like this is an interesting case, especially given how some of the figures *do* seem plausibly notable. Remsense  聊  23:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note for any checkusers: There is off-wiki evidence, that strongly tallies with on-wiki behaviour, that is not a sock-puppet account, and that account can be excluded from sock-puppet account investigations and lists.  Please let us not get more specific than this.  The deleted edits in that account's user space are by .  Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki
 * That said: A 14th century theologian (Sidi Boushaki) is not close family to a 21st century physicist, presuming that it even is family. CaptainEek, you investigated and that intersects the second group in one of the AFD discussions.  Thoughts? Uncle G (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no memory of this, it was some years ago, sorry. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, it seems like this is an interesting case, especially given how some of the figures *do* seem plausibly notable. Remsense  聊  23:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note for any checkusers: There is off-wiki evidence, that strongly tallies with on-wiki behaviour, that is not a sock-puppet account, and that account can be excluded from sock-puppet account investigations and lists.  Please let us not get more specific than this.  The deleted edits in that account's user space are by .  Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That said: A 14th century theologian (Sidi Boushaki) is not close family to a 21st century physicist, presuming that it even is family. CaptainEek, you investigated and that intersects the second group in one of the AFD discussions.  Thoughts? Uncle G (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no memory of this, it was some years ago, sorry. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, it seems like this is an interesting case, especially given how some of the figures *do* seem plausibly notable. Remsense  聊  23:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note for any checkusers: There is off-wiki evidence, that strongly tallies with on-wiki behaviour, that is not a sock-puppet account, and that account can be excluded from sock-puppet account investigations and lists.  Please let us not get more specific than this.  The deleted edits in that account's user space are by .  Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no memory of this, it was some years ago, sorry. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, it seems like this is an interesting case, especially given how some of the figures *do* seem plausibly notable. Remsense  聊  23:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note for any checkusers: There is off-wiki evidence, that strongly tallies with on-wiki behaviour, that is not a sock-puppet account, and that account can be excluded from sock-puppet account investigations and lists.  Please let us not get more specific than this.  The deleted edits in that account's user space are by .  Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the investigation. I didn't know it was not the scientist that wrote all these articles. I had only noticed the cross-wiki spam (which seems to be another person). Some things I can add:
 * There are more than a hundred globally blocked accounts as I have collected them here: d:Wikidata:Project chat.
 * There are more articles spread over more than a hundred wikipedias. You have also the list at the same link in Wikidata. Even there are a dozen wikidata items without any sitelink, including scientist's both sons
 * I think some of the articles could be notable like Sidi Boushaki and Shahnez Boushaki.
 * Maybe the spammer wasn't only spamming on his/her relatives, but on his/her surname, as you can see in Zawiyet Sidi Boushaki or Yahia Boushaki. Paucabot (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Nchitu is massively categorizing open railway stations as closed
I reverted about 10 edits of this afternoon of this user, who categorized open Belgian railway incorrectly as "closed" like this one. After that this user continued to do the same with other countries like Jamaica and lots more. I suspect that the user is massively doing edits with HotCat about thousands of stations in various countries where he does not know the details of. When I looked at the user talk page I noticed the account was created on 16 October 2023 and has already 22,176 edits. I noticed the user received various warnings about their behaviour on their talk page, but did not reply or change their behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovaModaal (talk • contribs)
 * User:Nchitu should be blocked immediately pending an acceptable explanation of their edits. The editor has made an enormous number of edits, many of them disputed, but is totally uncommunicative on their talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have partially blocked them from (Article) space as a regular admin action. Any admin is free to remove or replace their block as they see fit, especially pending resolution of this thread. --Yamla (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's almost half as many edits as I have made with this account in its entire lifetime, in less than 1 month. On the first page there are 44 edits in a single second, at one point.  Ordinary humans should not be required to keep up with this 'bot-rate editing, on a non-'bot account.  And apart from the odd sandbox edit, there is nothing at all outside of category or the main article namespaces.  This is well into Bot policy territory.  Then there's .  Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see a number of things here. (i) I would not say the edits are obviously incorrect. The same article Namur railway station (used as an example in this thread) says the station was closed in 1988. It was later reopened, and is now open (an d I have accidentally been there after 1988 and can attest this), but it is not incorrect to categorize it as a station which was closed in the past. If this is contentious it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. I checked a couple of more edits and they were also not obviously incorrect. (ii) It is still very concerning that the user received the first warning a week ago but continued editing without reacting to it. I think the block is well justified, and they should not resume editing without having first explained their actions, and, if these are contentious, discussing them at an appropriate venue. (iii) The editing speed is very concerning to me, and we might deal with either an unapproved bot or a sock (though I would not dare say who is the master) or both. If someone has seen this editing pattern before and can recognize it we might go for an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

Talk:Hollywood_Canteen

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

I thought the dust had settled. But I was wrong. Please help me, because I am at my wit's end with her, and nobody else on that article is active enough to help.--Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 19:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This is all entirely FALSE. I have NOT lied regarding anything, and have always posted reliable citations for edits. Cinemaniac86 is the issue here. We have a debate regarding the issue of the Hollywood Canteen. It is a fact that the Canteen was originally started (and funded) by the Hollywood Victory Committee. However, Cinemaniac86 is alleging it was solely the work of actress Bette Davis. This is false. Instead of working through this issue on the article's talk page (which is what I was attempting), Cinemaniac86 unilaterally altered the entire article without discussing the current issue. I am trying to follow the correct procedure of discussing this issue on the talk page. It is Cinemaniac86 is is attempting to bully and "game the system" here. Again, I am trying to talk this issue out on the article's talk page - it is Cinemaniac86 who isn't wanting to discuss the issue and unilaterally disrupt the article's page. MonicaAng (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am still providing sources on the article's talk page regarding this debate, however, Cinemaniac86 reusing to discuss the issue at hand on the article's talk page. Instead, because this user simply seems to not like that I am challenging the edits he attempted to do on the page, he calls me a "liar," etc. etc. I have tried to approach this issue respectively, yet, I am name-called and accused of actions I have not done. Again, I believe this is now an issue of Cinemaniac86 attempting to bully me from attempting to discuss this issue to find resolution - which has been my goal within this situation from the start. MonicaAng (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Lemme reiterate some of Monica's numerous lies. With links.
 * Lie #1: Bette Davis was not the president. She was an honorary president for a short time.
 * Fact proven by newspaper sources: Bette Davis was president, and John Garfield 1 of the VPs, of Hollywood Canteen from the beginning, throughout the war; and as a foundation, all the way until 1966.
 * Lie #2: "Re "Hollywood Canteen" this is a topic that was already well covered on the topic's article talk page. Davis was not responsible for founding the canteen. The Hollywood Canteen was established as a "sister canteen" to New York's "Stage Door Canteen." The "Hollywood Canteen" was established by a formed committee headed by actress Irene Dunne. Davis served as honorary president for a period of time after it was opened. MonicaAng (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)"
 * Truth: There has been no evidence of any of this. First, this has never been a topic covered on the talk page until me. It was covered on Bette's talk page, not the Canteen's. Second,
 * Lie #3: Those statements about "Hollywood Victory Committee" were there before I edited.
 * Fact: You made a truce with NLB on the Bette Davis talk page with that offered statement, and he conceded. Then you lied to me about it being there before he typed it for you.
 * Note: I'm not conceding to adding false information to an article. I don't think that it is an acceptable thing to do. All sources state one story. You are trying to add WP:OR, by twisting facts and WP:GAME with your approach and WP:TEND.
 * Lie #4: I am not alleging it is the sole work of Bette Davis. I continue to tell her that the sources have stated it was conspired by Bette Davis and John Garfield. All of the 1942 newspaper articles give them credit for being co-founders when they did stories on the Canteen. Screenshots of the paywall-sourced newspaper clippings:
 * "Bette Davis and John Garfield are the organizers, August 1942": https://i.imgur.com/OTC0bc9.png (Full page with date https://i.imgur.com/5Z90F4v.png)
 * "Sheila Graham Tells How Canteen Was Founded, December 1942": (Pics) https://i.imgur.com/Q9151iV.png (date is visible; pics attach to Sheila's article)
 * (Article attached to Sheila's pictures, same paper) https://i.imgur.com/1ymzV40.png "Bette and Garfield are its creators, and mentions Garfield being vice-president." Another article states the same, from a reporter who volunteered as a dancer: https://i.imgur.com/3JfD9Um.png (full page https://i.imgur.com/xMEG1ha.png)
 * "Louella Parsons, August 1942, Bette Davis done tremendous amount of work making this possible" https://i.imgur.com/ZAMhgVC.png (full page https://i.imgur.com/aweMZ5A.png)
 * Again......I don't wanna be redundant. I already stated, you can verify my newspaper sources on the talk page, and match them with my edit via the (Diff).
 * Lie #5: She says "resolution from the start", but she takes an "I'm right, you're wrong" approach from the start. But the evidence is right here. In words. You can't argue with facts. There is no dispute here. Davis and Garfield are founders, organizers, and establishers of the Hollywood Canteen. The articles and book state it explicitly. It's not as if there's a gray area. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 20:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that I think this debate should be on the article's TALK PAGE, I think you are misunderstanding the terminology - "organizer" does NOT mean "founder." Again, the Hollywood Victory Committee was the founders of the Canteen. Davis and Garfield were members of that committee. Working to organize the Canteen does not make them the founders. I think if you will read the articles on this, you will find how the Committee assigned roles to its members (that is precisely how committees typically work). I am not stating Davis and Garfield were not overseers on the project, but contesting they started it our of thin air - that just isn't the case. Also, the articles you screenshotted are missing their dates - and I would like to point out those articles appear to be AFTER the Canteen opened and Davis had been appointed president of it. Not articles regarding the original founding of the Canteen. So, therein lies some confusion here. MonicaAng (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy wall of text Batman! Would anyone involved here care to give the tl;dr version here? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * MonicaAng states It is a fact that the Canteen was originally started (and funded) by the Hollywood Victory Committee and has relentlessly pursued that change to history across multiple articles, but is unable to provide reliable sources to support it. I checked one source she put forth, and it didn't support her claim, so I believe Cinemaniac86's analysis of the other sources she's put forth. Disclaimer: I have little respect for editors who misrepresent sources. Also, I'm concerned about the doxing diff, but that took place in August so not sure what's to be done there. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights, note that at least one of the conflicts (Hollywood Canteen) has been resolved on its talk page. I think needs to speak to whether any of the issues brought up in the OP still need to be pursued.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I had to tackle some IRL duties in addition to reassembling the page. Yeah, this compromise was sufficient, since it didn't deny the facts nor diminish Bette's/John's roles, per se. And that there should be peace after this. I do think the "green room" lunch, without going into detail, between the 2 of them, is supported by the sources, like 2 you cited. You'd have to weigh in for consensus on the talk page, but omitting it until then.
 * But aside from that, I'm relieved she's satisfied with a mutually agreed upon phrasing now. The main issues I had were the misrepresentation of facts, where articles were cited that did not support claims. Call it WP:OR, or not. The other issue was the approach to always remove sources and/or revert edits, and edit war. So I mean, I think she and I are kosher now with this phrasing issue and these articles, enough to simmer down. But regarding past behavior, and the doxxing/factual inaccuracies of the past, I feel like that's an admin/mod decision to investigate and decide.
 * My hope initially was that I felt helpless communicating the evidence, so aside from being reprimanded for the edit warring/false information, at least I could have some other voices assisting me in spelling out the facts. Because all others abandoned it, and I was fighting for the facts alone. But I ain't no Paula Alquist, ain't nobody gaslighting me! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that I think this debate should be on the article's TALK PAGE, I think you are misunderstanding the terminology - "organizer" does NOT mean "founder." Again, the Hollywood Victory Committee was the founders of the Canteen. Davis and Garfield were members of that committee. Working to organize the Canteen does not make them the founders. I think if you will read the articles on this, you will find how the Committee assigned roles to its members (that is precisely how committees typically work). I am not stating Davis and Garfield were not overseers on the project, but contesting they started it our of thin air - that just isn't the case. Also, the articles you screenshotted are missing their dates - and I would like to point out those articles appear to be AFTER the Canteen opened and Davis had been appointed president of it. Not articles regarding the original founding of the Canteen. So, therein lies some confusion here. MonicaAng (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy wall of text Batman! Would anyone involved here care to give the tl;dr version here? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * MonicaAng states It is a fact that the Canteen was originally started (and funded) by the Hollywood Victory Committee and has relentlessly pursued that change to history across multiple articles, but is unable to provide reliable sources to support it. I checked one source she put forth, and it didn't support her claim, so I believe Cinemaniac86's analysis of the other sources she's put forth. Disclaimer: I have little respect for editors who misrepresent sources. Also, I'm concerned about the doxing diff, but that took place in August so not sure what's to be done there. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights, note that at least one of the conflicts (Hollywood Canteen) has been resolved on its talk page. I think needs to speak to whether any of the issues brought up in the OP still need to be pursued.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I had to tackle some IRL duties in addition to reassembling the page. Yeah, this compromise was sufficient, since it didn't deny the facts nor diminish Bette's/John's roles, per se. And that there should be peace after this. I do think the "green room" lunch, without going into detail, between the 2 of them, is supported by the sources, like 2 you cited. You'd have to weigh in for consensus on the talk page, but omitting it until then.
 * But aside from that, I'm relieved she's satisfied with a mutually agreed upon phrasing now. The main issues I had were the misrepresentation of facts, where articles were cited that did not support claims. Call it WP:OR, or not. The other issue was the approach to always remove sources and/or revert edits, and edit war. So I mean, I think she and I are kosher now with this phrasing issue and these articles, enough to simmer down. But regarding past behavior, and the doxxing/factual inaccuracies of the past, I feel like that's an admin/mod decision to investigate and decide.
 * My hope initially was that I felt helpless communicating the evidence, so aside from being reprimanded for the edit warring/false information, at least I could have some other voices assisting me in spelling out the facts. Because all others abandoned it, and I was fighting for the facts alone. But I ain't no Paula Alquist, ain't nobody gaslighting me! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, we all knew this day would come. The Wikipedia Bette Davis – Joan Crawford catfight. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://i.imgur.com/QFAgrHW.gif --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 21:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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


 * IMO AfC is big enough to look after itself. The user is more enthusiastic than experienced, is all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mind that this doesn't raise to the level of needing ANI intervention. It's not exactly a behavioural issue that requires immediate admin attention. Putting a block on an IP can be iffy, especially if theirs is a dynamic one. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tenryuu yeah I think I jumped the gun on it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've searched for infos and reliable sources as I could. These are my last edits. I leave the problem about the "draft" to you. 193.207.178.201 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Hi, thanks for your report. I'll continue at AIV but for those here, you should probably provide diff links for the plural "instances where this user engaged in the use of vulgar language". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You have been on Wikipedia for over a year, and have over 2000 edits, so it's tough to chalk this up to being a rookie mistake. Perhaps, then, you can explain to us why you thought an article you'd just created ought to have a Featured List status?  I agree that Ravenfire's use of obscenities was unwarranted, but their astonishment at your edit wasn't.  With that, I hope and trust you understand that threats to quit if we fail to do your bidding aren't going to move us in the least degree.   Ravenswing      12:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ravensfire, This is your fake and second account.
 * Your behavior, including the use of vulgar language, is unacceptable and violates Wikipedia's community guidelines. Regardless of edit count, respect and adherence to these standards are non-negotiable.
 * This exchange should focus on addressing inappropriate behavior rather than devolving into personal attacks. We are here to collaborate and contribute positively, not to engage in disrespectful interactions.
 * I strongly urge the administrators to take appropriate action in line with Wikipedia's guidelines to maintain a professional and respectful environment for all contributors
 * This response emphasizes the unacceptable behavior and urges appropriate action without engaging in a counterattack. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   13:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * As an involved editor I noted with interest and slight amusement 's comments. I am not a great fan of extravagant language, but this edit summary was clearly not aimed at the author of the article but rather at the thought that anybody could believe that an almost unsourced list could be considered a "Featured List". I have seen far worse pass without either comment or sanction. Time to drop the stick I think.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe edit summary was clearly not aimed at the author of the article is quite accurate. Looking through the contribs, Ravensfire have draftified one of TruxtVerified's lists before writing the edit summary, and proceeded to draftify two more. In this regard, RavensFire's word choice is definitely inappropriate.
 * Also @TruxtVerified, are you saying that RavenSwing is somehow RavenFire's sock account? Ca talk to me! 13:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * However, amidst these discussions, the fundamental question remains: are the use of offensive words by Ravensfire considered acceptable conduct? TruxtVerified |  [Message]   13:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, he said that bad word to me. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   13:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your support for this individual despite their use of inappropriate language is concerning. In my view, the use of profanity warrants consequences. If this behavior goes unpunished, it undermines the integrity of our community. I am considering quitting Wikipedia editing if such behavior continues to be overlooked. Despite their extensive editing history, their lack of understanding regarding appropriate conduct is evident. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   13:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of profanity is not prohibited on Wikipedia. At worst you could say that Ravensfire was slightly uncivil or hot-headed, but nothing that would mandate a block.
 * Also please be more careful in accusing another editor of sockpuppetry. Aside from the similarities of their names, there's no reason to believe that Ravensfire and Ravenswing are the same individual. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 13:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, he used bad word to me. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   13:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ravensfire's language was inappropriate. I will leave them a note to that effect if no one else does. Now, that said, this report of yours (TruxtVerified) is a mess:
 * Your tone is haughty and officious.
 * You've accused an editor in good standing of being a sockpuppet, apparently because their usernames contain a common word and they disagreed with you.
 * You start by saying "This might involve warning the user" and then proceed to demanding that they be blocked immediately, in all caps. Blocks are preventative, not punitive.
 * Why are we here? You made a bad editing mistake (adding the featured list icon), Ravensfire used inappropriately strong language in response. You could have told them so on their user page. Were you uncomfortable doing so? Is there a pattern of behavior on Ravensfire's part? Mackensen (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What? You are supporting the calling bad word he used. I agree my fault, but for that, a good person shouldn't use these words. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   14:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are supporting the calling bad word he used Well, no, I'm not. I said it was inappropriate (twice). I'm trying to help you understand that there is distance between doing something inappropriate and getting blocked. No one's getting blocked today. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I need justice, You are saving him. His fault is retaining there. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   14:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If I'm being blunt, you don't need justice for another editor using a swear word when it wasn't a direct personal attack. They will instead receive a polite request to be more civil, and that'll be the end of it. I think it's time you drop this now, as it's not going to go anywhere. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , are you using ChatGPT or a similar large language model to participate in this conversation? --Blablubbs (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, what? TruxtVerified |  [Message]   14:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm alone! TruxtVerified |  [Message]   14:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll acknowledge the profanity was over the top, I was just that surprised that a reasonably experienced editor would create two list articles with minimal sources add the featured list template. The back-and-forth at Articles_for_deletion/Republic_Media_Network colored my view.  My sincere apologies to  for the tone of the edit summary.  I stand behind the actions I took and the warning message I left on his talk page  which is direct and blunt but still reasonably polite.  This isn't a new editor crashing around but an editor with 2000 edits making some inexplicable edits.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know my fault, you have to learn about your fault. I know you have more than 78000 edits. Still you showing my fault only. Why you tell 'Sorry' for me in my userpage. If I made a mistake, you have to tell me and guide as an experienced editor. But what you do, you used bad words. But still, other users are supporting you. They said that Its all my fault. It's your fault. Ok TruxtVerified |  [Message]   15:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a space that everyone can edit, you cannot use bad words against it. Also, I know bad words than you know, but i didn't use, because of my knowledge about Wikipedia. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   15:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How you replied previously and how you are responding now are very different. Clearly looks like you used an AI to assist you as highlighted by Blablubbs! Jeraxmoira (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TruxtVerified, you just left a message on my talk page saying you have to learn from this,***k.  Would you explain what you meant by the last word?  I know what it looks like but I'm hoping there's another explanation.  The idea is there should be de-escalation of the conflict.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, de-escalation can start here.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What word do you mean? TruxtVerified |  [Message]   17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ravensfire said very clearly that it was the last word, which you wrote as "***k", but withdrew the question in the interest of de-escalation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ravensfire, you reported it🤣. I also do that with evidence. Okay TruxtVerified |  [Message]   00:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on this thread, TruxtVerified is obviously not fluent in English and thus should not be editing the English Wikipedia. I'm sure there are Wikipedias in whatever languages TruxtVerified is fluent in. Also, I don't think they're using machine translation: if they were, we'd be getting better translations. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We're being trolled now. Boomerang block required, so we can all get back to what we were doing. BTW: for all those who think that bullshit should not be in a Wikipedian's lexicon... that's debatable.  ——Serial  16:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One may safely count me among those who feel this is getting into boomerang block territory. I am still awaiting TruxtVerified's explanation for deciding that a new article creation somehow merits Featured List status, I now await TruxtVerified's abject apology for jumping to the conclusion that I'm a sock of Ravenfire's -- certainly a worse offense than Ravenfire's f-bomb -- and I agree that TruxtVerified's truculent demeanor is objectionable in of itself.    Ravenswing      16:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that @Ravenswing. TruxtVerified |  [Message]   17:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with just about everything that has been said here, especially that no sanctions apart from a gentle reminder to tone down the language a bit when exasperated should be taken against Ravensfire, but would remind everyone that demeanor can be difficult to judge in writing, especially when dealing with someone whose first language may not be English. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably, but we're both ANI regulars, and we know that demeanor gets judged all the time here. How many ANI complaints have turned over one party acting like it was a battleground, and that anyone who wasn't for them was an enemy to be defeated?   Ravenswing      21:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * what, he is 100% correct? TruxtVerified |  [Message]   00:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


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

Sockfarm at Loki (season 2)
Can an admin take a look at and take care of the ~20 redlinked sockpuppets? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference, the list of users is:
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked all but one that doesn't fit the pattern. Didn't tag anything. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Itsjustluck

 * accused another editor of liking "child porn" . They were subsequently warned and had that accusation removed from their talk page but then reverted those changes. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor repeatedly cited irrelevant rules to vandalize my edits regarding a high profile figure that does not believe child pornography harms children. My citation was a direct quote from the twitter of a living person
 * I was repeatedly harassed and falsely accused of using poor citations even when I pointed out WP:BLPSELFPUB allows for citations of direct quotes of living persons.
 * JaggedHampster and others have been harassing me and vandalizing my talk page and pretending to be admins. Itsjustluck (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

You didn't link to the correct diff:. This incident was apparently provoked by this edit, where Itsjustluck added sensitive BLP claims with a primary source and a non-RS (CoinDesk). In any event, Itsjustluck is blocked now with no talk page access and failed WP:UTRS appeal. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 15:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Death Editor 2 (...and User talk:Death editor)
I think this editor should be reviewed as a possible WP:NOTHERE. There talk page shows a variety of problems with contentious topic, edit warring, and POV editing. They are again in a slow moving edit war in a 1RR area,.

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


 * I created this account because I lost the password for that one. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * and you might have noticed that death editor was unblocked. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would probably recommend disclosing that in your user page because people will block you if you appear like a sock account with malicious intent. For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 18:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Marino13 and personal attacks
has been making personal attacks towards me since about April 2023. I reverted the aforementioned editor when it changed WP:DATEFORMAT at Vladislav Gavrikov for no apparent reason (the same was also done at Anže Kopitar). I wrote a friendly message at User talk:Marino13 where I explained why date formats should not be changed. However, the editor ignored it and repeated the date format change at Adrian Kempe after which was again warned at User talk:Marino13 (the original title of the discussion was "April 2023", but Marino13 changed it to current title). The editor then attempted to force his way regarding dates at MOS:NUM with this edit, which was instantly reverted. Since the disagreements and warnings regarding dates the editor started a "personal attacks" campaign against me. Examples:
 * 30 April 2023 (first personal attack)
 * 4 August 2023 (second personal attack after I reverted this edit twice at Jaromír Jágr)
 * 24 September 2023 (third personal attack in which the editor "agrees" with who is a sockpuppet of Moka Mo)
 * 29 September 2023 (fourth personal attack after this I warned the editor on its talk page on 30 September 2023, but that was reverted with a fifth personal attack on 27 October 2023)
 * 6 November 2023 (sixth personal attack, which is obviously directed at me)
 * 8 November 2023 (seventh personal attack, which is obviously directed at me)
 * 12 November 2023 (eighth and most recent personal attack where Marino13 has a discussion with an IP editor who is evidently another sockpuppet of Moka Mo). Meanwhile, the block-evading IP editor is making accusations, personal attacks and threats towards me at User talk:Marino13 (with the encouragement from Marino13), because it was caught as being a sockpuppet of Moka Mo.

And I am not even mentioning various other problems with Marino13 who is obviously WP:NOTHERE. – sbaio 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like we got block evasion by the IP for sure. -- A Rose  Wolf  15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the issue of sockpuppetry—which I assume we're not accusing M13 of?—I'm having a hard time reading any of those diffs as actually personal attacks, with the exception perhaps of 'meddler'; although this is so mild it surely doesn't need ANI. I also agree that suggesting someone is 'triggered' verges on questioning their mental health, and I'm sure a quiet word from a wiki-colleague would let them see that. 'Harrasser' might seem rude, but when a 13-year-old account gets templated, I'd suggest that's a pretty calm response: see WP:DNTTR. Ultimately, these diffs do not prove at all that they are NOTTHERE, one of the most serious accusations one can make. And ironically, accusations, without clear evidence, are themselves considered aspersions. I don't think anyone's covering themselves in glory here.  ——Serial  16:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (And re. the logged-out socking, I agree that, if nothing else, it's pretty bad optics to be seen making friends with fully 'fessed up socks and agreeing with them, let alone taking their side. While it's not an offence as such, it's contrary to the spirit of WP:DENY and in no way helps one's case in times like these; quite the opposite. Judgment is a call.  ——Serial  16:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC))
 * Absolutely agree on all points made. -- A Rose Wolf  17:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t listen to sbaios stuff. He’s just mad that we are exposing the truth. I was falsely accused of being a sock puppet simply because some edits of mine a couple months ago were similar to another person who was blocked. He is saying I am the same person moka mo. I am not the same person and whenever I try to reason with him or try to prove my innocence, he either ignores me or gaslights me and victim blaming by saying stuff like “stop rambling” or “stop wasting everyone’s time” and much more hurtful and demeaning things. Like what do you mean, I am a completely different person and like 99% of my edits were perfectly rational. Mot of my edits were corrections to small grammar issues or false information like for example, in Daniel Sedin, it says that Martin St. Louis was a Ted Lindsay finalist when the truth is it was actually Stamkos who was nominated along with Perry and Sedin not St. Louis. St. Louis was a hart finalist but the Ted Lindsay Award is a completely different thing. He is just mad because I hurt his feelings but the truth is whenever I make the littlest edits he immediately reverts them without consulting the one who initially made it. He is power hungry and is trying to make Wikipedia toxic rather than inclusive and welcoming like it should. My name is Ethan Parker which sounds nothing like Moka Mo does it? I didn’t even know my edits were similar to moka mo until after I got confronted about this. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am very well aware of WP:DNTTR, but this editor is not a regular since the account was created back in 2012 and has a mere 1,903 edits as of this comment (not to mention multiple warnings from other editors through the years).
 * ...these diffs do not prove at all that they are NOTTHERE, one of the most serious accusations one can make... – the diffs are about personal attacks, which you do not see for some reason. In addition, edit summaries like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this quite clearly show that Marino13 is not interested to be collaborative (so that is precisely WP:NOTHERE).
 * Other editors ( and ) have warned Marino13 at Articles for deletion/Kings–Golden Knights rivalry to stop his WP:NOTHERE behavior so I am not making baseless accusations (like you are implying). – sbaio 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw Ravenswing's and Ravensfire's comments; they're both editors I respect, and coincidentally I supported them in a thread a little further up. But the difference is that their comments were timely and addressed at the right level, unlike here. For example, no one has said your accusations are baseless, merely that they don't amount to the egregious behavioral problem AN/I is intended for. And I have looked at that swathe of diffs you have presented in the hope's of backing your argument up; I'm afraid they don't. (Since when were Clunky? What did you think I was trying to edit?, Adding more context to the date situation. A serious problem here on Wikipedia, Now do you get my point?!, Neither is meddling with other users' edits personal attacks, for example?) This is mere diff mining, and not only do they not support your case, they undermine the integrity of it. Identify troublesome editors by all means—within procedure, that's useful work—but I suggest you present a stronger case when doing so.  ——Serial  18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The diffs in my last reply were about WP:NOTHERE and not about personal attacks. Therefore, I think you misunderstood my last sentence (And I am not even mentioning various other problems with Marino13 who is obviously WP:NOTHERE), which was about other problems and not personal attacks. – sbaio 18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With no evidence of personal attacks, the "other problems" amount to nothing. This section can be closed as non-actionable. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For the last time, I am NOT moka mo. I don’t know who that even is. My name is ETHAN. DOES THAT SOUND ANYTHING LIKE MOKA MO TO YOU? Just cause some of my edits looked similar it doesn’t mean I’m that same person. 99% of my edits were perfectly good in fact when I mention milestones or make corrections to the littlest errors another person made. You put this on yourself for your demeaning behavior towards innocent people like myself by abusing your power as an administrator. Wikipedia should be an inclusive platform for everyone and not a toxic one where people get accused of sock puppetting for absolutely no reason. Whenever I try to talk to you you ignore me or gaslight me so you surely put this on yourself. Maybe if you were to just cooperate with me and hear me out then you wouldn’t be getting called out like this. The truth hurts sometimes but you sir are being abusive with people like me by playing mind games with me and taking full control of your own gain. Continuing to ignore the truth and admit that it was all a misunderstanding and still be apart of a charade just because of an investigation is unacceptable. Try owning up to your actions cause if you did, people won’t be complaining about you and how toxic Wikipedia can be for some people. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In this message you said you were looking to get your "original account unblocked". What account is that? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 19:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Gymrat16! This user is claiming that a small handful of my edits were similar to moka mo but the truth is I am a completely different person and like 98-99% of my edits were perfectly rational and when I try to talk to him, he ignores me and gaslights me. So if it is possible I was hoping to get my account unblocked and then get sbaio blocked because of how he is treating certain people like me. This behavior is not ok and people who do it should have consequences. We want Wikipedia to be a place where everyone is welcome and everyone can do their best to improve something on it rather than harm it or completely blind someone of what they wrote. I joined to take part in the community and be apart of it while sbaio is here just to play mind games and gaslight people like myself. Thanks for skiing this and hopefully this matters and proposals are considered because whenever I try to appeal and plain myself there they do the same thing either ignore me or victim blame me. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn’t make such a request because I think Wikipedia should be welcoming for all people and people should be able to work together and talk to each other if something goes on but this sbaio guy isn’t doing any of these things and is victim blaming me even after I try to prove my true self and gaslight me rather than simply own up to his actions and admit it was all a misunderstanding. I want peace to be made not conflict while he is only trying to create conflict 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:A59E:4A2E:AB29:6972 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think The Hand That Feeds You has summed the situation up succinctly (far more than me!); I assume the IP will get themselves rangeblocked or something. It seems a curious thing, to announce one's socking at ANI, but, horses for courses I guess.  ——Serial  19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh. IP /64 range blocked for 72 hours for the admitted block evasion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh indeed. -- A Rose Wolf  19:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the first time someone came here demanding their account be unblocked, but it still hurts my head a little each time it happens. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from Fancy vibēs
Talk page abuse, such as removing messages and warnings and continuously pinging blocking/block reviewing admins and me. Please revoke TPA. – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to have stopped of its own accord, possibly when it became apparent that repeated calls to reveal the method by which this was uncovered fell on deaf ears. Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So TPA removal hasn't been included in Fancy vibes's block yet, probably because there isn't clear or rapid disruption or misuse on the talk page, and I can see that. However though, they just made, and it appears to me that this will be their last one before TPA is revoked. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  23:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's enough. TPA removed and unblock request declined. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but has TPA actually been removed? I don't see an entry in the block log. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  01:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. (Seriously, thanks I thought I did!) RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic-ban requested for User:Jayvrr at Chandragupta Maurya
Persistent pov-pushing at Chandragupta Maurya, replacing "Brahmanism" with "Jainism" as Chandragupta's religion: diff, diff, diff, diff. Sources mention Brahmanism; reference 9 also provides an explanatory quote; issue has been debated ad infinitum at talkpage (with "Hinduism" as the alternatibe pov-pushing): Editor has received multiple warnings link to talkpage-history; Enough waste of time, please a topic-ban for Jayvrr. Pinging RegentsPark for input. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Chandragupta Maurya
 * Talk:Chandragupta Maurya
 * Talk:Chandragupta Maurya
 * Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2
 * Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2
 * Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2
 * Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2
 * I've blocked them from the Chandragupta Maurya page for one week and warned them. RegentsPark (comment) 12:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  18:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest u to read talk page properly.If u read his link properly it is considering only greek evidence not accepted by all the scholars.
 * But the Evidence of B. Levis Rice which i gave was accepted by all the scholars. So it was clear that he accepted Jainism. Simply blocking someone without reading or viewing full history by people such as who blocked me should be criticized. I criticize the person who blocked be just by hearing one person's side and not others. On talk page successfuly by giving evidence i proved that Chandragupta accepted Jainism. The link he sent considered only greek view. I am blocking myself from wikipedia because it considers only some peoples view and when discussed by other member he/she is blocked. Jayvrr (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I quit myself from wikipedia and appeal to new members not to join and discuss any topic on it if he or she does so he will be blocked without any appropriatte reason or judgement criteria. Jayvrr (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone tries to discuss he is regardes as pov pushing editor, and blocked. Jayvrr (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Polemic replies like this in a contentious topic area usually justifies, at minimum, a flat-out topic-ban from the area. Quit it with the stupid games and admins will quit awarding you stupid prizes. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 04:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * oh for u these things be stupid but for me this is topic of discussion but when we try to discuss there is no proper reply and person is blocked. Jayvrr (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Due Unreasonable reventing of thre required edits and not properly discussing on it wikipedia is very back from britanica. Since this topic was controversial britanica never tends to write the persons religioin and if there is a need it writes nuetral statement. Jayvrr (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting attention to article Eusébio
There's been an editing war in last couple of the days on the article Eusébio that I ask your attention. One user, looks very biased on all matters regarding the sport club S.L. Benfica cherry-picking information and sources that highlights his clubs and diminishes their rivals. He has done this on other articles but this time its getting further. Rpo.castro (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Change title of discussion so as to link to this section, not article itself. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a series of issues with this article. There is an interview with Eusébio (primary source) in which he is accusing Sporting Lourenço Marques of racism, but this was replaced by a user with a secondary source (a brief analysis of the interview) in which it is clamed that Eusébio was accusing Sporting Clube de Portugal of being a racist club, and the text on the Eusébio article was modified accordingly. Comparing both sources, it's not hard to conclude that this is patently false. Whether this was an honest mistake on the part of the journalist or not, I cannot know, but it is evident that the user who introduced this change is aware of the falsity of what he is adding. Furthermore, his nickname suggests that he has an axe to grind and is making the change on purpose to discredit the rivals of his own football club. There's also the problem of another user, who reverted this changes, claiming that we should stick to primary sources (!) for sourcing content.
 * 1) Secondary sources are usually preferred to primary sources. In this case, the primary source allows us to disprove a very strong claim made by a secondary source, but the principle is to stick to secondary sources if possible.
 * 2) Primary sources should be used to only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. This is not necessarily the case here, as it would at the very least demand basic knowledge of the Portuguese language, and it also is used to make a pretty sweeping accusation. Furthermore, it's an accusation that adds very little to the article. I would personally do away with all of that if a better source cannot be found.
 * 3) The user SLBedit is clearly and knowingly engaging in tendentious editing/POV pushing. He's not being subtle about it, with his nickname including the acronym for Sport Lisboa e Benfica and almost a decade of SPA editing. I would also argue that he might even be violating Wikipedia's username policy.
 * Not being an admin, this is all mere commentary, but I believe SLBedit should at the very least get a talking-to. Ostalgia (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I find your comments to be very offensive and defamatory: "is aware of the falsity of what he is adding", "is clearly and knowingly engaging in tendentious editing/POV pushing." Correio da Manhã was talking about Sporting CP/Lisbon, which was indeed a club with people connected to the Estado Novo (Portugal). I have never hidden the fact that I support Benfica. I don't remember seeing you edit football/sports-related articles, so I don't even know you and you don't know me; therefore, one more reason for you to retract what you wrote about me. SLBedit (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's get something clear - you don't need to know me, and I don't need to know you, in order to identify a bad edit. You don't get to decide if or when an uninvolved editor can intervene in a discussion at ANI.
 * As for the case at hand, in question are two sources: you have used Correio da Manhã's short summary of an interview with Eusébio to introduce the claim that Sporting Clube de Portugal was, in Eusébio's eyes, a racist club . You were reverted by another user, who provided the full interview in order to show that Correio's interpretation was wrong, and that Eusébio was referring to Sporting LM. I cannot know why the staff at Correio made that mistake, but at this point it becomes clear that it's a bad source for that claim. You know Portuguese well enough to understand that, yet you continued edit warring to reintroduce your claim and preferred source (, - in this latter case suggesting that he accused both clubs separately of racism). Furthermore, even when you seemingly agreed to drop the stick and accept that he was referring to Sporting LM, you did so on the tacit condition that the fact that it was Sporting CP's affiliate in Mozambique was pointed out. This is link is undeniably true, but you also removed the claim made by Eusébio in the same interview about the coach of Desportivo (Benfica's affiliate in Mozambique) being a racist as well as denials of the original claim of racism by some of Eusébio's contemporaries  . This is unacceptable behaviour, and it's made even worse by your edit summaries, such as accusing someone who reverted you of being a Sporting CP fan  or quipping that you are "not responsible for [their] club's loss today".
 * I'm not involving myself in the content dispute, nor do I care about petty football rivalries. I have already stated that I do not believe any of this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article (maybe as a passing comment, at best, but certainly not worth all this hassle), and all the speculation about alleged kidnapping attempts and the like, quite frankly, I'd do away with or minimise as well. What I am worried about is your conduct - this kind of source manipulation, edit warring, and overall tendentious editing is far below the standards expected of an editor with tens of thousands of edits and a decade of experience. If you find my comments very offensive and defamatory, I'm afraid that's a you problem - you brought this upon yourself. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bad edit" doesn't mean it was made in bad faith. Correio da Manhã source was indeed about Sporting Lisbon, and you didn't assume good faith. You also wrote that most of my edits are "gnoming", suggesting I've never expanded any article, which a huge lie. So, as far I know, I can call you a liar and, consequently, a disruptive user. SLBedit (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A bad edit does not indeed, imply bad faith, but the fact that you kept readding the source and the commentary in spite of having been shown that the source was wrong does. You only stopped when you were reported to ANI. The way you have addressed your fellow editors throughout this process does not inspire confidence, either. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Fellow editors"? The ones accusing me of club bias while trying to hide their own bias? That's your (subjective) opinion. You don't inspire me confidence either. Cheers. SLBedit (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Rpo.castro forgot to mention the discussion I started at Talk:Eusébio. SLBedit (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop throwing dirt into the eyes of other people to diverge from your own actions. Your only answer to any question or discussion is throwing accusations. You point "your discussion" in Eusebio's talk page? That's not a discussion. That's only beligerant accusations, not constructive talk towards any kind of consensus, as well are you edit summaries too.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are still resentful at my recent edits to Football in Portugal, aren't you? SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to stop sniping at each other, or you'll bot get WP:NPA blocks. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You must be joking, because it pretty clear that I'm and the one not complying with WP standards, I'm the one causing problems with my attitude. Rpo.castro (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

CIR block needed
If someone believes that they can turn User:Yashwardhan Kachhawaha into a net positive, they are welcome to try. I don't see it happening and think this good faith editor lacks the necessary competence to edit enwiki. They create or hijack multiple articles for the same subject (Sainik Kshatriya, Rajput Mali and Mandorva Rajputs), create subpar articles like Sankhla where they reject the cleanup-rewrite tag, or Tak rajputs which has been draftified, then recreated, and where they repeatedly removed the cleanup-rewrite tag and restored text poorly copied without attribution from another article. Other edits like this are not really improving things either. Whether they are the same as, or working with, User:Mandorva rajput, is not clear. Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them for 1 year for disruptive editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * please unblocked User:Yashwardhan Kachhawaha Mandorva rajput (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the reasoning behind imposing a one-year block (as opposed to an indefinite block)? It's not something one sees often with named accounts, and the few times I have seen it, I've never understood it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite the large number of indefs I've given out, I do try to minimize them. My sense here is an earnest desire to do good work, but a lack of language skills that sours their efforts. I figure that a year could be a reasonable amount of time to overcome enough of that barrier, but now that you bring it up, an indef could be used for this and they can appeal when they think their language skills have improved. I woulnd't be upset to have my 1 year "improved" to an indef. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm willing to bet that 99% of the time, both methods reach the same result and either: A) The blocked user comes back with a different user name (per AGF, including both before and after the original block expires so as not to insinuate socking) or B) the blocked user never comes back. 216.126.35.244 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * please Unblocked User:Yashvardhan kachhawaha Mandorva rajput (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Does seem that way. I had made an SPI request a little bit before your blocks. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, when the requests to unblock the account popped up here, that was a dead giveaway. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal again

 * Long-term abuse/Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal
 * Long-term abuse/Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal

We need to restore the rangeblock on the LTA case Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal who is active again vandalizing the usual articles. This person received a Level 4 warning nine days ago: see User talk:2607:FEA8:BD43:9700:49E5:E5D7:4FD2:E8C. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, rangeblock for 1 year. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

A plethora of drafts
I am bothered by '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, 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)
 * 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. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 01:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle, can you briefly explain what's notable about a single Kanji character? TarnishedPathtalk 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)
 * 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... <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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? <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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? You can't copy-and-paste that quickly. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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)
 * , 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 <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Is 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 <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (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  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. <span style="font-family:monospace,Courier;color:#414245">#prodraxis  connect 15:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


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

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


 * In a perfect world, yes. But some people have erratic thinking patterns and like to jump around on what they're working on (myself included). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also pretty unreasonable to expect someone to stick to making a single draft at a time when the AfC queue was four months long until the backlog drive this month. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering yeah it is unreasonable. That was one of the initial points of objection against the earlier 20 draft cap proposed by @Indignant Flamingo. I've gotten a lot of drafts accepted recently and I hope the backlog will not get as bad in the future, although I think it will kind of go on a yearly cycle.
 * It might be the case that even 20 at a time is unreasonable, but at the very least based on this restriction system, we will have a lot of time for me to reduce my draft count and see if it is reasonable or needs to be revised. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Massive OR and CIR issues. As noted above by Asilvering, far too many of these "don't have the sources to show notability", and those that do are often very poor sources. This indicates we're dealing with a massive OR situation. All editors (in this case especially Immanuelle) need to remember verifiability and keep in mind that we do not start adding content, much less creating articles, based on what's in our own heads, whether it's our own "beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." (And "add it" obviously includes article creation.)
 * The editor adding such material has the burden to prove it is verifiable in RS, and that's nearly always done by including inline citations with the content. That is not happening here, so we can assume that 99% of the time we see her articles without any citations, it is OR originating in her own head and can be summarily deleted. In this case, because of the huge burden imposed by the volume, tagging isn't good enough. The article should be exiled to where all OR belongs. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valjean: Do you have examples of issues with their articles that have made it to main space? I don't see an issue with works in progress that have not established notability existing in draft space, that's exactly where it belongs. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's possible to create six drafts per minute without violating verifiability. All ideas for content "must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it", and "add it" obviously includes article creation. The sources must be in the draft. See my next comment. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valjean: I'm not sure you understand the purpose of draft space. Drafts are works in progress, they do not need reliable sources or to be verifiable just to exist as an unfinished article in draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's true, but shouldn't the very idea of a proposed draft come from RS? I would think anyone would want to establish notifiability before expending any energy toward the creation of an article, but maybe that's just me. Whatever the case, how can anyone create six drafts per minute? Something's fishy there. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Drafts can exist as a sentence or two to revisit later on and that's perfectly acceptable. Ideally, yes, you would include references in a draft, but sometimes people just want to make a note to revisit later on. I'm aware of several people who start their drafts off that way and add sources and expand later on when they have more energy. I say whatever way people want to contribute, let them, so long as they've trying to do so in a positive way (no evidence this user is not trying to positively contribute). As for the six drafts per minute, they mentioned making drafts in batches, which I don't see as fishy. I myself often have dozens of redirect creations in tabs that I'm just waiting to hit save on. I do it that way for a matter of personal ease and because I find it more efficient at times. Though I will say, it is unusual to create drafts in batches, but it doesn't set off red flags for me personally since Immannuelle has deleted or moved several hundred to main space since this discussion started. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Josh. Sorry about the delay in replying. It seems to me that this is what userspace can be used for. There is no requirement that articles or other content has to go through the official "draft" process. User drafts in userspace are a common thing, and maybe we should recommend that Immanuelle do that instead of overloading the draft process. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just discovered this page which might be of interest to this discussion Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note that I used to make articles in batches. Imo that was one of the major issues of my earlier contributions in that I’d get a lot of not so good articles made which caused the encyclopedia issues.
 * I imagine once I’m down below the free draft creation limit (20 most likely) I’ll still do that. Making a group of 5 or so drafts going from 15-20. That’s just how I perceive Wikipedia. I think of interrelated things.
 * Now I think RS in drafts are needed to avoid issues with blatant hoaxes or BLP violations. Very few of my drafts are about living people (I think I have 10-20 which is a tiny portion of my drafts, mostly on historians)
 * blatant hoax needs to be blatant hoax not just incorrect information. none of my drafts meet that criteria but I did once look through drafts about to be deleted and speedy delete nominate one about a battle in 2020 Japan which I think came from an anime or something but was presented as historical. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

, is there a reason you can't save drafts on your computer? You could have as many as you want there, and no one here would care. If you thought a draft was ready to be submitted, you could try out the formatting in your sandbox, and decide whether or not to proceed. Then if something else suddenly seemed more interesting ("Ooo, look, shiny!"), move on to the next thing ("Squirrel!") as often as you liked. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ec (Not a reply.) To the best of my knowledge, we don't have an absolute minimum number of RS for establishing notability enough for article creation. Maybe we should. If I see a a stub with no less than three independent RS, I'm inclined to say "You're at the wrong place. Wikipedia requires sourcing. Create your own blog." If there are less, it might qualify for Wiktionary. (Keep in mind there are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't mean we don't create them.) -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A minimum number of sources is unnecessary for quite a few subject matters and I think this suggestion isn't really relevant to the ongoing discussion. If this is a suggestion you're interested in making you would be better off at WP:RFC. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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? <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 23:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging . I'd forgotten to earlier. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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)
 * 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? <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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)
 * , I support, then. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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)
 * , do you think that you shouldn't be allowed to create any more drafts, but not have any deleted, then? <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 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 Oppose 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed from support to oppose. My same comments apply.....she needs to shift from quantity to quality but upon further thought 20 is too draconian of a limit for this editor. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @North8000, would you write a formal support/oppose in the section below ("complete moratorium on new drafts"), so it's easier for the closer to see consensus or otherwise there? Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with everything that North8000 said. An editor acting in good faith, but needs to focus on getting articles ready for mainspace before creating anymore. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support asilvering counter proposals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the particulars. I think this is unnecessarily punitive (see discussion below) and I do not think it will encourage Immanuelle to take more care with drafts, because of the drastic nature of the proposal, which would cut them down to fewer than 1% of their current drafts. I think that is far too much of a sudden shock for a creator who is working in good faith - if you want Immanuelle indeffed, just say so. I would suggest instead a complete moratorium on new drafts, until Immanuelle has fewer than 20 drafts. Thenceforth, new drafts can be created, but only ever to a maximum of 20. I think this would be a better option because it leaves Immanuelle in more control over their work; additionally, it encourages them to improve or CSD their drafts, since they cannot create any more until they have reduced the number to something manageable. Additionally, and with regret, I think a topic ban on Shinto, or perhaps even religion in general, may be warranted. Immanuelle has struggled with the distinction between, for example, "a god did such-and-such" and "the legend as recorded in this text says a god did such-and-such", and continues to do so on their newest drafts. Far more importantly, this is a subject closely related to nationalism, and I do not believe that Immanuelle's edits show cluefulness on this subject, which is a WP:NPOV issue we need to be especially careful with. I know many of Immanuelle's current drafts would fall under this restriction, so I suggest a grace period - some time for Immanuelle to get the Shinto-related drafts up to the best possible standard and submitted to AfC. If they're declined, well, then they've missed their chance. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 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 's view and new draft moratorium suggestion. Remsense  聊  17:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Give them a chance to work on their drafts now that they know others view it as an issue. No need for formal restrictions at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Assuming that around 3,500 unworthy drafts were to be CSD-ed (whether by the author's hand, or by time expiry), and assuming it takes a minimum of 15 seconds to check and delete each one of them, it'll still require around 14.5 hours of administrator effort to remove them one at a time. Then if we factor in the time it takes at AFC to assess and respond to this plethora of inadequate drafts, that's an even greater amount of time. All that's pretty disruptive in my book. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nick Moyes I have been manually going through my drafts, bumping ones that I'm unsure about (so they don't all pop in at once and I can check a few a day in the future) and csding ones I'm certain are not worth keeping.
 * Due to a category edit I believe I will have a thousand drafts expire in a single day. None of those drafts I believe are good enough to keep. Is it your opinion that I should somehow stagger those drafts? I'm not quite sure about the point you are making.
 * Is it better for administrators for me to let my drafts expire or manually CSD them? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle: @Liz, @Explicit, and myself usually handle most of the G13 deletions. While I don't want to speak on their behalf, I think it'd be best for you to G7 tag the pages yourself when you decide they're not worth keeping. There's usually somewhere between 100-250 drafts a day that appear on User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and it does suck when there's suddenly a tidal wave of 800+ drafts (I've seen this a number of times). I think it'd be easier on all of us if you tagged the pages yourself as you go so we're not hit with a tidal wave when they simultaneously expire. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * would G7 still work if someone else adds the tag? i presume not. i was wondering, since I have AWB and it would be relatively trivial for me to do so. Remsense  聊  14:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No as the administrator would check who placed the tag, see it was not Immanuelle, and would then have to declined, and give a warning when it happened hundreds of times. And an AWB run that put 1000 articles up for deletion with G7, would just hit admins with a tidal wave anyway. Though Liz and friends could probably use AWB to do a mass deletion based on a criterion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this seems a bit too restrictive as well as ambiguous. Limiting to, say, 30 or 40 ongoing AfC submissions, and requiring they otherwise draft in userspace would make more sense, since the disruptive aspect here seems to be all the drafts hitting the 6-month-mark. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is unnecessary micromanaging of a contributor whose work is in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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


 * I read @Licks-rocks, @Æo, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Siroxo, @Lightoil, @Remsense, as supporting based on their comments above. I read @Hey man im josh as opposing, likewise. Others (@Elli, @Relativity, @Nick Moyes, @North8000) I read to have stated no opinion. I am tagging everyone in the hopes that we can move towards closing this thread, because I think this remaining open is causing Immanuelle undue stress and I do not wish that to continue. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with winding the thread down. Remsense  聊  19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also oppose this moratorium for the same reason as above. Limiting them to a certain number of AfC submissions, and requiring that otherwise their drafts be in userspace, would solve the disruption here. Also agree this thread should be closed soon. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elli would you make a formal oppose statement in bold, please? Just to make it easier for the closer, since this thread is pretty unwieldy. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've added bold to my original comment. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully support closing the thread, and for the sake of an easier close, now formally: Support the suggested measure. Thanks for moving this along! --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I think Immanuelle has been receptive to feedback and they appear to be making a genuine effort to clean up their active drafts (their deleted contributions show quite a few CSD G7 tags). They've also submitted a number of drafts, many of which have been accepted. I think this type of sanction is unnecessarily restrictive and and I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh I want to say for reference this is the change in my draft count since the thread started. The first one being the number cited in the opening and the second being the number now. I am not quite sure how many redirects were counted for misspellings or whatever, but it is potentially hundreds less drafts now.
 * October 20, 2023: 3,946 drafts
 * November 7, 2023, 3,500 drafts
 * Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good progress @Immanuelle, thank you for putting the work in. I notice that you're not just deleting all of the drafts either, as your user talk page shows that in the last 7 days you've had 21 drafts accepted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Just to confirm and per my comment above. This would be my preferred option out of the two options. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add that if this doesn't get obvious consensus in a short time, then this whole thread should be closed down. It started over two weeks ago now, and that's to long to be under scrutiny. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, with an added recommendation to clarify the status of WP:REFUND requests under such a restriction. Immanuelle has recently set admins to the task of undeleting a bunch of drafts that are nearly identical in content. See this version of the page for around a dozen, with the ones I checked being copy-pastes of Onmyōji, so this isn't a theoretical issue, and a regular refrain in this discussion has been something like "I don't see that as a problem", so it's worth clarifying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can just say "Immanuelle, please don't ask for your drafts to be refunded, as it creates extra work for admins and is against the spirit of the restrictions". @Immanuelle, I see you're still popping in from break to watch this thread, can you confirm that you understand why this is being brought up? I do think we should allow for the caveat of "it's ok to ask for refunds on drafts that expire while on full wikibreak", so that Immanuelle doesn't have to keep interrupting what should be a more restful experience. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that a restriction on refunds is entirely unnecessary until it's been shown that it's an issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, my intent with my phrasing of it as a request is more to make it clear that asking for refunds does actually create additional work for admins, and to be mindful of that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These types of things should be reserved for when an actual issue presents itself. We don't typically implement restrictions, blocks, or protect pages pre-emptively because there might be an issue down the line. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering that's all quite reasonable. The only reason I refunded those drafts in the first place is that they were deleted in a way which didn't give me the opportunity to properly look over them.
 * I'd say most reasonable is when on a wikibreak or perhaps if for some technical reason I get no notification then I can refund, but otherwise any refund will count as an addition to my draft coun below the limit. I agree with that. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As you stated @Immanuelle, you had a good reason for the refund requests. You were not out of line in making them and, based on your explanation here, you wouldn't expect to request the undeletion of the number of articles you've added A7 CSD tags to. As such, your activity at WP:REFUND doesn't sound like it will be an issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh also as you can see on my userpage I have actually put a big deal of effort now to track my drafts and when they will expire, and stagger them out in such a way that I will not be accidentally mass deleting, particularly when I might want to keep some. I have notes present for particular days where a lot of drafts may expire, and have periodically gone through my drafts and randomly bumped some so that I do not end up swamped.
 * I presume this will also help admins when g13 is happening since having say 5 drafts from me expire in a day is a lot more reasonable than say 30. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This editor needs to make the fundamental changes to shift from quantity to quality. But 20 is too draconian of a limit for this editor and this proposal is just a part of implementing the "20" limit. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @North8000 Do you oppose any number on the principles of it, or would you be happy with a bigger one? I used 20 because my intent was to modify the earlier proposal (which specified 20), but I don't care for 20 in particular. It does seem an easy number to monitor, but it's no easier than, say, 50 drafts. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that you are working towards the right goal but the math format is not good. My idea (and rationale) is below, the core of which is a limit of 5 new articles per week. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I personally would oppose that one because it doesn't help to reduce the overall number of drafts, it just slows their accumulation. At that point I think we're better off taking no action now, since Immanuelle has obviously learned from this experience that having thousands of drafts is not a good idea and that there is general opposition to them creating hundreds more. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Remsense  聊  20:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


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

Proposal: Six month moratorium on making new drafts
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. suggested similar. Do you two support it?Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You've already agreed to it, so your goal here is to make a voluntary restriction into a community restriction? In any event, the proposal above this one addresses an additional concern, and the two proposals are not exclusive. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Indignant Flamingo I am proposing it as an alternative to your proposal, which I see as brazenly destructive. I could probably get my draft count down by a thousand by the end of the month, but an overnight imposition of 20 is not something that could happen without a lot ot potential loss. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the proposed restriction above does not require you to delete anything, I'm genuinely confused by your comment here. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would effectively impose deletion on a lot of my drafts. They would g13 delete while I am unable to edit them due to my 20 drafts being used up. There are many drafts I intentionally let g13 delete (although most of them have not yet reached the deletion point), and also many I personally consider promising but am unable to complete for one reason or another at the time. Imposing the editing restriction would make it up to chance whether I have a draft slot available when a promising one comes up, or not. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Indignant Flamingo Immanuelle's drafts often stick around in the AfC queue for the full four months. I checked my AfC log: I reviewed 27 of their drafts over July-September, and declined every single one. If your restriction was imposed, I expect Immanuelle would be down to under 100 drafts within six months, with almost all of the reduction coming from G13 and very few accepted to mainspace. It would solve the "Immanuelle has too many drafts" problem, certainly. But it's a much harsher restriction than it looks like at first glance. -- asilvering (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering to add a bit onto this I’m of the impression that most of the drafts you rejected were the best they possibly could have been based on the editing restrictions that have been placed on me. I’m not sure if I’m just bad at searching for books, but my general impression is the only available English language sources are these.
 * It’s left me rather despondent with Wikipedia. Rather than being given a chance to demonstrate any kind of improvement in interpreting sources, I’m just blocked off from using non-English sources.
 * If I was given that editing restriction I’d probably just submit what I thought were my best 20 drafts, and then leave. I wouldn’t be given an opportunity to prove myself, as they are convinced would be the case. I’ve already been relegated to a place where proving myself is impossible. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Now to add on to this I would gladly accept having five userspace drafts with no editing restrictions and a giant warning for reviewers to check sources very strictly, and I would take a full removal of normal draft privileges for that in a heartbeat. I could even try to make the warning template to be used there. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And if review takes eight months so be it. I think my problem back then was more one of rushing with my articles rather than not understanding per se. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, and I do mean that, I do not believe that your editing restrictions are the problem here. Your use of English-language sources is often spotty, and many of the drafts I reviewed were sourced exclusively or mostly to tourist websites and blogs, whether in Japanese or not. If I may, I think it's time to step back. I think you've given yourself editcountitis, or de-redlink-itis, or something, and that you will become a better editor simply by taking a deep breath and letting this all go. Easier said than done, of course. Go outside, play some games, read several books. Find something joyful, and give it to someone else. Become chill. Then try again. -- asilvering (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering definitely de-redlink-itis. tbh I have gotten a lot more recent enjoyment with my switch to citing books more thoroughly over trying to find online resources, which I hope you did notice as a shift. If so do you think it has been an improvement?
 * There are definitely some shrines I think are just too highly ranked for them to not have articles. Watatsumi Shrine and Kanasana Shrine being the big ones. For these in particular it is really frustrating that they seem very notable but English sources don't cover them much. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This editor needs to make the fundamental changes to shift from quantity to quality. But the specific proposals are too draconian of a limit for this editor. Something like limiting her to 5 new drafts per week and going only through AFC, with an autoexpire of these restrictions in a year would seem to be workable, reasonable and effective. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This would gracefully evolve the situation to an AFC workload of 5  articles a week, or a little above that with re-reviews.  Also evolve her to a new norm of more quality and less quantity over the next year. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's still far too few (and still entirely unnecessary based on the effort that Immanuelle is making). FloridaArmy has a restriction of (I believe) 25 submitted drafts at any given time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh what is the story of FloridaArmy's restrictions? I know they have draft related restrictions but do not know much about them otherwise or why they were imposed. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First, just clarifying, that is 5 new ones per week Maybe this is too few. But please note that in the above proposals this number is zero. But IMO that max total drafts format is a bad idea.  If there is a 6 month backlog, 25 total means  1 per week, 52 per year.  If there is a 1 day backlog, 25 total means 175 per week or 9,000 per year.

Proposal: Topic ban from Shinto
Immanuelle is indefinitely topic banned from Shinto, broadly construed.


 * This formalizes the other part of '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?<span id="Remsense:1698537146136:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — 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?<ul><li>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 is relating the details, and not the article itself, regardless of whether they 'actually happened', or to what degree. </li><li>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.</li></ul>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.<span id="Remsense:1698541527003:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —  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, with the context serving the internal purposes of the subject.<span id="Remsense:1698543223963:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — 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.<span id="Remsense:1698544116068:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — 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.<span id="Remsense:1698705509872:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — 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: . 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)

Violations of prior editing restrictions
I believe there have also been (perhaps minor, depending upon your perspective) violations of the editing restrictions put in place during the previous ANI discussion. I simply have not had time to respond here, or to take care of that. One of the previous official editing restrictions put in place was "Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion." A few hours after Draft:Ōagata Shrine was declined by User:Asilvering on August 30, Immanuelle added the declined information to the preexisting article at Aotsuka Kofun here, noting it was a merge from a draft but not stating that the draft was declined. This was followed a minute later by moving Aotsuka Kofun to Ōagata Shrine here and thus changing the article topic, a move which I reversed two weeks later without having looked deeply into what was going on (because the kofun is more notable than the shrine, for one thing). After I reverted the merge, which I found to be faulty independent of any consideration of AfC, Immanuelle then readded the information with the edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aotsuka_Kofun&diff=prev&oldid=1175521874 restoring content in own section. AFC decided that these are in fact the same topic contrary to my opinion.] This restoration, which I did not have time to go through or reverse or anything like that, actually causes a few identical sentences to appear twice in the same article. I have not been able to look through this ANI thread closely but will leave this here in case others decide anything needs to be done about it; I also have not had time to find out if similar violations of editing restrictions were performed elsewhere. Dekimasu よ! 07:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sigh. My decline did say "already covered at Aotsuka Kofun", not "merge to Aotsuka Kofun"... I've also noticed that Immanuelle has submitted drafts created using AI, one section of which I removed here: . The AI-generated content was added before the editing restrictions were put in place, but the draft was submitted recently. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Remsense  聊  16:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the only one I wouldn't recommend any further action, since with literally thousands of drafts, forgetting to remove one AI-generated part isn't that bad. But I mention it here just in case it's part of a wider pattern. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One more: Draft:Ichinoyama Kofun. This uses Japanese sources, against what I believe to be the spirit of the editing restrictions of March 15. The exact wording is Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft. They must also ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright., and I think it's very possible to interpret this as "do not put machine-translated text into articles" rather than "do not use machine translation at all when composing articles". I do believe the previous ANI discussion was equally concerned with the latter of those two, but it is true that this draft does not appear to violate the restrictions as literally written, so again I post this here more as a warning and a record than as something that demands further action at this time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering I did not use Japanese sources directly. Rather that was taken with attribution in edit history from the article Emperor Ingyō. Here is a quote of the original from that article attributing it to who added it.
 * "While the actual site of Ingyō's grave is not known, this regent is traditionally venerated at a memorial Shinto shrine in Fujiidera Osaka. The Imperial Household Agency designates this location as Ingyō's mausoleum/kofun-type Imperial tomb. Formally, this tomb is called Emperor Ingyō's misasagi (恵我長野北陵,), but is also given the name Ichinoyama Kofun (市ノ山古墳（市野山古墳). Another burial candidate for Emperor Ingyō's is the Tsudoshiroyama Kofun (津堂城山古墳), which is also located in Fujiidera. Ingyō is also enshrined at the Imperial Palace along with other emperors and members of the Imperial Family at the Three Palace Sanctuaries."

- Knowledgekid87


 * I presume User:Knowledgekid87 did the proper verification. I do not interpret using someone elses interpretation of a Japanese language source as being in violation.
 * I will continue with my break, but I consider this to have been important enough to warrant an immediate response. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Im not sure what this whole discussion is about, but the information/references regarding the Kofuns were already present in the articles before I started working on them (See: Emperor Yūryaku). I've been fixing up the Emperor of Japan articles to include what is and isn't known about them (see: Emperor Chūai) according to the references already provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're fine. User:Immanuelle was claiming that rather than using AI to translate Japanese sources they didn't understand (which they are expressly prohibited from doing), they were using the source you provided. Seems like this was just a passing reference of your edits. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

This proposal could work because: a) It addresses the problem of the enormous amount of drafts that Immanuelle has. b) It gives Immanuelle a push to work on drafts to make them at least inclusion quality. c) It gives Immanuelle a bit more wiggle room with a 50 draft cap instead of 20. I know it's a very complicated plan, so if there's any other way of addressing some common problems, we'd all like to hear it. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 01:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Why do we even need to do anything at this point? They've been made aware that others view this as an issue and they've taken action to rectify it. Based on their talk page, they've had 21 drafts accepted in the past week. They've also been making an effort to A7 tag pages that they don't believe will qualify for main space. At this point in time they have roughly 500 fewer drafts than when this discussion started. Why does there need to be any sanctions at all when the user is responding to and attempting to adjust their behaviour based on the criticism they've received?
 * That's exactly what we should want out of people, and yet people keep proposing new sanctions that won't actually help to protect or improve the encyclopedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You do have a point. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#17a8ad;color:white;">‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is way too much pressure. Immanuelle would have to improve 100 drafts a day, and then there's a massive influx of work at the end of the month - the worst of all possible worlds. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I managed to reduce my draft count by almost 500 over the past 2 weeks and it was maddening.
 * This also specifically counteracts some of the methods I put in place to lessen the burden on me and administrators
 * I have used the page User:Immanuelle/Draft Staggering to randomly select from my drafts and perform dummy edits on a few random ones a day (and g7ed pointless kanji articles or ones I saw as lacking a future, or improved when I saw an opportunity) so that in the future I will never have more than ten expire in a day, and can look through them carefully too decide whether to delete them or not.
 * This means that over the next 5-7 months my draft count will be able to effectively decline without overloading admins with g13 deletions
 * Now that I learned g7 deletions are easier for admins I will do g7 deletions instead of letting articles g13 delete. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Some "two birds with one stone" advice. Work toward making articles that are more substantial and explanatory. To a typical reader, many of your articles use terms that they don't know to explain a subject that they don't know. Suggest working on them to be more explanatory for an average reader and more substantial.    This takes work.  The result would be better articles and fewer numbers problems such as those being discussed here. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that nothing needs to be done here, but if Immanuelle created drafts at a rate of half a dozen per minute, is it really that strange that they should have to improve those articles in order to keep them?  MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE  IS REAL EMO!discuss real emo here... 07:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ...is it really that strange that they should have to improve those articles in order to keep them – Not strange at all. I think they've been receptive to the feedback they've received and they're making good progress on reducing the amount of drafts they have since this discussion started (roughly 500 fewer now). Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They have been improving those articles, so I don't really think it's fair to put this much pressure to do so on them. It is much easier to create tiny stubs quickly than to later improve those stubs, and as long as they're making an honest effort, I don't see why we have to retroactively punish them for their poor judgement earlier. AryKun (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is unnecessary micromanaging of a contributor whose work is in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. Creating and enforcing these rules would do nothing more than waste editors' time. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose What this discussion needed was not another proposal. Twenty days and five proposals is enough, this whole thread should be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose a very complicated restriction that would require a lot of admin work, and reduce any usefulness of the drafts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Chalk me up as another editor who thinks this is a tempest in a teapot. Yes, creating thousands of cut-and-paste drafts is weird, but if this is how Immanuelle wants to waste her time, we are none of us her parents or her boss.  Arguments that many of these drafts are on unimportant fringe subjects could well be applied to the article creation preferences of many of us -- quick, how many of you are enthused about minor-league ice hockey? -- and contradicts the argument that the existence of these drafts deters editors from creating articles on them.  I won't belabor the sheer inanity of the charge that managing these drafts puts an intolerable strain on bot resources. If Immanuelle's antics trouble any of your amour propres so very much, grit your teeth, shake your head, and move on.   Ravenswing      12:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ravenswing I love that idiom, thanks for teaching me it
 * Tempest_in_a_teapot.jpg
 * I found this image which I think nicely captures the Japanese aesthetic of this tempest in a teapot https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/473841340/tempest-in-a-teapot-hokusais-great-wave
 * I also found these two pages
 * Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
 * User:Ivanvector/Drafts are cheap
 * I definitely think I made too many drafts, and it was disruptive to my talk page in a way I didn't expect. but I expect to be able to reduce this to a non-problem in a couple months.
 * I really hope this ANI ends soon so I can feel comfortable properly taking a break from wikipedia.I have all my drafts I'm really invested in submitted and the draft processing queue is not at its record low anymore, so I think now is genuinely the best time to take a break. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: close this ANI thread
Consensus on what to do has not been reached. This ~4-week old ANI thread is moribund. Immanuelle has not created a new draft for three weeks, as far as I can tell, and seems to be better sighted on the general undesirability of mass draft creation. I suggest we chalk the whole thing up to experience. Obvs, a new ANI thread can be started in the future if Immanuelle takes up the mass draft creation habit again, and it can point back to this one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support – Best to just wrap it up at this point. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Idk if I’m allowed to vote in this but if I can support
 * tagging @Asilvering @North8000 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support I was thinking of making the same suggestion. Immanuelle seems to have taken onboard the issues raised, and none of the suggested proposals appear to have gained consensus. Four weeks is to long to keep an editor hanging. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This thread has been in obvious need of closure for over a week now. I tried hailing a closer on WP:CR a few days ago, to no avail, but fwiw I will support here also. -- asilvering (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Another legal threat by fraudster Giovanni Di Stefano
Following on from this report, he's now issued another legal threat under the IP which can be found here. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 22:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted and IP blocked for 31 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) for two weeks. I look forward to being the first American Wikipedia editor extradited to Italy for protecting a page against legal threats. Sounds like a free European vacation to me. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, try to get hand-cuffed to the armrest by the window. The Mediterranean is beautiful.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hate to be picky,, but doesn't travel advice belong at Wikivoyage? Cullen328 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Since the subject objects to the title Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster), should we move it to Giovanni Di Stefano (criminal)? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Waves of test edits at Australian Bureau of Statistics
Help. One of many articles that's been targeted by new users and disposable accounts with MOS:OL and WP:ENGVAR issues. In the last few weeks, and especially the last day or two: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and finally,, which adds redlinks and links for "census", "online", "diabetes" and "Australians." The obvious request is for page protection. The more difficult questions at this and other articles with maintenance templates is why they're attracting droves of new users, often repeating the same errors and creating a continuous disruption, and whether these accounts--some of which have been blocked--are somehow related. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a massively mixed bag.  is vandalism-only but has gone quiet, and clearly isn't in the same category as  which looks like a good faith contributor, whereas  looks like it is doing the old 10-rubbish-wikilink-edits-to-get-autoconfirmed trick and preparing to drop some paid editing on us.  The account name of  speaks for itself.  I don't think that these accounts are all related.  Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This is probably due to the recent implementation of a topic selector to the Suggested Edits feature. If you enable the "newcomer homepage" in Special:Preferences, go to "suggested edits", and filter for "easy edits" in the "politics and government" topic, the entirety of en.wp has four articles to suggest. One is Australian Bureau of Statistics (the others are U.N.C.L.E., The Livingston Group, and Trinità dei Monti (think tank)).Cleanup tags are adding these pages to sparse sets which cause tight bunching of low quality newcomer edits (see Special:NewcomerTasksInfo). This is a new problem, but not the first case. See Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features for the existing discussion. Pinging User:Trizek (WMF), as point person for Growth Team. Folly Mox (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity (and already expressed at the linked discussion), I don't think this unintended consequence is Growth Team's fault. We experienced editors should be doing a better job engaging with the local configuration of the Suggested Edits feature. Enwiki has the infrastructure to fix this in-house. Folly Mox (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that explanation, . In this thread I noted other heavily-trafficked pages . Most of the new editors don't stay around long, and none of them engage or explain their intention, which only adds to a dubious impression. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this here, Bob. Alpha Omega Alpha was one of the two articles brought to the thread I linked as well. The other articles you mention on your usertalk I don't recall seeing in any of the extremely sparse "easy edit" topics, but I haven't gone through the topics with more than eight or ten eligible articles. It would be nice if there were some indication on the article itself what topic(s) Suggested Edits places it in: right now it's just guess and browse, so discoverability prior to disruption is difficult. Folly Mox (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just tried clicking through to a Suggested Edit from the "copyedit" task, and the guidance being shown to newcomers is still the inappropriate "small fix to the way an article is written, such as spelling, grammar, or the clarity of the text" guidance, unchanged from April 2022. (Sources for this guidance in the link; it's in the Mediawiki namespace.) It doesn't mention the specific cleanup tag triggering the article's eligibility for the newcomer task, nor encyclopaedic tone, nor ENGVAR. I didn't complete an edit through the Suggested Edits feature to see what it says about edit summaries.I get that the feature is intended to get people from zero edits to one and two and maybe a bit further, and we don't want to overwhelm zero-edit accounts with the whole of the MOS, but certainly some realignment can be made in terms of how they're being introduced to editing versus what we expect editing to look like. Posted whilst still waking up. Folly Mox (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had spotted U.N.C.L.E. from reviewing the contributions histories and had wondered about it, and presumably 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 had, too. Modesty forbade mention, obviously.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Me: people actually want to get university degrees in... statistics?!?
 * Statisticians: people actually want to get university degrees in... reading novels?!?--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My impression is that this has something to do with "growth tools" and "newcomer tasks"; people who make new accounts are often instructed to get started by helping with some suggested maintenance category. This sometimes results in like 30 random people (with no editing experience) showing up on the same page all in a row. As far as I can tell, this causes the page to get messed up (they weren't really trained much on how markup works or what edits are good versus bad), the noobs to get yelled at (people don't like when an article is basically repeatedly griefed) and not a lot of great outcomes. A lot of the time when there's some seemingly random page attracting dozens of low-quality edits, it is some kind of tool or guided tour or something telling them to go there and do that. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * From the thread mentioned by Folly Mox, here's a template to put on articles that are experiencing so much newcomer attention that it's disruptive: Template:No newcomer task. -- asilvering (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * User:JPxG, some points of clarification: Suggested Edits don't interface with maintenance categories, only templates (at the moment, exclusively cleanup templates: see Special:EditGrowthConfig for which). The en.wp community has total control over which templates are associated with which task, but we haven't done much to change them from the defaults afaik.Suggested Edits is available through Special:Homepage, which any editor can enable in Special:Preferences → User profile → Newcomer editor features. Editors can select topics for the interface to suggest articles for them to edit. Articles are assigned topics by AI, I think LiftWing (the successor to ORES). By default, only "easy edits" are filtered for, which at present is equivalent to the "copyedit" task. There's no guided tour like WP:TWA, just a few pieces of guidance that pop up as a modal, listed at here. Specific cleanup tags are not mentioned. There is a multi-link help panel accessible at the bottom of Special:Homepage, also fully configurable at Special:EditGrowthConfig. Currently, none of the five links is Help:Getting started, Contributing to Wikipedia, Simplified ruleset, Teahouse, nor Help:Your first article.So really, the effect we're seeing (seemingly random articles with sudden influxes of low-edit accounts making trivial copyedits, doing rewrites that improve prose or structure but don't address cleanup tags, or breaking things unintentionally or otherwise) is the outcome of multiple factors:
 * The community not configuring Growth Team Features to work well with our project
 * General unfamiliarity with the modern newcomer experience and technology underlying it, especially as compares with "our" early Wikipedia experiences
 * Topics with few articles that have cleanup templates marking them eligible for the default difficulty Suggested Edit
 * Absence of maintenance templates that can be addressed by new editors
 * Folly Mox (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This IP makes Talk:Italy unreadable, and keep repeating same arguments. Also unjustly accuses me of edit warring. This ip user is clearly a WP:LISTEN, repeating same arguments over and over:

Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is not acceptable. The weight of evidence is in favour of Italian Republic. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That the UN is the only acceptable source. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll ask again, where does it say that the UN is the only acceptable source? 109.180.140.175 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Naming conventions (countries) referred to short form names so it is not relevant here. You need a consensus or to point to where it says that the UN is the only acceptable source. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It has already been agreed that the UN is not the only acceptable source. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You point to the UN source. IP mentions that in general, "Italian Republic" is preferred by non-UN documents. You say there is an established precedent/agreement for using the UN source; however, it is quite informal. The obvious next step would be to open an RfC. Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 19:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agreed for a rfc however this IP users ignores my arguments and keep repeating same stuff, which doesn't contribute to the discussion and makes it unreadable. Beshogur (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am getting flashbacks. Uncle G (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Janne-Pekka Laine
Hello, I'm asking to make Janne-Pekka Laine a semi-protected article temporarily. I have developed the article a lot lately, and there have been several unregistered IP addresses reverting the same edit over and over again, and I believe it is the same person every time. No answer on talk page messages as the IP address changes frequently. Syvä-äksy (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The right place for this is the requests for page protection noticeboard. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 23:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Range blocked as a colo/hosting range. firefly  ( t · c ) 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Firefly, now there's Special:Contributions/2A13:36C0:0:14E:0:0:0:1, also Serverius. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


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


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


 * Additionally, other people might be trying to make edits to the article, but are getting intimidated by what is going on or a perceived selection of editors to push a/their version without compromise. It looks like the assumption is being made that their view is the "only" or "allowed" view, and that others don't or can't disagree with it.  This may include escalating or retaliatory behavior to set the conditions to ban accounts or IPs perceived to be in opposition to a/their specific version of the article.
 * Wukuendo (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't it disruptive for the IP to just come by and revert changes without providing any reason, while using a webhost to mask their actual IP? <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What would appear to be disruptive is arguably Tag_bombing as retaliation because an opposing editor (based on the timing from the appeal) has a different opinion or giving the appearance of attempting to ban editors with different opinions through false accusations.
 * What the above is in reference to, a negative exchange of comments were made to the Wukuendo talk page at 07:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC). Just some minutes later, multiple negative tags and extensive changes made to the article (without debate or consensus). Starting from... 07:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC).
 * There were and are many other editors that created the draft (I did not) and made positive contributions to elevate its quality (who are not me). Attempting to label any positive edits to the draft which appears in opposition to a select(ed) team of editors or an opposing editor, as belonging to me, looks like a form of intimidation or bullying.
 * My name should not be associated with this, because its a presumption of bad faith or gives the appearance of being used as a tool to setup for something else.Wukuendo (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Recent edits done to remove contributions by other editors (who are not me), to again push a preferred version- . The situation appears to be that only a select group of editors are allowed to make changes, and there will be no compromise with others.  And the impression is given (speculation) that by falsely associating my account name with any IP based editing, is to wrap this up (in one stroke) to make a global-like ban of all opposing edits, editors, and IPs. Wukuendo (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Martin Urbanec (WMF)
I cannot provide diffs because this paid bot-like WMF staffer's account is making bot-like edits do not show up on their edit history but they show up on my my watchlist. It looks to me like a an undisclosed bot run by an editor employed by the WMF that that grants new privileges to indefinitely blocked editors without any good reason. I want to know why the WMF is paying staffers to make such unproductive edits, and to explain why blocked editors like these are deserving of such privileges. Please see User talk:Martin Urbanec (WMF) for six posts that I have made regarding this editing pattern. I have heard nothing in response. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The relevant log entries are at Special:Log/growthexperiments. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 06:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The bot appears to be active despite the lack of response on the user's talk page. Not seeing an emergency shutoff button or something like that anywhere. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looked again and it's definitely still active and not at volumes that a human (or even a half dozen) could generate. would you mind turning it off for the time being? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that log shows that this paid WMF staffer is continuing to edit at bot-like like speed hours after I raised a concern. I have been under the longstanding impression that paid WMF staffers edited Wikipedia content only under the most narrow circumstances imaginable. I am struggling to understand why assigning new mentors to indefinitely blocked spammers and sock masters is in any way a benefit to this encyclopedia. Was this bot approved? If so, where? Cullen328 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328: When a user is unset as a mentor in the GrowthExperiments dashboard or whatever it's called, MediaWiki automatically reassigns all of their mentees. It does so in the name of the person who did the unsetting, but it's just one click on the part of that user... one click that leads to potentially thousands of log actions. This isn't great behavior for the extension, in my opinion—I've also had my watchlist flooded when someone gets unassigned—but it isn't botting by Martin or anyone else who unsets someone as a mentor. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 06:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note it is a deep night in this time zone (where Martin Urbanec probably also lives). Pavlor (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this related to this? The Growth team will reassign newcomers from former mentors to the currently active mentors. There's a link to this task in phabricator. I'm not very techy so I could be wrong; it's just something I found while poking around this user's global contributions. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) My guess is that this is part of Growth Team features and the actions (changing the mentor of various new users) are being performed by the software underlying the growth experiment (that is, bot-like but not a bot). We should probably collect examples of changes occurring with blocked users and request that such changes not occur for them (any block or just an indefinite block?). Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that Cullen has provided examples of inappropriate actions at User talk:Martin Urbanec (WMF). Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there actually a problem with reassigning a blocked user to a new mentor? I mean, they're probably never going to come back, so it's probably not necessary, but it's not really disruptive in the same way that it would be to, say, assign a blocked user as a mentor. All that's changing is who the blocked user will be told to reach out to for help in the event they ever edit again. They're not being granted any special privileges or anything. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 06:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not unblocking them, is it? It's just noise, really. Secretlondon (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone, thank you for all the comments. I've temporarily stopped the reassignment process, until this is clarified with the community. I'd also like to let you know I've responded on my talk page with a detailed explanation of what was happening and why. If you have any questions about my response, please feel free to ask – we would be happy to clarify further. Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (WMF) (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes,, it is a problem. As the blocking adminstrator I have had to scrutinize the edit histories of six unproductive, indefinitely blocked accounts to see if there is any benefit to assigning mentors to these spammers, trolls and vandals. These are blocks from 18 months to two yrsrs ago and are not fresh in my mind. It is an unnecessary burden on me as the blocking administrator and and an unnecessary burden on these mentors who are suddenly being asked to assist spamners, trolls and vandals. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We are sorry of the inconvenience this situation caused. As said, the reassignment process was stopped. We are working on improving it, to finish the remaining reassignment. Excluding indefinitely blocked accounts will be part of this new process.
 * Many thanks to the ones who provided nuance and context to this report. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trizek (WMF): I'd ask you not to make that decision based on this conversation. Instead, ask the mentors if they want blocked mentees or not, it should be up to them. There are good reasons on both sides of the argument, and nobody here speaks for the mentors or the community as a whole. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Levivich, I understand your message. Options would be on the table if any debatable option was available. However, what would be the point of providing a mentor to an indefinitely blocked user? These users will never return, hence they will never contact their mentor. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trizek (WMF): It's not true that indefinitely blocked users will never return; "indefinite does not mean infinite" as the mantra goes. It is not uncommon, for example, for an indefinitely blocked user to be unblocked on the condition of mentorship (assuming there is a willing mentor). Also, a mentor could be someone an indefinitely blocked user asks for help in putting together an unblock request. Now that said, not all indef'd users are the same -- and complaints about spammers, trolls and vandals have merit: sometimes, a user makes 1 edit, it's vandalism or obvious spam or something, and they're blocked. That kind of user probably won't benefit from having a mentor. On the other hand, an indef'd editor who has 5,000 edits may well benefit from a mentor. Personally, I wouldn't make automated actions based solely on block status; I'd treat non-autoconfirmed blocked editors different from autoconfirmed (or extended-confirmed) blocked editors. But this is the sort of nuance that I think should be decided by the community of mentors, who are probably best positioned to determine what's helpful and what isn't when it comes to blocked mentees. Also, the type of block matters. Editors with talk page access revoked and/or email revoked probably should be removed as mentees, whereas partially-blocked editors probably shouldn't be removed as mentees. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Levivich, thank you for the details. It seems to be a very, very edge case, no? If these users don't have a mentor but need one, any mentor can claim them using Special:ClaimMentee. This would be done after a review of their case, I guess.
 * Maybe we should continue the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features, as we are drifting from the ANI's propose? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trizek (WMF): I don't know if it's an edge case or not, but yes, this should definitely be discussed elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This caught my eye today, just want to point out that this reply by Cullen328 is absolutely unacceptable under any purview of the assuming good faith guidelines and the civility guidelines especially coming from a administrator. Martin is a extremely well respected steward and prolific technical volunteer contributor outside of his WMF roles and I personally do not think this kind of foul language should be directed at anyone regardless of their percieved roles. Sohom (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any foul language there, which is ironic given your edit-summary. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite "Foul language" refers to the last line of that reply which implies monetary impropriety on Martin's part. While I agree that the edit summary I used probably isn't the best, it is an accurate representation of the way Cullen328's reply comes across. Sohom (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have replied on Martin's talk page, in an attempt to cool down the conversation. As you can see, I have advised that Cullen328 could have expressed his views in a less irritable and confrontational manner. However, I also know that Cullen328 is one of our best editors and administrators (but I would say that, wouldn't I?) and I'm sure when he logs on next (he self-identifies as being in the Pacific time zone where it's the middle of the night as I write this) he'll apologise and manage the situation. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This whole issue should have gone through a review before running the script, however running a maintenance script from a WMF staff account instead of the Maintenance script user. I personally find that Cullen328 used stronger language than needed however. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 13:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not abnormal for bugs to make their way into scripts and to cause issues. In this case, the script was in fact reviewed and tested as per normal development practises by a different engineer but nobody caught the error. Also, in this case, the scripts were not being run in a improper way. What should have been a trout and "hey, please don't make this specific error again" has been escalated by a really sour reply. Sohom (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, under no circumstances should bot like editing not go through WP:BRFA Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 19:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zippybonzo Lots of editors run automated "bot like" actions via AWB, JWB, WPCleaner etc (you make a change to a template param that affects 200 pages, are you going to file a BRFA that might take a month or would you just use AWB/JWB/Pywikibot to clean up those instances). Non of these actions require WP:BRFA approval at all. These actions that are performed by the maintainance script are similar cleanup actions. Sohom (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oof... retired from mentorship is not how I would describe Nosebagbear (RIP). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We will change the language for the next run of the script. We miss Nosebagbear too, he was a great person. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Trizek (WMF), glad to hear that. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the nasty tone that I showed, . The watchlist notifications that I was getting had no evidence that the actions were coming from a script and every indication that Martin was carrying out the actions personally. I left six messages over an hour and a half and was quite irritated over the lack of a response. I am sorry. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Cullen328, I appreciate that. I understand that both the mass reassignment itself and me not responding on the talk page were likely an irritating surprise for you. I am sorry you had that bad experience. As @Trizek (WMF) mentioned above, we are working on the issue. We will review how we treat indefinitely blocked users and the log messages before restarting the work on this. Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This is kind of a long thread, and I am getting kind of confused trying to read it. Can someone clarify what the actual thing being done here was, and what bad thing happened as a result of it such that we're demanding they stop? I am unable to figure out what was being referred to by blocked users being given special rights. Did this actually happen or was someone just misreading logs? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @JPxG, blocked users don't get special rights. The Growth team ran a maintenance script to assign mentors to accounts who don't have a mentor. The script assigned a mentor to indefinitely blocked users, which was raised as a possible issue. The maintenance script was stopped and will be fixed before resuming. Also, some words went once beyond thoughts but in the end, every party apologized. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for clarity
I'm not sure I am in the right forum but I am not really sure where else to go with this question (please let me know if there was a better spot to go for this). I would appreciate some feedback at User talk:BeLucky. I was sent a private e-mail by asking for my input because the editor was accused of edit warring at Glen T. Martin and felt they were being treated unfairly. I don't know the user well and only interacted with them once previously through a DYK review. Is that technically canvassing, if an editor is asking me to comment on a discussion on their talk page and asking for advice when they've been accused of misconduct? I remember something like this coming up at an ANI discussion years ago and left that conversation understanding that canvassing applied only to public conversations involving the consensus building process and didn't involve issues in user space or apply to editors seeking council when they have been accused of misconduct. I'm not sure if I am misunderstanding community policy or not. Regardless, BeLucky was edit warring, and it was largely due to that user's misunderstanding of deletion procedure. The unregistered editor who placed the warning, 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D, failed to engage with BeLucky at Talk:Glen T. Martin prior to giving a warning and communicated only through edit summaries in reversions. I basically called them out for uncivil behavior for not following WP:RCD procedure and policy at Edit warring which requires that the first step in conflict resolution involve a talk page discussion; something they are not receiving well. All of this to say, am I right on my understanding here, or is 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D's take on policy correct? I'm now doubting myself, and whether I should have just ignored that e-mail. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, it would have been best to workshop a concise question for VPP, but that is both of our fault. Toward the end we were discussing whether reverts like these, , , , require the reverter to initiate discussion on the talk page. There was also some discussion over when WP:STEALTH was a concern though as a side topic, some other stuff came up to. Bit of a wall of text unfortunately, if I have time in 16 hours or so I may go through and see if we can try to come up with a joint summary. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I purposefully chose not to engage with the examples given above because they are from a different article and are off topic distractions. The issue here isn't the appropriateness of the revert. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D was absolutely right to revert BeLucky. The issue here is how to appropriately respond to an editor who is warring back after an appropriate revert and whether it is ok to skip a talk page dialogue in favor of going directly to warnings. Its my contention that in order to WP:AGF one must take the time to start a dialogue on the talk page first in accordance with WP:RCD, Edit warring, and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR before resorting to a punitive/shaming tactic like a warning. Skipping that step seems overly hostile and uncivil to me because it removes a chance of solving things in a kinder and potentially more peaceful way, it prevents community consensus building by removing the conversation to user space rather than allowing for a conversation to happen on a community page, and it prevents a conversation from happening that could educate the person who may not understand the relevant policies.4meter4 (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish editors would actually talk with each other more, but templating is the norm especially with edit warring. In many cases to get action taken you are basically required to have given a formal (template) warning. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would seem then that recommended practice at Edit warring which suggests starting on the talk page and avoiding placing warning templates if you are an involved party isn’t normal practice. That’s confusing.4meter4 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggestions and recommendations are things that should be done, not things that must be done. Adding a template in itself is not WP:UNCIVIL, even of it's not exactly friendly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is a policy page not a guideline page, so I thought it would be a "must be done" thing rather than "best practice" per WP:POLICIES. It also states ". Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive." Aggressive editing is a specific behavior listed at WP:ESDONTS so the connection between template placement by an involved user and uncivil behavior seems to be written into the policy language.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the phrase "should normally", also "avoid" is not "don't" and "it can" is not "it is". A single template of an editor, who is edit warring to retain a PROD against another editor who isn't the original author, is not WP:UNCIVIL. You would need to show a consistent behavioural issue. Otherwise a gentle reminder of WP:BRD and WP:DTTR is all that's needed. The IPs comments were not hostile, even after BeLucky's baseless accusation of COI and LOUTSOCK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I can accept that, although I personally think a talk page discussion would have been a better way to engage with BeLucky to begin with. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bigoted editor
A newly registered account showing all hallmarks of a sockpuppet is telling me that "maybe you belong to a minority community of india who is opposed to strong india-israel relations" only because I reverted this blatant puffery.

I saw this editor calling another editor "i understand you hate hinduism but why even do this type of deception ?". Without any evidence.

This is clear cut violation of WP:NOFASH and we have clearly got a Hindutva bigot with competence issues.

This response "Any seasoned editor can frame me for anything and get me blocked. I'm out" tells he is WP:NOTHERE. Capitals00 (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * did you just called me bigot? Cosmotech92 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * and you also called me a nazi??? is this not personal attack??? Cosmotech92 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 please refrain from making personal attacks. They are adding flames to the fire. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * not only this.i have been indeed very respectful to him after he called my perfectly sourced edits as childish and puffery and reverted them two times in a row without proper explaination.i even explained to him how quoting someone for what they said with reliable source is not puffery and even showed him a friendly gesture.this report by him is extremely motivated because maybe he dosent like me. Cosmotech92 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * maybe i implied something but i never called him any names but he called me a bigot and a nazi infront of you all.how is this acceptable? Cosmotech92 (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If an editor's behavior matches what's defined at NONAZIS/NOFASH, citing it in a complaint about them isn't a personal attack. As for the word you removed from the section header, see WP:SPADE. If an editor's behavior can be accurately, fairly described by an ugly word, using that word isn't a personal attack either. To repeat and highlight from the first message in this thread, the statement "maybe you belong to a minority community of india who is opposed to strong india-israel relations" is blatantly bigoted. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 20:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * and calling someone a hindutva bigot is not bigotry? and what behaviour of mine is that of a nazi? please explain. why are you all targeting me unnecessarily? why would you even justify someones hate speech? i am a nazi who supports israel?? extremely motivated and targetted Cosmotech92 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zippybonzo: "Bigoted", when accompanied by evidence that the user adversely speculated about others' religions, is fair game, so I've reverted your redaction. It's also, in my view, a correct assessment of the situation. I have blocked Cosmotech as WP:NOTHERE (see also WP:HATEDISRUPT). -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: This looks a lot like a sock of to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. More shortly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:NOFASH is an essay, not a guideline or policy. You can address behavioural problems with actual guidelines and policies without resorting to mere essays. JM (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they're aware it's an essay. It's being gestured to as an extant expression of their understanding of the respective policies and guidelines pertaining to the situation at hand. Remsense  聊  23:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * when i read This is clear cut violation of WP:NOFASH it makes me think the editor believes WP:NOFASH to be a policy/guideline because essays cannot be violated to my knowledge. JM (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure they can, activities can run counter to the views expressed in essays equally as well. Remsense  聊  23:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone can do something an essay tells them is bad, but there is no guideline or policy being violated, right? So I wouldn't call it a violation. Sure, it says right in it that many admins block people on sight for expressing views listed therein as nazi views, but it's still an essay. It just seems to me like using WP:NOFASH to justify sanctions against an editor on ANI when it's not a policy or guideline is not ideal especially when there are guidelines and policies which can be used for the same goal. I'm sure something solid like WP:AGF and WP:PA or something can do the same job in many cases. JM (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps essays cannot be violated, but the underlying policies and social norms that they are expressions of, such as WP:CIVIL, certainly can be. Good block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes more sense. Still seems like it would be better to just cite those underlying policies instead of a political essay like WP:NONAZIS or WP:NORACISTS or WP:HATEDISRUPT. JM (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Those essays are a summary of the community's use of the underlying policies. WP:NONAZIS is explaining that neo-Nazi and white supremacist behavior is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT, and the very presence of people who support such ideals creates a chilling effect for other editors. It's just shorthand to cite NONAZIS. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of all the ways to refer to a Hindu guy from India who is outspoken in his defense of Israel, I am unclear on why "Nazi" would be anybody's first choice. I have no objection to the block, of course, but it's sort of irritating to always see "Nazi" in block logs for people whose blocks have seemingly nothing to do with Nazism or fascism in any way. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Judging by the essay itself, it sort of offhandedly says it can also be applied to any other group by swapping around words apparently. JM (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an example of argumentum ad Hitlerum – tempting, but it's a losing argument. Like here. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  10:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised at how much certain sections of the Indian far-right like Hitler; their support for Israel is more because of the imagined common Muslim enemy. Might wanna read this and this. AryKun (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Javier Milei
 * 3 November: Blanks mention of political party and national deputy status; changes "achieved notoriety" to "Milei initially gained prominence as an economist and the author of multiple books on economics and politics, before he rose to political prominence." "updated intro as per Talk page"
 * 3 November: After being reverted, restores his edits. [no edit summary]
 * 3 November: Reverts again and blanks party membership. [no edit summary]
 * 3 November: Blanking of sourced political positions. "removed duplicate information"
 * 3 November: Reverts again, to a version that omits his political party, blanks mentions of plagiarism. "restored the version that had no content removal"
 * 3 November: Reverts again, blanking mention of plagiarism. "readded the missing content as per Talk page"
 * 6 November: Describes political opponent Sergio Massa as "from the Peronist fascism coalition". "added a clarification of Sergio Massa, as this may not be well known outside of Argentina"


 * La Libertad Avanza
 * 28 October: Changes lead from "right-wing to far-right political coalition" to "Libertarian political coalition", blanks mentions of right-wing populism, erases sourced content of "conservative and ultraconservative tendency on social and cultural issues", erases sources being used to support "far-right", adds the party's mission statement "fixed some content"
 * 2 November: Removes sourced mention of ultraconservatism "lacks source"
 * 2 November: Removes sourced content "with a conservative and ultraconservative tendency on social and cultural issues" [no edit summary]
 * 2 November: Removes sourced content "labelled as far right" "fixed content according to source"
 * 2 November: Removes sourced content "conservative and ultraconservative tendency on social and cultural issues" [no edit summary]
 * 2 November: Removes sourced content "labelled as far right" "fixed content according to source"
 * 2 November: Removes "right-wing to far-right" from lead "reduced repetition of words"
 * 2 November Removes sourced content "has taken paleolibertarian, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, Argentine nationalist, and anti-communist positions." "unsourced, these sources seems to point to people rather than the political alliance?"
 * 6 November: After being reverted, restores all the new edits from 2 November. "restored last consensus version"
 * 9 November: After being reverted, again restores the new edits from 2 November. "removed unsourced and questionable content that has no consensus. if you want to include it, find consensus in Talk page"
 * 10 November: Reverts again. "please check the sources again, the content you keep adding back to the article is not verifiable through the sources used"
 * 11 November: Restores preferred version, removes "right-wing to far-right" from lead "removed unsourced content, please open a discussion in Talk page for these content additions"


 * Peronism
 * 3 November: Adds "Ideologically it has been described as fascist." to the lead paragraph.
 * 3 November: After being reverted, restores the phrase.
 * 11 November: Adds "Ideologically its been described as a Latin American form of fascism" to the lead paragraph.


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


 * Juan Perón
 * 6 November: Minor edit, adds Category:Argentine fascists and Category:Fascist politicians. [no edit summary]
 * 11 November: Restores the fascist categories. "there may be disagreement, but it is verifiable that he is categorized as fascist by many, thus the category is appropriate"


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


 * Union for the Homeland
 * 3 November: Adds Fascism to the ideologies in the infobox. [no edit summary]
 * 3 November: Reverts, adds Fascist to political ideologies (sourced to a 1973 book, for a political coalition established in 2023). "added sources"
 * 6 November: Restores Fascism to infobox, adds "based on the Peronist branch of fascism" to the lead paragraph. "added a clarification of Peronism, as this may not be well known outside of Argentina"

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

Courtesy pings for editors involved in previous discussions:, , , , ,
 * gobonobo + c 04:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I briefly spent time at the Milei article doing some CE and also noticed this user's edits. Unlike OP, I do not believe he's a sock or an experienced editor (in the same DR/N discussion he cites we can see that he forgot to notify the opposing party, which is usually a rookie mistake), but I agree that his conduct is sub-par. On the one hand, the constant adding of puffery is blatant PoV pushing, and is often done without regard to the overall picture of the individual (for instance, labelling someone a "prominent" economist when they have a Scopus Hirsch index of 0 is hardly justified – most of his articles apparently were published in regional journals while other works of his were published by a Libertarian press or by more "popular", rather than an academic, publishing houses) and sometimes explicitly contra sources. I am also concerned about the way he sources his claims, and the quality of the sources he uses, particularly given the fact that he's editing around sensitive topics. More worryingly, however, the suggestion that Milei's rival in the next elections leads a fascist coalition nails the trifecta of unsourced, false and BLPvio. Ostalgia (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to discuss the content and choice of phrasing. E.g. that Peronism is a branch of fascism is being discussed and is well sourced. Argentina has a long history with fascism, but i think people are confusing it with the extremist versions of it, including racist elements etc, which is not included in Argentinian politics. I find it odd you would react to the word prominence=famous, but not the word notoriety=famous, when he became known in Argentina through his TV appearances as an economist.
 * The articles Javier Milei and La Libertad Avanza suffer from rather extreme bias by certain editors, and contain a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I have actually bothered to read all the sources, and check the verifiability of statements, which I suspect certain other editors are not doing. In several cases, the content appears intentionally misleading WP:NOTFALSE.
 * @Gobonobo has in particular been WP:Stonewalling every attempt at improving the articles, and has not participated in any content discussion on either Javier Milei or La Libertad Avanza. The editor even went so far as to blank and link hijack a spin-off article, to favor their own version rather than discuss how to improve the articles;
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1182023220
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_views_of_Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1182011968 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your summary appears quite one-sided and misleading. I'll try to briefly comment;
 * Javier Milei 3 November edits:
 * The lead has been discussed, and there has been consensus to improve the lead, although many of the discussions are now archived, there is a new thread on the Talk page where there has been no objections or comments. I further made adjustments based on your comments here, Talk:Javier_Milei, and corrected the things you highlighted.
 * La Libertad Avanza edits:
 * The discussion dates even further back than October 28th. The content in question is not supported by the sources, and has either been corrected according to what the source states, and removed in cases there is no support for it. Then you re-add the content without discussing it on the Talk page, which you at multiple times have ask me to do in other articles. Then you claim I'm the one adding content.
 * Peronism/Peron/Massa;
 * This is also discussed on the talk pages, and i have made updated proposals based on inputs from other editors. Amongst others, there is a source from 2018 discussing Fascism with modern Peronist politics. I'm baffled that this is even disputed, but there may be room for further improved phrasing, which there already has been some iterations on. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those listed edits are problematic. I do not want to start yet another back-and-forth discussion, so I will just say I assume good faith but would have only supported a revised lead we worked together as a compromise (it was not done yet, I was waiting for other users to weight in, then I stopped going to the talk page and edit the article because I was expecting a ping to my last comment since I was not watching the page and I had other articles to take care of, and I am now scared to go watch what happened), certainly not their whole re-structuring and other edits, including to related articles. As for sockpuppeting, I am conflicted because on one hand they showed a clear lack of policy guidelines about Wikipedia, and on the other hand showed some knowledge a newbie usually do not have. I wish it was because they did listen to my suggestions and links, not because they are a sockpuppeter. :-) More than the alleged sockupppeting, I find troubling the pattern, which is in line with my interactions with them, showed by gobonobo  and the fact they appear to be a single-purpose account. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and appreciated you taking the time to guide me in the beginning, i certainly made a few mistakes. The lead is more or less the one that was discussed then. The improvements to the article simply stopped after the extended protection, so not much has changed since those discussions, and I've updated the articles according to the state it was in when discussions stopped. You are more than welcome to check and comment.
 * Particularly the Javier Milei article is in a really bad shape, and i find it troubling how some editors are using every tactic to prevent it from being fixed. If only they would participate in discussions on the content, this would not appear as WP:BRDWRONG. Its also troubling how the same editors appear in the articles for the political opposition, editing with a different set of policies. Its an unusual level of bias, but it is consistent with the standard political practices in Argentina, so I'm not really surprised. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Including courtesy ping for User:Czello Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pedantic Aristotle's actions are very dangerous to the function of this encyclopedia. He should be banned or at least topic banned from politics in Argentina. UnironicEditor (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

IP-hopping anonymous AfD-closing vandal
An IPV6 editor has been closing AfDs including Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, Articles for deletion/Alvine Kamaha, Articles for deletion/Nkosazana Daughter, Articles for deletion/Westminster Declaration, Articles for deletion/Fabio Rinaldi, Articles for deletion/Hardik Gohel (now properly closed), Articles for deletion/The Knob (New York), and Articles for deletion/EyeWiki. So far three /64s (with different geolocation) have been blocked but I'm not convinced how effective that might be, and some of the badly-closed AfDs may have been removed from deletion sorting lists before getting unclosed. I'm signing off for the evening but others here might want to consider the tradeoff between semiprotecting AfDs against this kind of vandalism versus locking anonymous editors out of the actual discussions, the likelihood that the vandal will just move on to other AfDs, and what else might be done to protect against this kind of vandalism. An edit filter against anonymous AfD closing, maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh! You drew my attention to one of those discussions and as I was addressing a further point in the discussion after mine the person without an account did it again at Special:Diff/1184898956. Materialscientist, your  rangeblock hasn't worked.  The same person is back in  and Robtex hints that it's probably a . Uncle G (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now back as . I've reverted on the discussions where I'm not a participant.  Uncle G (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Given IP's can't close AfDs per WP:NACD, can we set up an edit filter that triggers when an unregistered editor adds an AfD close template to a discussion? Daniel (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and likewise for other XfD categories should evidence come up of similar violations in the past or future. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 15:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I can't understand why you people are upset about me closing AfD discussions according to consensus.  It not like I don't know what I'm doing and I'm trying to mess things up here.  --Anonymous (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.89.168 (talk)
 * Can I suggest an admin temporary pblock 2600:1006:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 75.112.64.0/18, from Wikipedia space. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also:, the only one I don't yet see blocked. Star   Mississippi  02:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss this first? --Anonymous (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've full-blocked 2600:1006:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 75.112.64.0/18, as there's a lot of disruptive editing elsewhere too. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 16:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, the IP has been told multiple times that only registered accounts can close afds, but keeps acting like they haven't been told it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that given this edit, the IP appears to have been evading a block since the beginning from User:Hasnainbv . Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, and they removed my !vote while closing... XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They're still going, now as - MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And they are still at it today with various IPs, guessing they are using vpns and proxies. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked a narrower range within the /32 block above (courtesy ping ) which should catch their edits on that network, although they've only been on it for a few days. Only one of the IPs already identified appears to be a proxy - our tool is far from foolproof but I think it's more likely they're travelling and using open public networks. One account they were using was created in June and did not edit until today, and another that's wrapped up in this is completely unrelated. I didn't see any other accounts but there probably are sleepers, and this is clearly not a new user. I suggest WP:RBI for any related disruption from new IPs, but for now there's little point in tracking them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And if anyone has time and wants to keep an eye on things, this recent changes filter will show any unregistered editor editing any page in project space. I have it set to live updates and running in a tab on a second monitor, and not much else to do today. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good filter to have, thanks for the suggestion and link. I've added it to my saved filters. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * IP is using a new tactic - close as an IP but sign it as an editor, then make a null edit with a different IP to prevent use of rollback. See and their various histories. I'll leave a note at the person who's signature they're using, but I'd be keen to explore the edit filter again if possible? Daniel (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * More fake closures, now from - MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to provide some background info as I'm on limited time and bandwidth... This is BuickCenturyDriver (at least the later IPs are), and they've been doing this for many years. They're also known as the SPI troll and the unblock troll, and sometimes mislabelled Kingshowman. If anyone wants an edit filter, look them up in filter 1231 first. They use some ranges, many of which are already blocked, but they mostly they drive around retail/donut outlets in New Jersey so range blocks are of limited use. Some of these IPs, such as those owned by Target, may appear to be in other locations. Traditionally we'll just lay down a whole load of temporary semi-protection at affected AfDs while they're having one of their episodes. Also, Hasnainbv is unrelated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Paki STJj
The user is displaying either WP:CIR or WP:IDHT with a refusal to WP:COMMUNICATE. Constant addition of the same unsourced content over at Jallah Jeem for over a week now, despite multiple warnings and multiple users reverting them. I know I have broken 3rr at this point, but I'm claiming that this is exemption as the user is being clearly disruptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Acting on the ANEW report I have indefinitely blocked User:Paki STJj for persistent edit warring without any attempt at using any talk page. I blocked User:Lavalizard101 for 24 hours for edit warring, as they acknowledge above that they have broken 3RR (7 reverts) and the other editor being clearly disruptive is not an exception under WP:3RRNO. - Aoidh (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion
was indeffed for continued socking (editing while logged out and then logging back in to edit war and vice versa) in December 2022. For example 2003:d2:571e:fb8a:353d:3fe6:a7e3:827f made an edit to Administrative divisions of Ukraine and then Dav2ry restored the edit 10 minutes later after it was reverted. One year later there are still IPs in the same /32 range (2003:D2:0:0:0:0:0:0/32) making edits to Ukraine-related articles including the same articles that Dav2ry7 edited e.g. Administrative divisions of Ukraine. There are also IPv4 addresses in the same /16 range as before (93.224.0.0/16) that make the same edits and geolocate to roughly the same area. See for example this edit by 93.224.170.22 on the same article which restored an edit made by Dav2ry7 that was reverted and was made 2 minutes before Dav2ry7 made another edit logged in (just before being indeffed for this). Is it possible to block these ranges? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A complaint about User:Dav2ry7 was also made in 2022. User:Ymblanter was the admin who blocked the registered account. The above example edits are only from 2022. If Dav2ry7 is currently active in 2023 on IPs, what are some examples of that? The ranges you have mentioned are very large and it may not be reasonable to block them. But I could imagine semiprotecting some individual articles such as Administrative divisions of Ukraine. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Administrative divisions of Ukraine
 * 93.224.161.180
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a56:61bf:a4f0:396d:7c5c
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a56:ec3c:7ff5:3800:4774
 * Road signs in Ukraine
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a23:bde2:f367:eb41:3c1f
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a5e:9483:968b:5287:f85d
 * 93.224.161.180
 * 2003:d2:5737:196f:81c0:44c:f22b:a7cd
 * Dav2ry7 also made POV edits e.g. continuously removing/changing the alt name "Old Russian" in the lead of Old East Slavic (see) and I have noticed IPs in the same range recently doing the same thing. Mellk (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At the same time there has also recently been mass edits made by IPs in the same range in Cossack Hetmanate for example:
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a6f:98d4:b32d:d6b2:d179
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a8a:4dca:9950:d7dc:6e45
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a8a:79c0:8b7d:c2e2:19cf
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a8a:cc8b:2df1:6696:99f
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a56:2495:acee:2d5a:8a5f
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a56:ec3c:7ff5:3800:4774
 * 2003:d2:573c:1a56:61bf:a4f0:396d:7c5c
 * 2003:d2:573c:1abd:3546:9643:c9ea:4eee
 * Mellk (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned several articles by name in the above report, so I've put either three or six months of semiprotection on each one:
 * Administrative divisions of Ukraine
 * Road signs in Ukraine
 * Old East Slavic
 * Cossack Hetmanate
 * I hope this helps. I don't see any rangeblocks that would be practical. –EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you. Mellk (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation on settlement page


The page Kifri (an Iraqi settlement) has been somehow vandalized. The infobox falsely claims it is part of Sulaymaniyah Governorate and Kurdistan Region, both of which are not true, and this seems to be an ethnically motivated case of vandalism. As the sourced text and sources clearly state ( [ https://reliefweb.int/map/iraq/iraq-diyala-governorate-kifri-district-9-august-2014 ]), it is part of Diyala Governorate in Kifri District, Diyala Governorate. Please see that this is reverted and fixed since the page is protected. House of tabooleh (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be a matter that needs admin attention. Why not take the matter to the article's talk page? --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a content dispute. Pinging, who has added/reverted that information several times (although I'm not sure if they are the first person who added it).  Please discuss it on Talk:Kifri, where there is already a section devoted to the issue. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * OP blocked as a sock. Someone (not me) should probably request a global lock at Meta per Sockpuppet investigations/Kurdiyate352.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The change was done by IP @86.5.90.150) which was reverted by the denied sock. The 'stable' version would have been this Semsûrî (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help with long-term tendentious editing
Today while reading Tax haven, I stumbled upon 's series of tendentious edits to that page. I went in and cleaned it up manually as best as I could after five months, but a look at their contributions reveals many more apparently tendentious edits, such as and. I alone cannot currently be relied on to go through everything potentially problematic in their contributions, so I'd be very happy if someone could help. The user in question has been advised about sourcing before, and the edit to Chinky makes me doubt their seriousness. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 20:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems like a case where jumping straight to an indef might be appropriate; all of their edits drip with obvious POV-pushing, and here is the complete list of their attempts to communicate with other editors since they started editing in 2021: .  Where's Lourdes when you need her?  Their editing is too sporadic for a time-limited block to serve any purpose. --JBL (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Darya2023
Darya2023 is a new contributor, who recently created an article on Anna Oleksandrivna Katrulina, which is currently subject to an AfD discussion: Articles for deletion/Anna Katrulina. Having had this article brought to my attention at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, I have been repeatedly attempting to explain Wikipedia policy on notability to Darya2023, without success. Instead, they have responded both to me, and to anyone else who has likewise tried to explain how Wikipedia works, with repeated accusations of harassment and bias, and most recently ill-informed and obnoxious commentary about levels of competence. . Given the hostile attitude, the repeated refusals to acknowledge Wikipedia policy, and the single-purpose nature of the account (regarding which it might be entirely reasonable to suspect a conflict of interest), I would suggest that an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Like any open organization, this system depends on the surrounding environment. Innovations bring changes to systems with the aim of improvement and increased efficiency. The time is not far when artificial intelligence will be addressing what we are discussing here. I'm just trying to convey the idea that there are several decision-making systems. For instance, one that appeals to rules set by someone. But there are alternatives. There's a decision-making system based on appropriateness. I believe this article is appropriate on Wikipedia. I provided evidence earlier. Darya2023 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I believe that proposing to block users simply because they have an alternative decision-making system based on appropriateness does not address the issue of conflicts of interest or neutrality violations. What other alternative solutions can you suggest? Darya2023 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I ask if you are using AI to create replies? Certainly Innovations bring changes to systems with the aim of improvement and increased efficiency sounds like a content free sentence created by AI. If you going to claim that someone has a conflict of interest you need to provide prove in the form of diffs. Also these comments are unacceptable, stick to discussing content rather than other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I use it and other translators to translate into English. Perhaps it distorts the original meaning somewhere.
 * The fact that he was accused of a conflict of interest is mentioned by the author himself on his page, which, in my opinion, is a kind of acknowledgment of his work. Because criticism is directed only at those who do something. I try to discuss the content, but we are all living people with our own characteristics and points of view. I am researching Wikipedia. Does this also violate something? Any changes in the articles and their edits, as well as who made them, can be viewed by anyone interested in understanding. What other evidence needs to be presented? Darya2023 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The above statement regarding the use of AI etc for translation, together with the almost incomprehensible paragraph following (Who is 'he'? What does 'his page' refer to etc, etc, etc...) provides quite sufficient further evidence to suggest that Darya2023 lacks the necessary skill in the English language to usefully contribute here. We cannot be expected to engage in dialogue with a machine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * agreed, contributing to any wiki without any comprehension of the language it is in is not acceptable JM (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure also that it's all pure self-promotion, or at least a strong COI. The claims were stretching it and most don't even match with the references. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 16:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's not self-promotion, paid promotion, or a close connection to the subject, then it's obsessive. But it doesn't really matter any way, all of those possibilities are solved with the indef block. JM (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Indef'd per WP:CIR. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User:The Side566 and their malformed redirects
This user is repeatedly creating incorrectly formatted redirects, even after being flooded with warnings from several editors on their talk page (I've honestly lost track of how many times I've warned them) yet they continue to disruptively create these malformed redirects.

They've also ignored every single warning and failed to respond to any message they've received. I tried to teach them how to create redirects, but alas they also ignored my attempts in doing so. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to apply. Pinging other editors who have recently warned this user, and. <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 02:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This all seems familiar. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well actually,, not really. Someone creating correctly formatted but rather pointless redirects would be familiar, but this is different. It's an editor much of whose editing consists of creating trivial articles, with little or only trivial content, many of which contain [REDIRECT] or something of the sort, suggesting that they are intended to be redirects but aren't. There are other problems with the editing too. I was going to indef-block, but I was called away from the computer, and by the time I got back had beaten me to it. JBW (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely per WP:CIR and WP:ENGAGE. They've had enough chances - helpful advice, offers to mentor, editors fixing their mistakes, warnings and several blocks. We can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for blocking. They certainly had more than their fair share of chances to engage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

New user Aoqisjwii continued to edit WP:RUSUKR articles
This new user has been warn about contentious topics and on the limitations imposed by WP:RUSUKR on new users but continues to make edits like this (note that this is the fourth revert). They need a block, probably one of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've protected the most recent target articles and will protect a few more. I gave a final warning and plan to block if the RUSUKR violations continue. A block based on prior conduct wouldn't be unreasonable, but they only made about 20 minutes of edit violating the restriction after being notified of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I posted earlier this diff here, which is either vandalism or incompetence, but it somehow disappeared. Let us indeed wait what they do next. Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Russian IPs and LTA case Zhmailik

 * Long-term abuse/Zhmailik
 * Long-term abuse/Zhmailik

Zhmailik is back at it again with hoaxes such as Draft:Pensamientos Intrusivos. He's been using the Russian IP range Special:Contributions/95.24.224.0/19 for the past three months. Previously, he was blocked on the nearby ranges Special:Contributions/95.27.192.0/23 and Special:Contributions/95.29.45.0/24. Can we get a rangeblock of significant length? Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the latest range for 3 months.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Banned user using sockpuppets


Hi, Apparently, this banned user User:Blue Barette Bam, appears to be using sockpuppets to consistently harass other users, going as far as to make death threats and intimidation on edit summaries in addition to often racist vandalism. i have had to revert hundreds of such IP's (one of them for example 105.156.118.8 was vandalizing Nissan Rouge and harassing users before an admin had to lock the page. Could we do something about this?

Thanks,

𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP was blocked by prior to this report (I assume as you were writing it). --  Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to get this IP range completely banned from editing the site? 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, see WP:IPBLENGTH for further info. Jerium (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an IP range issue; they're using proxies so we're forced to whac-a-mole there. We could try edit-filtering terms they're using, but Bam has been very willing in the past to find filter workarounds, which winds up just making it harder to spot them. Revert, block, ignore is probably the best approach. If they're making vandalistic edits that aren't getting spotted promptly, a log-only filter could be an option. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 01:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned about harassment or retaliation from long-term abuse cases, the best thing to do is pick an admin in the category Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks and ask them to help. The "difficult" here refers to the level of abuse that can be expected in response to the block, not how much a difficult judgement call it is to make the block. Use email communication if you honestly think it would be better.
 * As Tamzin says, you can also get involved in filters. Ultimately, as long as Wikipedia remains "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and allows open anonymous editing, the situation is unlikely to change. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Harassment & personal attacks by User:100.36.106.199
User:100.36.106.199 Has made repeated personal attacks and insults targeted at me. They have began making false allegations of being "pro-Nazi" and of "Nazi POV pushing" on Teahouse, despite my having never interacted with them before to my knowledge. They have made these attacks both in edits and in edit summaries. As a member of an ethnic group that would not even be permitted to live under Nazi rule, I find this particularly offensive. The user is also stalking my contributions and reverting them. All relevant diffs will be listed below. An SPI would also be appreciated, to ensure this user is not a sockpuppet of someone else I have engaged with.

Diffs:
 * [1 ] - Targeted revert of my article edit.
 * [2 ] - Personal attack, accusation of being "pro-Nazi".
 * [3 ] - First warning by me to cease personal attacks.
 * [4 ] - Reverted my warning, again attacked and called me "pro-Nazi" in edit summary.
 * [5 ] - Second warning by me to cease personal attacks.
 * [6 ] - Reverted my second warning, called me a "pathetic troll" in edit summary.
 * [7 ] - Another targeted revert of one of my article edits.

47.219.237.179 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [8 ] - Harassment/trolling in this very ANI, and indication of intent to get both themselves and myself blocked.
 * 47.219.237.179 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * was correct in their observation here that this editor is well overdue for a block. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 100.36.106.199 has clearly engaged in personal attacks and should not have, this being the most egregious.
 * That said, 47.219.237.179's own behaviour does require scrutiny, as continuing to restore conversations that contain transphobic material, deleting large swathes of sourced information seemingly to whitewash its content, removing phrases like "war criminal" from articles about war criminals (which, again, sounds like white washing)... starts to paint a picture. We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 18:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree, yes. 100.36.106.199 very clearly crossed the line, but 47.219.237.179's own behaviour, including edit warring on The Myth of Male Power after receiving a very explicit warning against that (on top of everything Czello has rightly mentioned) is more than troubling. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the alleged edit warring on Myth of Male Power? I reverted a troll edit, then an edit by another user, once respectively. I then made a completely different edit, which another user erroneously called edit warring. That is not edit warring. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked a question and made a proposal on Trans women because I took issue with the lede wording, something which several other users agreed with. The wording was/is an oxymoron. Pointing this out is "transphobic"?? And I restored it because other users are not at liberty to arbitrarily delete my talk page topics as they wish, citing vague and completely invalid "phobias".
 * I objected to the use of the term "war criminal" because Ishii was never a convicted war criminal. He was given explicit immunity. I made the edit twice I believe, before other users provided adequate reasoning and I dropped the matter.
 * It seems like you are more interested in having a field day theorizing about and then attempting to judge me for my alleged personal beliefs than dealing with a clear case of a user harassing another. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually if a conversation has been started with transphobic statements ("trans women are males") rehashing a conversation that 1) patently won't go anywhere and 2) has been done to death, it's justifiable to remove it. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 20:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not being transphobic, merely repeating information in the lead of article woman. "A woman is an adult female", and trans women are not female. Hence my starting the discussion topic. To classify such a basic, uncontroversial fact as "transphobia" seems like a POV, ideologically motivated attempt to shut down good faith discussion. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the responses of the defendant for just a moment—I will be referring to the two IPs with this terminology for clarity—these diffs make both plaintiff and defendant look very, very bad. That's worth mentioning at the outset. It is not impressive to me that they are avoiding the use of certain charged, offensive words when otherwise engaging in very charged, offensive discourse. That said, I don't think the defendant should be doing what they are, it is inflammatory and allows these sorts of disputes to crop up over terminology, so they need to stop and trust that the community is able to appreciate the issues they are trying to broach when broached in different language. Also, they need to stop removing maintenance and perfunctory communications. Remsense  聊  18:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into the behaviour of 100.36.106.199 but I recently discovered 47.219.237.179, and then this report, due to their transphobic trolling and edit warring on Talk:Trans woman. I find myself very, very unimpressed by their entire editing history. There is a pretty extreme far-right POV across all of their edits and their preferred editing activity is whitewashing valid content from articles. They have made extremely inappropriate edits in sensitive topic areas and they clearly know the ropes well enough to be aware that what they are doing is wrong. They have had plenty of warnings, which they just remove from their User Talk page, so we know that they have seen them. In fact, they know the ropes well enough to make me wonder whether they have edited prior to using this particular IP. (Of course, that would only be a problem if they were block evading. Changing IPs is not, in itself, a problem.) I can see why this pattern of editing got called out for its far-right POV. Which is not to say that I am endorsing the way in which it was called out. This seems to be a stable IP with a consistent POV and editing style since it was first used on August 26th to whitewash content from 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland. It looks like a boomerang block would be unlikely to cause any collateral damage and I think that such a block may well be justified irrespective of the outcome here concerning 100.36.106.199. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: How exactly is taking issue with the lede wording, and suggesting a good faith edit (as others had done) "transphobic"? What specifically about my remarks was "transphobic"? This is as vague as it is uncalled for, and I take offense to its use. And "whitewash content from 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland"? I removed content that blatantly did not fit the section that it was in. That is not "whitewashing". I repeat: This seems like an attempt to make some sort of moral judgement against me because you dislike my edits, based on flimsy evidence, when a user is clearly harassing and attacking me. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You do know that we can all see your Contribution History, diff by sordid diff, right? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question or address anything I said. I offered an explanation for my edits, and you reply with a seemingly facetious remark. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop sealioning. The specific transphobic diffs were already provided by Czello (see above). Your contribution history speaks for itself clearly and it is apparent that you are just amusing yourself here by pretending not to understand the serious and fundamental problems with almost all of your edits. Were we to assume that your claimed incomprehension is genuine then WP:CIR would apply but I think this is far more a case of WP:NOTHERE. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not "sealioning", I'm asking for clear evidence, the WP:ONUS is on you support your own claims, doubly so when discussing sanctioning a user. The edits cited by Czello have already been debunked as not transphobic, and being purely factual in nature. Every wrong alleged by you I have been able to either refute or provide clear reasoning why I made the given edit. You want to keep making all these false claims and suppositions about my character based on edits, that I have so far provided clear, coherent reasoning for. Most or all of your allegations of wrongdoing seem to hinge on highly questionable, POV interpretations of my edits, which were all made in good faith and with concrete reasoning. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the only one who asserts they have been "debunked". Maybe you should actually convince us of that before you pat yourself on the back for having done so. Remsense  聊  01:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have explained my reasoning quite thoroughly, but if there's an element you'd like me to expand on, or question you want to ask, by all my means I am receptive to such queries. Nothing I said was pejorative or demeaning, I dealt purely in a factual basis. I'm skeptical anything I can say will ever convince you however, as you already seem WP:HOSTILE. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep starting a controversial edit and you undo my edit in good faith. Bonthefox3 (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If some administrator feels it would be easier to block the whiny pro-Nazi editor if they also at the same time block me for pointing out the (very obvious) pro-Nazi POV-pushing in an aggressively impolite way, I am ok with that. But a long block of 47 is sorely needed. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I blocked the 47. IP for a month for disruptive editing. If they had an account it would have been a NOTHERE indef. The 100. IP got a 72 hour block for personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, if someone is a POV-pusher making terrible edits, that's blockable in and of itself. There's no need to pin a bunch of strings up on a corkboard to tie them to Nazism specifically, and making claims of such repeatedly with no evidence is not going to help. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:TropicAxe
This recently created account continues to remove info by reliable sources with poor excuses while ignoring discussions and/or guidelines, very similar to blocked sock IP edits on pages like Oppenheimer (film) and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One. Their most recent edit regarding these issues is on Dead Reckoning page when there was a similar discussion about it on its talk page. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 12:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are continuing their behavior: ignoring reliable sources, misinterpreting the guidelines and making misleading statements again. They also reminded past misdeeds to malign their current actions, which is an accusation of bad faith, is a personal attack, and an example of incivility. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Birotron


I've previously worked on this article, and wanted to revisit today, only to be dismayed that a bunch of IPs (probably the same person) are exhibiting severe WP:OWNership issues on it, reverting just about any improvement I or any other editor made. I also discovered that what the IPs want to revert to appears to be a copyvio, so I've taken the rather drastic decision to delete the entire article per WP:G12 and re-appropriate the title as a redirect (as I believe there are enough reliable sources to mention this instrument somewhere on Wikipedia).

Admins can see the deleted history of the article here. In particular, as well as plenty of edit summaries that are basically "stop editing my article", this one (again, admins only, sorry) appears to be outing an editor. And this is a flat out WP:BLP violation.

I'm conceding the fact I might be wrong about the copyvio (it's possible it's actually a reverse copyvio), in which case I'll apologise and reverse the deletion. However, in any case, I think this is worth having a discussion about. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * After looking at the history of the article I think I need mind bleach. The user in the second diff is open about his real name, so that's not an issue, but the amount of belligerent ownership is staggering. There's nothing there which would be of much use for a trying to recreate it, a blank page is it anything far more helpful, so even if it doesn't meet any particular policy who cares? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy completely unsourced collection of fancruft, Batman! Ironically, it almost certainly is notable, but looking at the history I'd suggest that any article that makes it into mainspace be semi-protected ... for ever. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article using some of the book sources I have. In doing so, I spotted an interview with someone who I'm certain is the cause of the unreferenced fancruft that was there. Without wishing to fall foul of the outing policy myself, they self-describe as an expert on the Birotron, owning one of the few models that were actually made, and self-identify as being from the same geographic area as where their IPs locate to. I'm beginning to think this is simply a subject expert who's just never been advised on what Wikipedia policy actually is. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked for copyright violations, but the rewrite from the ground up seems fair, although there are a few early revisions from 2004–2007 that were untainted by any of this that it seems a shame to lose. There are some pointers to music magazines in the history, although with bare URLs that have likely link-rotted by now. There does seem to be some coverage of this in 20th century music magazines. If you want crazy edit histories, though, the edit history of Talk:Marvin Winans takes some beating. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That... just wow. What the hell? Who does that? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, what flavors of crazy haven't we seen on Wikipedia at one point or another?   Ravenswing     23:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Garrybcoston shouting and making rude remarks to other people
One day, I was randomly scrolling through some pages, and just decided to visit the Jacksonville, Florida page. I noticed that this user had made an edit that didn't seem constructive, and another user had reverted it. When I visited this user's (Garrybcoston) talk page, there were already numerous comments on it. For one, User:Ohnoitsjamie had told them politely that the images weren't good for the page, and this user rudely responded by telling them to "lock the doggone site" and say that there was nothing wrong with the photo they added, as well as shouting that they "don't give a dog's doo" on whether the image is good or bad, in addition to also calling the reverts Jamie made "stupid and idiotic". User:Philipnelson99 also gave a polite warning that the edit they made was unconstructive, but this user didn't accept their mistake and instead kept lashing out to "lock the doggone site." At that point, I came in and also tried to stop this user from going on, but they just continued and called me a "dictator", "pretender", and telling me to "fly a kite." I feel as if this user needs to be blocked for some time until they learn that they need to respect everybody. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Never mind, the user has already gotten blocked. I withdraw my request. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup, blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The block was likely in response to this post. Valereee (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

user:Gayreek22 has an offensive name towards the Greeks
Also this is a new user whose first edit was vandalism, probably a Sockpuppet too. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What about smelly gay people? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

PCR removal request (Queen of Hearts)
Please remove my pending changes reviewer; I don't even remember the last time I used it. Thanks, Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 06:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , although I think you forgot to indent. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 07:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also messed up the diff link in the user rights log, which I will now fix. Having some skill issue today! <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

"and there was hot sex"
. Can someone please remove this individual. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 08:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Racist NOTHERE editor
User is obviously WP:NOTHERE an Asian chink took personally and Wikipedia is nothing but another media propagandist given that this occured on the users talk page can somebody block with talk page access revoked? Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Election tampering and bias by user:Devonian_Wombat
I have been a long-time contributor to the 2023 Mulgrave state by-election page, which was a one-time event held on 18 November 2023 and is an official government election.

At 12:06PM local time on the day before the election, user Devonian Wombat made edits to significantly remove a lot of properly sourced biographical information about candidates, and the bio of one candidate in particular, for the Sustainable Party, being reduced to almost nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Mulgrave_state_by-election&diff=prev&oldid=1185481652

When I put the accusation to the user about what they have done, the timing of it, their bias, and requested an explanation, Devonian Wombat has offered the following explanation:

As to your claims of bias, the Sustainable Australia Party for which Ackerley stood is a a micro-party of zero political relevance. I very much doubt anyone would bother even doing opposition research on them, much less engage in some sort of b-movie conspiracy against their candidates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

So, they have admitted that Neutral point of view was violated in a well-timed attack against democracy because he took it upon himself to determine that micro parties aren't relevant and therefore should have their candidate information suppressed.

Given the seriousness and maliciousness of what has occurred, and that it is now past the date of the election where the damage has been irreparably done, I think that this act warrants administrative action against the user, and perhaps future policy change where articles should become locked in the days before an election to prevent tampering. Kleinerziegler (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyone want to lay bets on whether the pageviews on the 2023 Mulgrave by-election article since Devonian Wombat's edit will exceed the margin by which the leading candidate won? I think we can safely assume that they won't exceed the margin by which the Sustainable Party candidate lost, thereby making claims of irreparable damage to democracy rather, well, unsustainable. Wikipedia articles on elections are rarely that significant, I suspect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah. Considering the candidate that was "alledgedly" edited against lost by 13,677 votes and only got 0.8% of votes cast, it's pretty clear cut that the above is absolute nonsense and a clear personal attack on an established editor. Wikipedia editing is definitely not the reason no one voted for a nobody. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My criticism isn't in particular about the Sustainable candidate in particular, that is just the worst example. There were other candidates who also had their information removed. Maybe it did not alter anything in the end (I would like to see pageview stats though), but it is still a dangerous precedent to be making last minute modifications like this to be removing information and actively suppressing Micro Parties. It is not just about the election result itself, but also Micro Parties are trying to raise awareness so that they can affect outcomes of future elections, and when this kind of behaviour happens, it has affected how many other eyeballs who would have seen it and may have taken that Micro Party more seriously to help build on future elections. Kleinerziegler (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I linked the pageview stats above. When I looked at them first there has been 380 views today. Not even remotely close to statistically significant. And beyond that, Wikipedia is not a political platform and not a place for election campaigning or information to inform the voter. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 00:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a complete and utter nothingburger and a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense. Rather than attempting to have a good faith discussion with Deviant Wombat about their edit you immediately jumped to threats, ridiculous claims that they were committing "electoral fraud" and assumptions of bad faith. Deviant Wombat explained why they made that edit on their talk page (i.e. to follow the bios and candidate descriptions used in secondary sources), but you conveniently seem to have trimmed that part of their response out of what you quote here. You made the claim that information on the candidate's "actual credentials" was missing to which Deviant Wombat asked you to provide sources that could be used in the article, instead you filed an administrative thread. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok so in response to what has been said above, the content of my edit that Kleinerziegler disputes, as can be seen by the diff, consisted of changing a minor candidate biography from "Indigenous Trawlwoolway woman and Environmental studies graduate student" to simply "Student", as I thought the old bio included too much irrelevant detail. I did similar things for numerous other candidates as well. I assume that Kleinerziegler is just annoyed that by doing this I removed some of the content they had added, so I'm perfectly fine wrapping this up as a misunderstanding that caused tempers to flare and calling it a day. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is more than just me being the one to write it, it is motived by my deep belief in that the public should have accurate information about their candidates. Wikipedia is the top search result after official sources, even above media sources. Wikipedia is meant to be impartial. There was plenty of room to fit more information. For this candidate in particular, it was a particularly egregious offence because "Student" is in no way fair or impartial. Almost everyone in Australia has been a student at some point or another and it does not define a person. What matters here is what kind of student she is - a Graduate student. You could not even include the word Graduate. Your biases against micro party candidates are very open, and perhaps if you have biases against a particular group, you should not be editing things about them!!
 * If you would have made your edits sooner, then I would have just had a productive discussion with you about it. But because you timed it, it is clearly a deliberate effort. Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Claiming that Devonian Wombat's edits constituted "a well-timed attack against democracy" certainly wins the WP election for Most Over-the-top Outburst of Hyperbole for this month; congratulations. Seriously, are you truly contending that your average voter is significantly moved by the description of a candidate as being a "graduate student" or a "health professional?  This is just insulting our intelligence. With that, while I recognize that you are an inexperienced editor whose few dozen mainspace edits are concentrated in your local elections, I recommend you review WP:UNDUE before your next ANI foray.   Ravenswing      00:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the lede is sort of getting buried here, which is that Kleiner accused DW of electoral fraud, which is a crime in Australia, and has not offered any evidence for that other than disagreeing with an edit DW made. That is not acceptable here. It has as much of a chilling effect or more as a legal threat. I have blocked Kleiner indefinitely, for that and more generally for egregiously assuming bad faith. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 02:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block as Tamzin explained it. Wilipedia editors have no obligation to devote similar levels of attention to minor political candidates as we do to major political candidates. We do not make that assessment ourselves. Instead, we summarize how political analysts writing for reliable sources assess the viability of a candidacy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who would have guessed that a minor infobox tweak could so dramatically shape the future of Australian provincial democracy? Am surprised the entire continent hasn't sunk beneath the waves in the wake of this Mulgrave (where?) by-election excitement crisis. Oh, and good block for the reasons given. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about the block, mainly because none of the elements of such a crime have anything to do with encyclopaedia writing and it is a plainly stupid assertion; but I do hold that the people who think that Wikipedia is for political parties "to raise awareness so that they can affect outcomes of future elections" do not belong here. Project:Wikipedia is not a soapbox is not our oldest written policy, which is Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it has been around since 2003. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC

Generally, how do we handle tampering by the state or city?
On 9 November there was an election for Mayor of Hackney. On the declaration the following day, a casual vacancy for councillor arose in the ward the new Mayor had represented. By law the Council must call a by-election the same day but it has done nothing. It is legally impossible for this by-election to happen in 2023 but Cazenove (ward) says it will. If the Council doesn't call the election how do we handle that? 31.55.242.67 (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with Devonian Wombat or Kleinerziegler? --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare the last by-election.  Tom Dewey resigned as councillor on 16 May 2022 and the election took place on 7 July. 31.55.242.67 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Neither user appears to have edited that article. What specific bad behaviour from Devonian Wombat or Kleinerziegler are you alleging on Cazenove (ward)? --Yamla (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are just asking about a specific (empty) subheading on that article, if you think it is inappropriate, why not just remove it? I don't see what that has to do with the two editors in question or with admins generally. Or if you are uncertain, you can bring it up on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Council doesn't call the election, and an editor alleges misconduct, is (s)he going to be blocked as Kleinerziegler was?  (Don't answer immediately - let's see what (if anything) the Council does this week). 31.55.242.67 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors should not allege misconduct. See WP:NOR and WP:NLT. Instead, editors should include what reliable sources (WP:RS) say. --Yamla (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one thinking this IP is either Kleinerziegler block evading or someone trolling? Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The allegation by 86.23 is that Kleinerziegler said Deviant Wombat was committing "electoral fraud" (in quotation marks).  Can we have the diff of where Kleinerziegler wrote those words? 31.55.242.67 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it (21:33, 18 November). 31.55.242.67 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking as an art form


I thought I'd found a few dozen MOS:OL edits, but the user received a message about this on May 25, and has added hundreds of gratuitous links in the half year since. Since I'm not going to go through over a thousand edits to pick out and revert three or four hundred misdemeanors, I leave this for wiser administrative folk to discuss. Thoughts? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Her (I presume) edits are tagged "Newcomer task - copyedit". The articles are tagged as needing cleanup and the editor has got the idea from the WMF's newcomer task dashboard that adding a wikilink is a useful contribution to this task. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to focus on the dashboard itself rather than just on this user, in that case? The page in question is editable, right? It can presumably be edited to mention following any suitable guidance about what ought to be linked on the target wiki. Although I feel like it's not great to have it hosted outside of Wikipedia itself in the first place, since that tends to invite a deviation from our standards like this that could lead to newcomers facing WP:BITE situations where they do what the first page told them to do and are mass-reverted on account of it not lining up with actual policy or practice on the target wiki. Especially since many of these implicitly call for or could result in large-scale edits across many articles, which are likely to get particular pushback. Individual tasks can also be disabled on Special:EditGrowthConfig; I would suggest disabling the "add links between articles" task, and seriously considering disabling any of them that might cause similar problems (though at a glance the others seem fairly safe; adding a bunch of internal links is the only one that leaps out as "no, this isn't actually helpful if done indiscriminately, and these instructions don't make that clear.") In its current form the "add links between article" task seems to be telling people to just add links between articles indiscriminately, which we absolutely do not want new users doing in this fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Somewhat confusing but the page for discussion seems to be Growth/Personalized first day/Newcomer tasks (or its talkpage), rather than the /Tools page. There have been a few other issues raised in the past. CMD (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion above at . If I understand correctly, it seems none of our guidelines are shown to the new editors as links, and they may not be being told what specific cleanup is being requested on the article? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , basically: yes. The modal presented to newcomers when clicking through to their first Suggested Edit uses bespoke basic copyediting guidance held in the Mediawiki: namespace. See Village pump (technical)/Archive 197 for the full guidance. The help panel (accessible while doing Suggested Edits from a question mark icon at the bottom of the screen) shows Writing better articles, an MOS explanatory essay, as the closest thing to a guideline or policy page. Three of the remaining links are about editing with VisualEditor, then a link to Article wizard without first pointing to Help:Your first article. The final link is to Help:Contents.The maintenance tags are visible in the article as usual, but there's no direction to click on them to see what they're asking (and most cleanup templates on mobile are not clear without clicking through, since only the first few words are visible by default)., the links task currently applies to approximately zero articles (see Special:NewcomerTasksInfo), so it's unlikely anyone is seeing whatever guidance is associated with that task. I brought this up recently at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features and provided links to User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms and its regexes. Growth have stated they won't be using any exclusion list. Let's hope their AI model trains quickly for reverted edits based on MOS:OL once the feature is deployed next year. Folly Mox (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aquillon about focusing better on the WMF page like that one-- when what they're doing "out there" creates more work "in here". I had a recent kerfuffle over non-notable articles and copyvio image uploading which, after a ton of work and misspent time, turned out to trace back to Meetup/DC putting up long lists of often non-notable topics, which then are used by student editors whose work ends up at AFD, taking up resources in here and creating a bad experience for everyone involved.  And yet, it appears that Wikipedia Meetup DC mostly operates off-en.wiki, with unclear accountability, and reducing the ability "in here" to deal with the damage.  Both of these examples are reminiscent of what happened with WP:ARBMED-- where WMF affiliate actions were undermining Wikipedia P&Gs.  The root cause of the overlinking here, as the non-notable articles via student editing, as the ARBMED issues, are the same and trace back to WMF affiliate actions acting without full consideration of en.Wiki P&Gs.  Having to go off en.wiki to try to deal with it is unlikely to yield results, but that's where the problems originate. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Terrific insight into this annoying phenomenon that I've busied (wasted time on) myself with the last few weeks. Thank you, all. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:4498:39B8:ECAE:39ED (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in this and other cases, the users ignore notices about overlinking and just soldier on. I'd take the "newcomer task" designation here with a grain of salt. A half year and a thousand edits renders that irrelevant. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:4498:39B8:ECAE:39ED (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's worse than that when you cross them without realizing what you waded into. I don't know what can be done about this, but the appearance is that WMF will do anything they can to gain new editors, even if means creating more work and alienating old editors, even it means promoting non-policy compliant editing, and if it at times involves affiliates pushing agendas that have not been accepted on en.wiki. And most of the affiliates are set up in such a way that engaging with them is hard to impossible.  We should have a noticeboard where this sort of stuff can be taken. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with that. Whatever the flaws of the Structured Tasks modules and their interaction with en.wp, a year and a half and a thousand MOS violations despite warnings is an unrelated user conduct issue. It seems User:MagoLass has not edited since this incident was filed. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, MagoLass here. I am reading all these comments and I am very confused and not sure what is being said. I am not great at the wiki language just yet! Did I do something really wrong? I know I got a warning about linking in the past but I took that advice and I genuinely thought I changed my linking style. I’ve seen in a lot of articles countries being linked, so whenever I saw a country not being linked in a different article I would add it. Is that bad?  I enjoy links on Wikipedia - particularly when I am reading articles on my own. When I signed up, wiki suggested to me that adding links was a great edit! Should I stop doing that completely from now? Please let me know ! I would love to learn and I really did not mean to cause any issues!  MagoLass (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a post on your Talk page from May titled "Overlinking" where another editor tried to explain the issue to you. Did you read it? Robby.is.on (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Robby.is.on,
 * I now see the errors in what I was doing. I am so sorry and I wont make these kind of edits in the future!
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention! MagoLass (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Don't worry, it takes time to figure out Wikipedia's various conventions. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The newcomer taskbar is extremely poor when it comes to overlinking. That is, if a newcomer does not remove the Underlinked tag after they add links, the article will remain in the newcomer queue, indefinitely becoming more and more overlinked until someone does remove the tag. Curbon7 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's pretty funny. ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 01:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:TropicAxe
This recently created account continues to remove info by reliable sources with poor excuses while ignoring discussions and/or guidelines, very similar to blocked sock IP edits on pages like Oppenheimer (film) and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One. Their most recent edit regarding these issues is on Dead Reckoning page when there was a similar discussion about it on its talk page. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 12:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are continuing their behavior: ignoring reliable sources, misinterpreting the guidelines and making misleading statements again. They also reminded past misdeeds to malign their current actions, which is an accusation of bad faith, is a personal attack, and an example of incivility. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Aggressive behavior by SPA
is a single purpose account with a singular focus on atrocity-mongering for the period around WWI in the Balkans. In addition to edit-warring, this user displays highly uncooperative behavior, accusing others of "vandalism" and "trying to hide massacres". Examples below:
 * rv subtle vandalism yet again, again, I don’t know how many times I have to say it, your claim of the figure being “exceptionally high” is, again, your own personal (irrelevant) opinion. Stop hiding massacres.
 * I attempted to move this information to the Balkan Wars article and it was quickly reverted by user Khiurig. Moreover, your continuous bashing of sourced accredited historians as “dubious” due to your own (irrelevant) personal opinion constitutes subtle vandalism and trying to hide massacres
 * Since it seems we have some users who are hell bent on hiding and covering atrocities towards Ottoman Muslims as much as they can, I’m restoring the page to how it was for weeks without issue until some users came in and started sabotaging the article
 * Reverting vandalism

Attempts to work things out at the talkpage are met with a similar hostile attitude: They have recently started canvassing for support:
 * but you seem to be clearly misunderstanding and abusing the extraordinary policy I order to further your own agenda and personal bias
 * Stop your lying and hiding if massacres.
 * your labeling of it as that without any other backup or consensus is simply manipulation/twisting/misunderstanding and misuse of Wikipedia’s policy. Please do not make any more disruptive changes to the page until we discuss here, see
 * if you could help me out making sure they don’t make anymore disruptive edits
 * If you have time, I could use your help right now on First Balkan War and Balkan Wars, as the vandals have been utterly relentless as of late

The account clearly seems to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and has a historical WP:AXE to grind, as indicated by labeling edits "vandalism" (always a red flag). They seem to be getting more and more belligerent and any help would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: Their response below is deep in WP:BATTLE territory. At this point, if something is not done, the articles will keep on deteriorating. Khirurg (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @SamuelLion1877, why did you copy+ paste? why didn't you just reply?
 * Khirurg (talk · contribs) has made nothing but false accusations against me above. Not once did I engage in “hostile” or “belligerent” behavior or anything of the sort. Here’s the actual truth; me, Yung Doohickey (talk · contribs), and a few others improved upon the atrocities against ottoman muslims section for the First Balkan War article, using sourced material and carefully considering our additions, that was until this user came along out of nowhere and decided to start relentlessly sabotaging the articles, attempting to cover up massacres by resorting to removing sourced material with little to no explanation, in clear violation of basic and obvious Wikipedia policy. I attempted my absolute best to be cooperative and compromise with this user Khirurg, but as soon as I took HIS OWN SUGGESTION, mind you, and attempted to move the atrocities section to the Balkan Wars article, he immediately reverted the edit, and instead changed his story of a sudden and claimed that the sources are not reliable (accredited contemporary western historians/professors) with no other solid explanation other than that he disagrees with him and was attempting to misuse and manipulate Wikipedia policies to further his biased agenda to cover up atrocities towards muslims. I have no axe to grind whatsoever, and tried to cooperate with this user to the best of my ability until he started displaying the exact behavior in which he is unfairly and baselessly accusing me of now. Babysharkboss2 was here!!  (Shoot to thrill) ( Play to Kill ) 19:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Babysharkboss2: I fail to understand how this is productive; all it did was add additional text that wasn't needed. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

has made nothing but false accusations against me above. Not once did I engage in “hostile” or “belligerent” behavior or anything of the sort.

Here’s the actual truth; me,, and a few others improved upon the atrocities against ottoman muslims section for the First Balkan War article, using sourced material and carefully considering our additions. The articles were fine and well received by Wikipedia as a whole, generally speaking, for weeks on end; that was until this user came along out of nowhere and decided to start relentlessly sabotaging the articles, attempting to cover up massacres by resorting to removing sourced material with little to no explanation, in clear violation of basic and obvious Wikipedia policy.

I attempted my absolute best to be cooperative and compromise with this user Khirurg, but as soon as I took HIS OWN SUGGESTION, mind you, and attempted to move the atrocities section to the Balkan Wars article, he immediately reverted the edit, and instead changed his story of a sudden and claimed that the sources are not reliable (accredited contemporary western historians/professors) with no other solid explanation other than that he disagrees with him and was attempting to misuse and manipulate Wikipedia policies to further his biased agenda to cover up atrocities towards muslims.

I have no axe to grind whatsoever, and tried to cooperate with this user to the best of my ability until he started displaying the exact behavior in which he is unfairly and baselessly accusing me of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelLion1877 (talk • contribs)
 * , you have now made 4 reverts, violating WP:3RR. Whatever else is happening at this article, you need to undo your last revert or you will be blocked.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page, the page was left the way it was until user Khirurg once again removed material cited with not 2 but 3 sources SamuelLion1877 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing talk page discussion is great. It does not absolve you from the responsibility to heed WP:3RR. If you do not revert your last set of edits at First Balkan War, I will block you.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How about Khirurgs edits? Or is he for some special reason exempt from Wikipedia’s policy? SamuelLion1877 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'd bothered to read the link to the relevant policy, either in my warning above or the one you blanked as "nonsense", you'd understand. You are partial blocked from the article now. Discussion can continue as to whether other sanctions or admin intervention is necessary on the article.-- Ponyo bons mots 00:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Uinko
Uinko has a longstanding history of blanking sections, adding unsourced material, and introducing grammatical errors. Every time they are warned about it, their response is complete and total indignance. 10 days ago, reminded Uinko of this,  making them the 15th person to raise complaints on their talk page. I can send diffs if need be, but a solid number of them are available on their talk page. It really doesn't seem like this user is willing and able to change course... Cpotisch (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at it. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While Uinko has certainly not been making much use of talk pages (they've only made three edits to talk pages since registering their account), I am not really seeing anything horrifying in their contributions, or on their talk page. There is a wall of automated messages, yes, but this seems to mostly be due to a lack of archiving; many of the warnings you're citing are from three years ago. Contrariwise, this would seem to be the third noticeboard thread in the last year you've opened about Uinko (both were in late November '22; 1, 2). These were both closed without action due to a lack of diffs that showed actionable conduct, so I would say that in this case the diffs do need be. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 14:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will say, my apologies for this being the third time I've brought it up. The name rang a bell but I forgot that I had personally raised it, let alone twice. Cpotisch (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Contrary to this assessment by JPxG, I think Uinko has been repeatedly uncivil and disruptive, due to their insistence on relying on their own views rather than those of reliable sources. I think editing restrictions are required or they will continue to degrade content indefinitely. I propose: the editor must not remove reliable sources from any article without prior consensus; the editor must cite at least one independent, reliable source for any addition or change in content that is not a trivial edit for format, spelling, or grammar; 1RR restriction on all articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know, looking through their contributions I just see a bunch of normal stuff. Maybe they are on the mid side of things, but of their last three edits:
 * "Environmental list is way too oddly specific and not applicable.": Avatar: The Way of Water broke Deadpool's record ($132.4 million) for the highest weekend debut for a 20th Century Studios film.
 * The citation doesn't say anything at all about "an environmentalist film"; they're right that this is a strange, OR observation to make with no reference.
 * "→‎Government": Further solidifying the county's leftward shift, Governor JB Pritzker won the county by 1.3% in 2022, making it the first time since 1948 it supported a Democrat for governor.
 * They're linking "2022" to the appropriate article.
 * "You can get that information by looking at past elections on Wikipedia": This was the best performance for a Democrat, the worst for a Republican, and the closest election since 1999. It was also the closest gubernatorial election won by a Republican since 1991. This was the closest gubernatorial election in the 2023 cycle.
 * Okay, maybe it was silly to remove this tag, but it is kind of a silly tag to begin with. It's not original research (i.e. WP:2+2=4) to note the percentage spreads in elections; maybe it's undue, and maybe it needs a citation, but it seems pretty trivial to just cite it (there are obviously reliable sources that give the results of gubernatorial elections since 1990). Whatever, maybe they shouldn't have done this.
 * Cpotisch said they were willing to provide diffs, so I am willing to change my opinion if there are diffs of them being completely unreasonable. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 15:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

IP user admitting to socking and LTA
A user admitting to a multi-IP campaign of harassment and vandalism. Unsure how it should be addressed or whether anything can in particular be done about it, but thought it was worth flagging here.

(The context was that I had warned them for an abusive edit summary, and they responded by doubling down.) --AntiDionysius (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite their denials, it's obviously . I'm the one they harass periodically because I dared to have the balls to expose them. I'm tired of this asshole. oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

IP avoiding block on Evan McKie
Somehow although User talk:Materialscientist blocked them for disruptive edits at Evan McKie, User:70.30.45.118 has managed to still edit somehow? Could the article be protected? Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * They were only blocked for 31 hours, and have returned to the same behaviour once the block ran out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes sorry I didn't notice it was only a temporary block. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Serchia
WP:TENDENTIOUS editing:

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Long term edit warring at Kurds since April, attempting to remove sourced information about the Kurds being an Iranian people, claiming it to be "controversial" and "Pan-Iranism" without anything to back it up      . They even just violated WP:3RR in that article right now - just before they did that, they reverted a edit warring warning I gave them, saying it "It is not an edit war"
 * 2) WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS: Paniranism Paniranism Your entire history is POV not my edits
 * 3) Included the ancient Median language as part of Kurdish, no source
 * 4) Disregarded the note twice in the WP:CTOP article Death of Mahsa Amini, adding "Kurdish" in October and December
 * 5) Disregarded the consensus at WP:RSN, reverting with no explanation
 * Edit warring on Kurds, that's a good enough reason for a partial block for that article. Perhaps that will make User:Serchia understand that we are serious about these things, and perhaps it will be an incentive for them to practice talk page discussion. Older diffs are also of concern, but they're too old to be weighed in this incident. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that the edit war was started by users from Middle Eastern nations with a history of oppressing Kurds. I removed the term "Iranian" from the opening paragraph of "Kurds" with the valid point that the term is very controversial, and as other credible encyclopaedias such as Britannica don't mention it, there is no need to mention it here. It is also a term that offends most Kurdish people and they do not agree to be called "Iranian". This is the main point here, and as for the other points you outlined, there is no need to mention here. Serchia (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's sourced, but that doesn't seem relevant to you. If it were, you would have started a discussion after being reverted more than once. The WP:3RR has already been violated, so the best course of action for now would be a short-term block on you. Jerium (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that was generous with a three month pageblock on just the Kurds article since this editor has disrupted other articles in the Kurdish topic area., consider yourself warned that any further ethnonationalist disruption may well lead to more stringent sanctions. So, be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion of this on the talk page goes back to 2005, and this is just a sampling:
 * Talk:Kurds/Archive 2
 * Talk:Kurds/Archive 13
 * Talk:Kurds/Archive 6
 * Talk:Kurds/Archive 12
 * Talk:Kurds/Archive 15
 * It hasn't always gone well over the years (Special:Diff/266730161, Special:Diff/253670639) but it looked like we reached the what-do-other-encyclopaedias-say point in 2012. The next step is to try to find expert sources, rather than be the edit warrior who aligns with those over the years who were just making assertions with nothing to back them up but IP addresses and pseudonyms.  This has happened over and over in all sorts of topics, with people arguing their own personal views instead of doing the research.  This is not the way to approach things. Uncle G (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clear that, for good reasons, contemporary Kurdish leaders do not want to be associated with the modern Islamic Republic of Iran, which was founded in 1979. But the concepts of "Iran" and "Persia" and "Iranians" and "Persians" are much older, and frankly, much broader. has dug up diffs going back many years, some of which are very ugly and disruptive. I certainly do not claim to be a subject matter expert, but it seems clear that many scholars classify the Kurds as an Iranian people, broadly defined. That does not mean that they are associated with the mullahs in Tehran in any way today. Whether or not that is an assessment widely shared by the most respected academics in the field, I am not prepared to say. I agree with Uncle G that tallying up what various other encyclopedias say is not the proper way to proceed. Instead, the best way is to study what respected academics have written about the matter. The first "academic journal" article thst I found discussing the Kurd/Iranian connection was issued by a predatory publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, which issues journals of "questionable quality". What is needed is a serious assessment by editors with an established track record of competent evaluation of sources in the broad topic area. In my opinion. the OP,, is one of very few active editors with that expertise, and we should take that editor's assessments seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I'm home in like 8-9 hours, I can gather some WP:RS by academics with expertise in the area then. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Whomever has gone about and added "Kurds are an Iranian people" to the first sentence of all the Kurd-related articles, is ethnonational pov pushing. That wasn't there last time I was in the topic area (two years ago or so) and everything I remember reading said that the origin of Kurds is much disputed and debated by scholars. Sounds like another way of saying "there is no Kurdistan/there are no Kurds." Levivich (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I just looked at the talk page of Kurds and there are more threads about this than listed above. Looks like a steady stream of people talking about "Iranian/Iranic," I see threads from this year, last year, 2019... this needs an RfC or something. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Content tagged dubious and sources/quotes at Talk:Kurds. That's the content dispute part, which will be resolved on the article talk page. I still think that whomever went around and added "are an Iranian ethnic group" to the first sentence of all the articles has engaged in misconduct (specifically, POV-pushing, and also source misrepresentation, because those sources cited don't say "Iranian ethnic group"). Levivich (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was added a few years ago. PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw another one at another article from earlier this year Special:Diff/1131147468; from a quick look, it seems to be one of those things that's been added/removed multiple times, as well as discussed a lot on talk pages (or at least Talk:Kurds), for many years. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At another article in 2022 Special:Diff/1124346370, at another in 2019 Special:Diff/881369287 with the edit summary referencing previous iterations... looks like one of those perennial edit wars. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's good to see that we're now back at the level of Talk:Kurds/Archive 13 when Dougweller and Kurdo777 were involved. A small correction to the above:  It's not 2005.  It's 2004.  Vide Talk:Kurds/Archive 1.  There was not much edit warring in the article at the time, although Special:Diff/13200475 is an edit from 2005, notice.  This goes back way before 2020.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, Wikipedia. We should rename it Sisyphedia. Levivich (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Related to these reverts, but also a content issue, see Talk:Mahsa Amini. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At the WP:CTOP article Death of Mahsa Amini, Levivich basically repeated what Serchia did; disregarded the note and long-time consensus, adding "Kurdish", without any form of discussion, let alone a WP:CONSENSUS. Looking at Levivich's comments here and elsewhere, they seem like a person who does their research of the article history beforehand. So, they were probably already aware that countless discussions regarding this had taken place in the article's talk page (and surely aware of MOS:ETHNICITY as well), yet still decided to go on with their edit. At Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini, I've asked them twice to revert themselves and make a RFC if they must, which they have ignored. Why a RFC and not a discussion first? Well, because there have already been the same countless discussions in that article, and the recent discussion with Levivich at Talk:Kurds was fruitless; They failed to show a single WP:RS that challenged the claim of Kurds being grouped as an Iranian group and they kept asking me the same questions and making the same arguments, instead of addressing my responses to those, which led to a WP:REHASH fiesta between us (obviously, this is just my perception, I could be wrong, I could be right, maybe a bit of both, ultimately that's for the readers here to decide). --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Vandal closing AfDs with forged signature
Recently, as many of you will know, a highly active vandal using numerous sockpuppets and IP editing has been making large numbers of inappropriate closes of AfDs, commonly as "no consensus", sometimes as "keep". Recently they have taken to putting my signature on the closes. Since closing AfDs is not one of the tasks that I regularly perform, if you see any recent closes with my signature then it will be far more likely to be the vandal than me, so I suggest you check the editing history and if it wasn't me then block or report for a block. JBW (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also see (permalink) . -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have an edit filter for this? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 14:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We need one. Surely if we look for unregistered users adding a regex matching User talk:.* and set it to warn that would work? Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 15:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * IP users do still leave a user talk link towards their talk page in their signature. Perhaps something like  would work? That should filter out creating any piped links towards user talk pages where the displayed text includes the word "talk", except in the case where the user talk page is towards an IP user. Randi🦋Talk<sub style="margin-left:-20q;">Contribs 20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not just a filter for IP users adding AFD close templates? At the very least, it could be a log filter; I guess it is conceivable that an IP could legitimately close a deletion discussion, but it seems like a pretty rare occurrence, so no harm in having to skip over the (?) times that happens per year. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 21:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion at Edit_filter/Requested. Uhai (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, last time I blocked BCD (and knew it was him) he was adding fancruft to Power Rangers articles! <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The interest hasn't gone away: Special:Contributions/173.220.150.234, etc. These days he's better known for impersonating admins. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

NPA and NLT violations at the Teahouse
User is saying things like "Are you blind?" and this. In my view, this user does not have what it takes to edit neutrally. Please block them. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 01:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, that's probably the fastest report-to-block time I've ever seen on here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Context of this disruption and block: the editor OrdinaryContributor translated Draft:23 March 1933 Reichstag speech from the article on the German Wikipedia, but reacted very poorly to the reasonable requirement here for reliable sources. The draft, relating to the existing article Enabling Act of 1933, is nevertheless promising edit: concerning due to how it presents Hitler's point of view without analysis or critique. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Very poorly" is a euphemism for something that my mother taught me never to say. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Fardap
I fear this user may be a sockpuppet based on editing at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport. Continues to add airlines/destinations that do not serve the airport. Fail to communicate and user was partially blocked for 72 hours from editing that page. Need immediate attention! Jz0610 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the future, please make sure to link the user you're talking about. Usually a ... at the top of your post suffices; here I've added checkuser, a similar template. Anyways, I've blocked indefinitely, both for the unsourced content and for evading scrutiny as a DUCK sock of, per your tag on the usertalk. (Also for future reference, "suspected sock" tags aren't very useful; easier to just explain at an AIV or AN/I post.) -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 11:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:SKSumanTAJ, and "Avinash Walton"
I was just pinged to revert this edit adding "Avinash Walton" to the list of the Walton family, prominent American billionaires. After doing a bit of searching, it seems that who added the edit considers himself to be Avinash Walton, saying as much on his user page, uploading an image with that title, and (presumably) adding entries to that effect for himself on IMDB, The Waltons Wiki (dedicated to a different set of Waltons, The Waltons, old TV show), WikiAlpha, EverybodyWiki which I can't link here, and probably others, but I'm tired of copying and pasting links. He hasn't made too many edits here, but has been an editor here for years, and back in 2020 added "Avinash Walton" as the "Boyfriend" of American singer Evie Clair, and started an Avinash Walton page, at least twice in 2021, each time speedy deleted, among other adventures. I admire his energy and/or his sense of humor, but think at least an admin warning is called for, if not a WP:NOTHERE block, as this is pretty clearly a trend. --GRuban (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's cases like this that WP:NOTHERE was written for. Almost all of their edits ever are either self-promo/hoaxing, or were reverted for other reasons. Indeffed. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 19:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but them adding themselves to the Waltons Wiki, and no one noticing for 3 months yet, is the funniest thing I've heard today. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also deleted the uploaded image and the self-promoting userpages. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've salted Avinash Walton. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fences and windows: May I politely dissent and cite my essay WP:DONTSALT? If we salt this, he'll just come back at Avinash walton, Avinash Walton (actor), etc., with it just a bit harder to piece the trail together due to the lack of obvious past deletions. I've literally seen cases where people changed stage names just to get around saltings, or created autobios under completely unrelated titles. Whereas if we stick with one title, then it's easy to spot any sox, and no harder to delete the recreations. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 21:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. I'd rather see and be able to follow the problem than for it to appear somewhere else we're not looking. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 21:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've found it can send a clear signal, but lifted. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Magentic Manifestations
User:Magentic Manifestations has sugarcoated L. K. Advani. All criticism things in this page was covered up by this person like how RSS created communal violence due to LK Advani. This person gave a cloudy editing summary like 'copy edit, rewrite neutral POV, improve sources' to do that. This person did that to many other pages too. I humbly request the admins to monitor this person. Cranequartz (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The account Cranequartz itself seems to be hastily created to lodge this specific issue. The user account was created today with no user page, history of edits whatsoever. If there are any concerns with the edits, the user could have reached out in the talk page or initiated a discussion if the intent was right. Coming to the issue at hand, the term "RSS created communal violence due to LK Advani" itself seems to be biased and the Cranequartz seems to have a political affiliation and the suspect account creation attributes to the same. Regarding the edits to the page L. K. Advani, edits have been done with accordance to the guidelines. For e.g. criticism with respect to alleged involvement in Babri demolition, hawala scandal and Jinnah comments are all still part of the article. Will be happy to address if there are any real concerns or specific points.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are calling me as political affiliated but anybody can see you have ruling party BJP poltical affiliation. You have sugarcoated all the criticism and not only this. You have also sugarcoated criticism on BJP in many pages too. You have removed criticism content against BJP which had citations from legitimate news sources by using cloudy summaries.
 * Forgive me for hurting you
 * I don't have time to argue with anybody. I do not use Wikipedia like you. I want neutral Admins to monitor you to stop you from sugarcoating all the pages in Wikipedia which have criticism against BJP. You can say lies against me to stop admins from seeing what you are doing. I only want admins to see this.
 * Goodbye Cranequartz (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My friend, Wikipedia is all about consensus and neutrality. Because you feel opinionated on something, that doesn't mean that it should all be right and the admin board is definitively never intended to be used this way. If you have specific instances, you can point out with relevant comments which can be discussed and addressed. Rather if you have created an account for simply lodging a message on the admin board with the intention of levying unrelated comments, hurling repeated accusations without pointing any specific instances and not seeming to have any interest in progressive discussions, then God help. Would be happy to address any concerns if any. Not going to waste time commenting on this further and opening for others to comment.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Cranequartz, you need to raise this at Talk:L. K. Advani and relevant WikiProjects and follow dispute resolution. You might also raise specific concerns about neutrality at WP:NPOVN. If you want action taken about an editor's behaviour, you need to provide evidence of specific edits, including diffs. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Uzones
New user Uzones has made almost exclusively problematic edits. The user received the full slate of four warning levels for the addition of promotional material. I haven't seen any edits of that nature since then. In fact, the user, instead, started removing ordinary, proper wikilinks, noting in the summaries for two of those edits "Remove advertising links" and "Remove advertising content". In addition, nearly every one of Uzones' edits since I came upon them has involved "correcting" language that was already correct with language that was incorrect. I've thus reverted nearly every edit the user has made that hadn't been reverted already.

I alerted Uzones to these problems on their talk page which led to this exchange. As you can see, Uzones misrepresented the nature of the links they'd removed and eventually told me to mind my own business. I left it at advising them that if they continue it will amount to disruptive editing.

They have now made two edits since that exchange, this and this. Both of them were wrong and required undoing. Since the user seems either not to understand or not to care that their knowledge of English usage is flawed (see, for further evidence of this, where they told me "You have more knowledge, happy" and "You are more knowledge"), this seems to be a WP:CIR and WP:IDHT matter. Maybe a short block to get their attention or, at the very least, a very stern talking-to by somebody other than me? Largoplazo (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed Uzones for a promotional username, disruptive edits, and incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * globally renamed Uzones to . FWIW. Myriad concerns remain. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Chronic disruptive edits by Bilgiljilll


Consider this another account found in the dragnet thrown around disruption by new copy editors. Bilgiljilll isn't really new, and has been doing some major revision of multiple articles, but the current issue is competency in basic WP:MOS, specifically banal or deceptive wikilinking. They've received several notices, and haven't slowed down and presumably have not taken the time to read MOS:OL--in fact, they seem to have accelerated these 'junk' edits since this discussion was broached. The edits include gratuitous links where one or more already exits, links to nations and common occupations, and links to dab pages that aren't helpful. Without listing all the questionable edits, here are a few examples: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;. And this bizarre conclusion re: intros:.

In total, the edits raise competency issues regarding basic editing guidelines and engagement with other users. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * i only linked it to the respective page for better understanding, i took a long a break recently, regarding the link petting , its older and i already got a message and its reverted , i dont know why you are targetting me. Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * again, considering that you are anonymous, i really suspect you are a sock , since i recently prevented a user from doing religious based vandalism from the page kalarippayattu Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also ,most of these links you have tagged here, like toddy etc are linked in almost all pages , I linked it because in almost all pages its linked in similar articles , infact it was linked in that article itself , i relinked it because when i moved it to subsection since the lead was too long , the link was accidently lost you are selecting some edits which i already discussed to target me , recently i had a discussion with a user promoting religion and coatracking in the page kalarippayattu considering that you are anonymous , i really suspect that its the same person , i order to take a revenge. Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the IP who made the report but I am the editor who added the original notice about overlinking after the second time Bilgiljilll added a disambiguation link to CrowdJustice (see &  where they added links to common words). A quick ctrl-f look at their last 500 edits shows they've added 30 links tagged with the "disambiguation link" notice since 27 October 2023. So this is clearly a pattern indicating they haven't reviewed either MOS:OVERLINK or WP:FURTHERDAB. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * well, but how things like toddy is disruptive when it is linked in other articles ? Also delinking is done because the page is not even created . I agree with that of petting , but namboodiries and nambudiris are the same , after i got the first notification , i didnt link languages . This is old. Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * well, i apologize for confusion , i will take care from this time and i will read the rules Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I joined wikipedia 2 years ago and i have not meant anything like that, i agree if i made a mistake by linking spanish language , but toddy, namboodiri etc are linked in all cases. I didnt even edited any page which require more than 500 edits . I got much time these days due to holidays , so i thought of spending time here . I promise that i will take care with linking . Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again ,i would like to let you know that i really didnt intended to link that purposefully and i will slow down edits most of these came to me through recommendations which were easy edits, so i thought linking would improve the article. I will slow down the edits especially with links. and i had read the manual and i do understand about places, i havent linked languages such as Spanish after you gave the notification. Since i am not from the area, i thought it would improve the understanding as it do not change the meaning . Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I request the admin to kindly check the page kalarippayattu and 2 days editing history and talk section and how a user 'afv12e' was doing disruptive editing and even stating that it(the artform kalari) is based on hinduism, and bought it into the lead , since i started a discussion and pointed out this , religious extremists are targetting me , this was much expected as part of the revenge. Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * religious extremists are targetting me
 * Be very careful with language like this, it can be construed as a personal attack. You also accused the IP above of being a sock puppet, another thing you should not do without evidence to back it up. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I said i suspect because, i since yesterday I had an arguement related to that, so when i saw an ip and its timing, i thought its an attack on me also the things like toddy which is linked in almost all indian or south asian wiki pages, how it is disruptive when it was found in the page itself ? Again i am not disagreeing with the link like petting , i should have previewed it , i thought its a specific process at the first sight , since it came as a part of recommendation ,also some pages repeatedly came to my feed as recomendation, which I got to know today only.I will take care of this and i am not gonna deal with links any soon, since it is troubling me. Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also some of the pages from which i removed links is because, the link pages were not even created and it was showing an error . These all came to me as reccomendation through my feed, else i have no intention to target any of these pages ,especially the accused ones,  i didnt even search most of these. Also i said religious extremist(s) in a general sense , not specified to a person , as a general sentence and as an assumption as this can also happen , considering the situation. Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To summarize: I've been accused of sock puppetry and instigating a vendetta based on "religious extremism"--can you say accuse and distract? Rather nervy after ignoring multiple warnings at their talk page. I've had no interest in the content issues, and have addressed the persistent sloppiness in linking only. The above comments do help substantiate my concerns re: competence, and may well invite broader scrutiny of the edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't formed a view on the underlying issue (and don't have time to do so right now), but for anyone who doesn't recognise the IP address, this editor is a long-standing editor with a stable IP who has chosen not to register an account (which policy does not require). I can attest to their track record of combatting vandalism and spam on this project, and there should be no suspicion that they are a sock, or indeed a religious extremist acting out of malice (!). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which means Bilgiljilll needs to retract those accusations. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I love how Bilgiljilll responded to every other comment within an hour, and then disappears for two days after an apology is called for. WP:FLU or just inactive? Time will tell... For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 21:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Given their response (User talk:Bilgiljilll) to an automated bot comment on disambiguation links, I'm wondering if this is a competency issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I kind of entirely stopped handling with linking pages after this discussion . Also again as i explained  the links like toddy, nambudiri etc are linked in almost all similar pages, obviously thats why i did . I agree that i did linked certain languages and places because in my perspective  i thought it would help the reader.I got all these pages through recommendations ,and i didnt mean to purposefully vandalise or link any particular subject or particular page. Bilgiljilll (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it is written in the guidelines that But try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. the words like toddy etc are not really familiar atleast in the region i come from. I am sure that most readers from my region would rethink about the word. My point is that the accusation that i am purposefully targetting certain articles is completely wrong. My intention was only to enhnace the readability. Bilgiljilll (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The competency concern is that I'm not sure you understand what a disambiguation page is or why it is discouraged to link to them in the body of an article. For example, in the Thirra article you added a disambiguation link in this sentence: Toddy plays a very significant role in the proceedings, it is an offering to the gods and almost all the performers dance under the influence. By linking to "Toddy" you have linked to a disambiguation page which is not the same as linking to a specific article which might explain a term or concept; this disambiguation page includes many articles (from places to people to drinks) where Toddy is part of the name. The readability of that sentence is not enhanced because it is unclear what Toddy is being used as an offering. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I already reacted to all those notifications I got, regarding this . I didn't purposefully searched all those ' 'linked' pages, i got it through recommendations from the 'easy category' and very very few of them from the 'related article categories'.So i do not have any special intention to do anything to this particular pages. My intention was only to enhance the readability. Bilgiljilll (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I usually try to reply to every notification that i see. The time i spend on wikipedia varies a lot . I joined 2 years ago and for an year i couldn't contribute anything . I did post lot of replies in this discussion section itself, this particular one i saw it now only. Bilgiljilll (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I used the word 'seems like ' only means i felt so, In my perspective i have explanation for that . Note - I am explaining why i suspected so ,(I do not do that anymore, since the user clarified) : 1) From the issues in this ANI board , none other than this (as per i checked ) were intiated by a non registered user. 2) This incident happended soon after i had an arguement in a page and coincidently the user also disappeared. 3) Links like nambudiri (a south asian sub ethnicity) was kind of slightly related to it. and it is linked in all pages related to it, similarly words like 'toddy' was linked in all similar pages i viewed. and some of them were previously discussed and i did not made the same mistake again. From this above points its a human psychology from my side to be suspicious about the ip who intiated this . Again clarifying Here , I am explaining that i didnt suspected the ip just inorder to escape from the allegations but i genuinely felt so , when i saw the links and time . However i am not suspicious anymore when another user pointed out that this ip is  stable one.  Note - This reply is entirely  my reason on why i suspected the ip (intially) ( even though ,i do not do it anymore ,atleast now ). Also, I have replied to the other part separately . Thank you. Bilgiljilll (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a (somewhat wordy) retraction of the accusation against the IP for sockpuppetry, so I think we're good on that issue. Just be very careful of doing so in the future Bilgiljill, no matter how much you genuinely felt it was true, if you make such accusations without evidence it can be considered a personal attack. I'd advise against doing it again. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:STICK and WP:NOTHERE by User:Lone Ranger1999
appears to be an WP:SPA, whose main focus involves disputing the currently cited casualty figures on Pacific War, bringing up this issue in any avenue they can - twice on the MilHist project talk page,, 8 separate times on the reference desk , and numerous other times on the Pacific War talk page  , though I'm not really sure in the latter case why they have a habit of making new sections and then deleting them. The issue of consensus and WP:IDHT aside, as they get more or less the same answer no matter how many times they ask the same question, their recent comments and their complete lack of civility and good faith lead me to believe they are NOTHERE. Loafiewa (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Other than those final two comments on Parsecboy's talk page, do you have any actual diffs to proffer, instead of mere links to large archives?   Ravenswing     02:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's like you want to make yourself look crazy. Firstly, the issues I listed concerned not only US losses in the Pacific, but also other issues related to Allied losses on other fronts of World War II.Secondly, if we take the answers of other users regarding losses in the Pacific War, they are divided into 2 types: oh yes, only combat losses are indicated there, but no non-combat losses, this is of course not correct, you need to find another source and as a result nothing changes.Or they are simply confident in Clodfelder’s holy correctness, or my questions are completely ignored.The fact that I was rude to the user yesterday, I admit that I was wrong because I gave free rein to my emotions. Maybe you're right, everyone is tired of me.Perhaps you are right, everyone is tired of me. If users want to believe that in 4 years of war with a fanatical enemy in a terrible climate, the United States lost only 93 thousand killed, while killing 1.1+ million Japanese soldiers, judging by the article, that’s up to them. Personally, I believe that the US lost 40-50% of its total WWII casualties (407k killed) in the Pacific War, but as usual, everyone has their own truth. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone Ranger1999 (talk • contribs) 06:11, November 15, 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find a reliable source to back up your beliefs, that's all they are - and therefore fail WP:OR. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They have been told that repeatedly, in several different venues. They appear to be unwilling to listen. I myself warned Lone Ranger1999 two days ago that the pattern of their behavior would inevitably end up with them getting brought here, and advised that they find another topic to edit. What I ended up getting for my trouble was the "f*ck you" diff Loafiewa linked above. Based on my observations over the last year or so, plus this particular interaction, I'm not optimistic that they'll listen to anyone's advice.
 * As many of us who've been around for a long time can attest, this type of editing ends one of two ways: a change in behavior, or more commonly, the editor will exhaust the community's patience and be banned from the site. I don't know that we're necessarily at that point as of yet, given the infrequency in which Lone Ranger brings this topic up, but I honestly don't expect their behavior to change, so I don't know if there's much point in kicking the can down the road. In all likelihood, the only benefit will be additional threads here, where Lone Ranger half apologizes but spends most of their time litigating the same argument, rather than addressing their own behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is so much academic debate around the number that I am just going to assume good faith - the biggest issue with civility is the "F* u" comment, but really I think Lonestar is not coming from a malicious place. I think a warning and maybe short ban (like 2 weeks) from history related articles is warranted so the user can refresh themselves on Wikipedia policy. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That statistic seems so low that I will be looking for a reliable source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, Mark Clodfelter is a military history PhD; he's very much an expert writing in his area of expertise. The numbers he provides are not really in question - the problem is that we're comparing combat deaths for the US to total deaths for Japan, but that specific detail is beyond the scope of this discussion, which should be focused on Long Ranger's behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree - and sorry, I meant "another" reliable source. I don't think it is wise to just include 1 specific statistic when discussing causalities and that it is better to have a range. Regardless outside the scope of this thread. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don’t understand how a historian who only voiced combat losses can be taken at least somewhat seriously, because he publishes a priori underestimated data. But in any case, I am glad that I have revived interest in this issue. Perhaps caring users interested in military losses will help. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. A long time ago, the article cited figures of 161k deaths, which seems plausible to me. I will try, together with other concerned users, to find the source. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you not update the article until you find said source and discuss it on the Talk page. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn’t intend to, the main thing is that I revived interest in the problem Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the main thing is that you went about this completely the wrong way. Don't congratulate yourself for "reviv[ing] interest in the problem" by creating your own problem. That way leads to WP:DISRUPT blocks. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn’t praise myself. Okay, let's end this pointless dialogue. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not the point. (Or the WP:POINT.) Saying "F* you" on talk pages makes you look uncivilized and causes editors not to want to listen to you. Additionally, you should not add content (especially content that goes against many verifiable/reliable sources) withou providing sources yourself.
 * As for reviving the issue, you did that at the cost of making everyone annoyed. For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 20:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Harassment and non-objectivity by user scope_creep


This is regarding the user @Scope creep and their actions in systematically nominating to delete any article I have submitted. Today he said he would start an incident report against me for lying and personal attack, so I am starting this conversation to bring attention to what has occurred.

On my talk page you can see that user scope_creep intends to take me to noticeboards for lying and no personal attacks for me saying I think he is personally attacking me, so I would like to make a notice of him now as well. This is an obvious move of projection for him to claim personal attack.

From what I can see, scope_creep is obsessed with deleting articles written by me and is more concerned with “winning” and feeling important than being objective, being humble, or having the ability to change his mind. A few weeks ago when he nominated some of my articles I wrote for deletion I did not assume his actions were motivated by personal and petty reasons. Now that he has selected a new batch of articles I wrote years ago to nominate for deletion, I have to at least call this out so hopefully other admins will take notice and look into his actions. If me calling this out and asking for review is lying or a personal attack by me instead somehow, then so be it. The Lane Bess deletion debate page makes this obsession clear, as most people would not make it such a hill to die on. I say he’s the first parent-child pair to go into space together, you say being the first doesn’t make you notable (most people on the planet would disagree with this, but his opinion appears to be that he is always right and cannot be swayed like an objective person would be). On several of the debate pages he clearly began looking through references AFTER nominating the page for deletion on the grounds of weak references. Several of the articles I had written over the years have already vanished due to no debate and his actions, so now I am calling out the bad faith and listing what anyone can clearly see in the public debate pages, and his response is to instead label me as a liar. It is sad that this can be the case. On Lane Bess debate page he said that something was a primary source, so still didn’t work, but the rules on primary sources are clear and I quoted them back on the debate page (which is now over and the page was not deleted). On Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement he says two articles are passing mentions, which makes me think he didn’t read either of them as they are not passing mentions. I understand the confident approach of his works, but being confident and wrong and motivated by petty vendetta simply because the article was submitted by me makes no sense. The articles I have submitted could be improved, but he has consistently chosen a path to instead delete every one of them he can, and his motivations do not seem driven by objectivity, but instead by a personal attack against me. This is my opinion based on the above listed reasons and the public debate pages everyone can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lane_Bess#Lane_Bess

I look forward to a thorough review. Stravensky (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a few statistics for Stravensky: they have 529 edits, 371 live and 158 deleted, since they first started editing on October 11, 2017. They have created 44 pages, of which 24 have been deleted. Other users besides Scope creep have nominated their articles for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This was covered at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 201, where scope_creep analysed some of their created articles and gave opinions of them. I note that they didn't consider all of them should be deleted, and mentioned that some such as Candi Carter were actually okay. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I was planning to bring the editor Stravensky to Ani, when I came from work, for the comments made at Articles for deletion/Scott Lochmus and others. A review of the articles were done at coin Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 201 by editor User:Jfire.  I was an uninvolved editor  and took that review list and sent the ones that were indicated as being unsuitable to Afd, which I think is about 13 so far, and they have all been deleted apart from one with three others at Afd. There is a long history of promotional editing, sometimes to the extreme. Only today one was sent to draft for that reason by another editor. Several other editors have sent stuff to Afd before the coin notice even appeared. At the beginning the editor was really helpful but has changed their attitude for some reason just recently Stravensky has started making dodgy comments that are unacceptable.    scope_creep Talk  17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Lane Bess AFD mentioned above has now been taken to DRV. Thincat (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I have had half an eye on the OP for a few years and while there is nothing definitive, some of their editing habits certainly seem to be consistent with undisclosed paid editing (I'm deliberately not going into details) and as evidenced from the COIN thread, several other editors agree. The fact that so many articles that they have created have been deleted at AFD further reinforces that. As to the topic of this thread though, although both OP and scope_creep have accused each other of WP:NPA, I can't see any diffs to back up the assertion from either of them. OP's argument seems to be more centred around WP:HOUNDING but given the number of articles deleted, scope_creep's actions seem legitimate. SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * this editor crossed my radar when they accused @CNMall41 of an out of process nomination. I'm not familiar with this editor's history with Scope, who didn't nominate this article, but I've never had reason to question Scope or CNM's noms even if it didn't close in the way they nominated. Given the raised issues here, it seems a limit to draft space might be helpful. Star   Mississippi  19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly had to look up the COIN report to refresh my memory as I didn't remember any of this. I am open for a Trout anytime or any sanctions based on bad noms, although every one I do is on a good faith assessment so I appreciate your kind words about previous noms. I will say that based on a review of this user's article creation with 20/32 being deleted (not including those currently at AfD), I would support limiting their article creation to draft space until which time they show an understanding of notability guidelines and promotional tone. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a sensible approach. Presumably with the requirement to submit via AFC too? SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds ideal.   scope_creep Talk  21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the suggestion above with the requirement to submit via AFC is a good solution to this problem.  // Timothy :: talk  21:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the fake referencing I've found so far at is anything to go by (see history) and added here, this would in fact be too soft a sanction. SmartSE (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Using those sources is definitely misleading and also brings up COI issues if someone knows the years yet it is not in the source provided. I see this with DOB on biographies sometimes. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The style is write whatever you want and then randomly sprinkle some URLs that are vaguely connected. SmartSE (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, it is a clear sign of a connection to the subject of the article and would support stricter sanctions. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It should probably be noted that the user's talk page consists of, most recently, twelve consecutive AfD notices from scope_creep. The most recent three were made on 12 November, but prior to that, they are all from October 17. I don't know about all of you, but whenever I've written an article that was nominated for deletion, it was a somewhat stressful process (and this was as someone with thousands of edits, multiple GAs, etc). It's hard to imagine the mental fortitude necessary to get nine AfD notifications on the same day from the same person and not get at least a little bit pissed off. I don't mean to imply that any of these nominations were bad, or that they shouldn't have been made, but I think that we should try to have a little bit of understanding for people in this situation, and perhaps the "bedside manner" is a bit lacking. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that having an article one created nominated for deletion may be stressful, but in this instance I have no sympathy for an editor who is obviously an undisclosed paid editor and who keeps writing articles that the community deletes and denies that they are an UPE. I also think that a ban restricting them to article space is too lenient. I have therefore blocked the editor for UPE. We'll see what the user does in response to the block. In the meantime, if there is a consensus that my block was too harsh, I am willing to unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the information supplied by SmartSE above, I would wholeheartedly support the block. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @JPxG - I can't speak on Stravensky but I had a similar situation happen to me. I took it the same exact way Stravensky did and I think anyone would. There's also much larger issues on this site that play roles in this type of stuff like post-Lugnuts notability rules that are not enforced on every single article, wikilawyering, users tracking other users and people in general being unfriendly and unhelpful to newer/less experienced users. I also do not think the new interpretation of wikipedia where we only want some topics heavily covered by the media and not everything is a message that has really been shared with the general public successfully.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the original block was a reasonable response even if I would have argued for something more solid before taking that measure. IMO the editor's description of the situation at their talk page seems sincere and credible. IMO continuation of the block at this point on the UPE rationale as described would be based on an unusually broad interpretation/ application of UPE, even more so for a boomerang on what seems like a since3re post. Suggest something mild like going through AFC, subject to renewal if there are any issues. Also suggest requesting Scope Creep to mostly let other folks handle any issues with this editor at least for a while. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I stumbled into this rabbit hole after a Wikilink in an article I watch was removed after said article, created by, was deleted. I've never interacted with either of these users before, or even seen them around for that matter. Even if is nominating these articles out of spite, which I very much doubt, that doesn't change the fact the articles are typically poorly cited and lacking in notability, and deserved to be nominated for deletion by someone. This of course does not mean all of them need to be or will end up being deleted, but they all look like fair candidates for a deletion discussion to me. Stravensky's articles already had a high rate of deletion. If your articles already had a high rate of deletion, and someone nominates several for deletion at once, that only indicates that you need to stop writing poorly sources articles about subjects of questionable notability. If action should be taken against someone, that person should be Stravensky. I will note it reflects badly on both these editors to accuse each-other of personal attacks, yet provide no diffs to support these claims. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would agree. I concur with several editors above that if I'd had nine of my articles AfDed by the same guy on the same day, I'd be royally pissed ... but is that action sanctionable?  I can think of one occasion where I did file a bunch of AfDs on the same editor within a day or two: the massive Maltese nobility mess of fifteen years ago, where the editor in question (indeffed for his troubles, in the end) created a couple dozen articles of spurious provenance, sourced only to his self-published website and to a few other sites that proved fictional, and in some of those articles claimed titles of nobility for himself and his family members.   Ravenswing      02:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

500/30 EC gaming?
The contributions of User:Elie goodman show a trail of 500 edits since 20 October, including the addition of a bunch of IUCN profile data to animal pages before, hey presto, voting in three ARBPIA discussions once past 500 edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * CU-indeffed by Firefly. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 23:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Firefly: Ditto this user? But on the theme of geography instead? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to this WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT (you should read this policy). I'd like to note that WP:PGAME is "Making unconstructive edits to raise your user access level," while both of the users above are clearly making constructive edits. Making 500 good edits as a "proof of being a constructive editor" prior to making good faith contributions in controversial topics is not gaming the system.
 * What we are seeing here is a case of WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, after not liking how they !voted for the first time. This goes against WP:AGF and the ethos that we are trying to build here. Marokwitz (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-indef would mean that there is technical evidence establishing that the account was a sockpuppet, rather than being blocked based on the merits of the report here. signed,Rosguill talk 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to the second report. To strengthen my position, note that the example given in the policy is a user making "dummy" edits or "unconstructive edits in a sandbox." The policy doesn't say anything about making WP:WikiGnome style edits. These are a great way to learn and this is actually a common advice given in Wikimedia beginner editing courses . I remember how badly I was treated when I started editing Wikipedia, and it makes me personally very frustrated when new editors (as well as old ones) are being driven away.
 * I'd like to note also that CU is often a subjective tool based on identifying edit styles that has a significant potential for human error, and if we, as a group, overuse this tool we are bound to lose good future editors. Marokwitz (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused: see CheckUser. JBL (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what am I confused about? The fact there is a potential for error? Based on following some SPI cases in the past then it is clear that yes, it is often highly subjective. Marokwitz (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that there is an error? M.Bitton (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've followed the link or understood the difference between "a generic sock-puppet investigation" and "the use of the CheckUser tool". --JBL (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are not sure you know what you are talking about, the best move is to stop. GAMING of editing restrictions is prohibited. Abusing multiple accounts is prohibited. That you find the editors who engage in such activities to be advantageous to your editing goals does not change that they remain prohibited and may be sanctioned accordingly. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear as I said too many things at once- sorry for that. I'm making three points:
 * The interpretation of 'gaming the system' is a misreading of the policy - for the reasons that I explained.
 * @Firefly's verdict for the first account was 'Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) technically and well enough connected behaviorally.' This reads as a subjective call, not a as rock-solid case.
 * I feel we are driving away potentially good newbies who have not done anything wrong, and I find this very sad for the future of our community.
 * Marokwitz (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your view on what is a misreading of policy is just your view, and one not shared by either other editors or admins enforcing the ArbCom sanctions. You are welcome to seek ArbCom clarification on if admins may revoke EC permission if they feel that it was gained through gaming. I expect that not to end in the result youre hoping for, but I been surprised on the internet before so YMMV. Your view on whether or not the evidence used by a CU to block an editor is sufficient is both ill-informed and not relevant because a. you dont know what the evidence is and b. you dont get a vote on if the evidence meets some threshold you would like to impose. As far as driving editors away, revoking EC only restricts access to CT topics, and only a couple of them at that. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other articles that an editor can edit to gain the experience required to meaningfully participate in more contentious areas. If an editor is only here to say edit-war over the Israel lead though, yes removing EC may drive them away. Whether or not that is a sad thing is, again, personal feeling. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit less dismissive attitude could make this conversation far more productive and maybe even enjoyable. Let's try that, shall we? I have the right to voice my opinion. Marokwitz (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PGAME should be updated to reflect community consensus and current practice that making a large number of trivial but not unconstructive edits only to hop directly into ECP topic areas without actually engaging sufficiently to learn applicable practice, constitutes GAMING. Folly Mox (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, and I'd be happy to join an RFC for such a suggested policy change.
 * However, the majority of the contributions of the user in question were not trivial, and as they gained more experience, their contributions have, in my assessment, become more substantial.
 * Are these trivial edits?
 * Marokwitz (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to sidestep all of this: I can't speak for Firefly, the admin who was pinged originally, but I don't personally see a case to revoke EC from GidiD. There is some PGAME-type behavior, but also a lot of substantive edits, and 14 days passed between them getting AC and getting EC. Overall it's not ideal but not something I'd revoke over. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 06:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The edits don't have to be trivial or unconstructive given that an experienced sock would know exactly what to do to avoid detection. We can't possibly guess what genius scheme they'll come up with next or list all the possible scenarios in the WP:GAME guideline. What we can do, however, is make sure that we don't ignore the alarm bells, and if a CU confirms our suspicion, then for all intents and purposes, the matter should be considered closed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The edits don't have to be trivial or unconstructive given that an experienced sock would know exactly what to do to avoid detection. We can't possibly guess what genius scheme they'll come up with next or list all the possible scenarios in the WP:GAME guideline. What we can do, however, is make sure that we don't ignore the alarm bells, and if a CU confirms our suspicion, then for all intents and purposes, the matter should be considered closed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Starbakgalaktika
Write only, vandalism.--Island92 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We need diffs for this accusation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification: incidents happened in UEFA Euro 2024 qualifying and UEFA Euro 2000 qualifying. Firstly he tried to omit Serbia's record in the qualifying table, then to give that record to Slovenia . It is against the consensus in football articles: USSR's record only transferred to Russia, Yugoslavia to Serbia, Czechoslovakia to Czech. At least after Island92's warning in talk page , he stopped, although his behaviour there is not very cooperative.  you need to inform him about the ANI discussion. This time I did it for you :) Centaur271188 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ban request user: Red Rose 13 for chronic bias and bad motive


I've observed that the user:Red Rose 13 has an agenda to slander Kriyananda's reputation as much as possible under Wikipedia's policy. They have been doing this since Dec 2011. They have two main agenda 1. discredit Swami Kriyananda as a spiritual authority along with his discipleship towards Yogananda, and 2. misrepresent the two major lawsuits against Kriyananda through one-sided statements. These claims are exemplified by their:

a. strong preference to mention the subject's birth name everywhere in the article, and not their monastic name. SRF (org that fought Kriyananda) also used the same tactic in their public and court letters.

b. excessive addition of "non-primary source required" tags in the article. But completely overlooks the same requirement on a similar page of which they are watcher and editor. In that page, the subject's autobiography (a primary source) has been heavily cited.

c. intentional toning-down of the relationship between Kriyananda and Yogananda - diff_1 diff_2

d. preference to retain biased representation of the lawsuits, while not giving any effort to make them neutral and disinterested.

e. blatant opposition against using "Swami" Kriyananda as the subject's name, even when provided with [| reasonable arguments].

f. Disruptive edit warring and dramatization (diff_1 diff_2 diff_3) Even I am guilty of edit warring, but not like this.

g. Their page edit history dates back from 2011 until now, and same behaviour is observed again and again.

They let the article stay biased for months (even years) without any self-effort to make them neutral. If at last, anyone takes the lead, they give their maximum effort to slow or bully them by citing Wiki Policies in their favor. The other person loses heart and gives up. Then, the article is slowly edited back to its biased and negative state. I am afraid, they have a strong and not so good motive to keep doing this for 12 years. It's sad and also amusing that they have been successful at it for this long without any liable actions. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think we generally ban people for 'citing Wikipedia policies'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you should try dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not going to stop them, multiple discussions on the talk page has yielded same outcome. The request is to prevent them from making chronic edit disruptions on the article. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bluesky whiteclouds, do you have any interest in editing Wikipedia articles not related to Kriyananda? --JBL (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With only two mainspace edits other than to the Kriyananda article -- and both those other articles mention him -- that would appear to be a big fat No. Bluesky whiteclouds is demonstrably a SPA with their own apparent bias.   Ravenswing     00:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, @JayBeeEll, why not. My present focus is on improving that article, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
 * @Ravenswing, you may look at my edits to see if I have adhered to WP:CONPOL or not. With my limited edit history, I will obviously seem to be a SPA. Do I have bias to present Kriyananda as a saviour or someone innocent? I strongly disagree. Again, please check my edits on the page.
 * @Red Rose 13 on the other hand hasn't followed the WP:NPOV policy, that too for a long time and even after multiple attempts of correcting them. I am happy to have them collaborate with me, but they have to stop being biased against Kriyananda. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * why not Well, that's what I'm wondering: apparently you created your account in 2016, but you didn't make any edits until last year; then you made about 40 edits, all of them about this one person, and went away for a year; and three weeks ago you came back and have made another 40 edits, all about this one person.  To me, that doesn't sound like you're very interested in improving the encyclopedia, it sounds like you have a bee in your bonnet about one extremely narrow point.  An important part of working in a collaborative project is knowing that you can't always have your way.  --JBL (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's only part of the problem, and I meant "selective citing of Wiki policies to gain unfair advantage over other editors". They strongly satisfy the "Not here to build an encyclopedia" blocking criterion among others. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a rather strong claim to make about someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2011, and has made 5,939 edits in total to 133 different articles. The evidence you have presented above certainly doesn't appear to support it. And regarding 'bias', I suggest you read Neutral point of view, since as it makes entirely clear, we measure neutrality against what published independent sources have to say on a subject, and not against some imaginary absolute standard of neutrality - meaning that we can't assess 'bias' here without a lot more evidence to go on. Actual evidence that sources aren't being accurately represented, not just vague claims of 'bias'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I am not asking a site wide ban for them, but their bad intent on the page is apparent with my evidence provided above. Yes, let me provide more evidence to this to help everyone ascertain this better. Please give me some time to collect them. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, their 'bad intent' isn't at all evident from your evidence above. Instead, all you have shown is that Red Rose 13 has made edits that you personally disagree with. And frankly, looking at the discussion on Talk:Kriyananda, I'd have to suggest that your disagreements seem mostly to be based around misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy, quite possibly motivated by your own personal opinions/bias regarding the subject matter. Presenting further 'evidence' on the same questionable premises seems unlikely to get you very far, and your apparent unwillingness to do what PhilKnight suggested above, which is to treat this as the content dispute it appears to be and to use dispute resolution procedures instead may end up rebounding on you. We tend not to show endless tolerance to new accounts which are unwilling to listen to advice, and who's first reaction to not being able to get their way is to call for sanctions. Take the time to figure out how this place works first, and leave collecting 'evidence' for such a time as you understand what would actually be needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see that anything Red Rose 13 has done qualifies for a block, but I suggest you read MOS:HONOUR and take note of Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources from WP:RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you lost me when you used the fact that they displayed a preference for secondary sources in an article, rather than primary sources. So you expect them to do the opposite of Wikipedia policy when it suites you is the basic premise of your argument. Can a admin please close this. TarnishedPathtalk 08:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's putting words in my mouth! If it's not clearly conveyed already, I meant, they selectively pick up one-sided narrative from the secondary sources they are citing, even if that same source has atleast some good points in favor of Kriyananda/Ananda.
 * From their main source for copyright lawsuit, they took "jurors agreed that Yogananda wanted SRF to maintain his copyrights", but didn't mention that "Ananda lawyer claimed that they were sued for $6 million but had to pay only $29,000". Moreover, they claim to have researched the lawsuit already. If they have done so, they would definitely have known that SRF lost their trademark validity and most of their copyright claims. We have reliable sources for them, and I was able to find them on the internet (and have now even used them to make that section of the article neutral)
 * For sexual harrassment lawsuit, they have cited #1, #2, #3 but only took the facts which maligns Kriyananda's image ("the jury gave 'guilty' verdict", "asked him and church to pay $1.8M to the woman", "several women testified against him"). They overlooked Ananda's takes on the verdict that it had many outright fabrications", or that this lawsuit was to tarnish Ananda/Kriyananda's image and use that to win copyright lawsuit (This is about religious freedom, not sexual harassment, smear campaign). These are still not good. Other article from the same newspaper (#4) have direct statements from Kriyananda on the verdict, but they haven't cited them. I am sure they would have found them if they had tried.
 * For the third legal case, in Italy, a simple exact search attempt on google to find a secondary source gives a reliable source (this one is the best). Yet, they have marked the court ruling as "non-primary source needed". Okay, maybe they didn't get time to do the research. Then why put that tag, when it was already tagged with "citation needed".
 * The article needs a neutral POV, and we have a duty to ensure that it happens. I am currently working on the sexual harrassment lawsuit and the italy case, and will use the above sources to correct the one-sided narrative.
 * Now, it is up to the admins of this site, to decide if these proofs mandate an article edit ban on Red Rose 13 or not.
 * P.S.: Reading wikipedia policies have made me realize that it has the sanest policiy articles ever written. It inspires one deeply, as to how everyone got together despite differences and made something wonderful. Thanks to all who gave their best. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1/. Uses of WP:PRIMARY sources should not self serving to the subject. Lawyers can claim all kinds of things, but are there independent secondary sources to back up those claims?
 * 2/. This is how the article should be constructed, independent secondary sources are always preferable to primary ones. If you have those use them to support new content, otherwise as others have said try reading WP:MANDY.
 * 3/. If a reference to a primary source already exist then citation needed is the incorrect tag, Red Rose 13 was correct in using primary source inline.
 * The editors replying here are trying to help you. WP:Assume good faith about that RexRose 13 editting, and think of using the other option for WP:Dispute resolution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Respective answers to your points 1) Neither me nor Red Rose 13 have depended on lawyer statements, but only on jury ruling document (yes, primary source, but reliable, and only cited for objective details not interpretations) and news reporting on those judgements. What Red Rose 13 hasn't done is represent them fairly, or has shown preference to show that SRF was righteous and Ananda was guilty of charges. 2) Answered to HandThatFeeds's comment as to why WP:MANDY isn't applicable in this case. 3) Agreed, i was meaning to say, they should try to find the citations first, rather than using . Let me highlight again, they are aware that Paramahansa Yogananda page has multiple primary citations, but there is no single attempt by them to tag that page. If one cannot make it better, one shouldn't make it worse.
 * Many of the editors here have replied with counter-allegations (fair enough) and block requests without addressing my request. If one provides diffs that Red Rose 13 has contributed towards making the article neutral, it will disprove my arguments much faster and effectively. I am thankful to those who have genuinely tried to help me.
 * I have assumed good faith with them, when we first started discussing the article last year, and even now (you may read our past talk page discussions to ascertain that). Until it was apparent to me that they had a hidden motive.
 * Now, one more person out of the blue has come to the article proposing to WP:TNT the accomplishment section of the article. I think it's not required, because it's fixable, and I will assume good faith with them. The section does need renaming and addition of reliable sources, and deletion of ones we cannot find a source for Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I moved to block User:Bluesky whiteclouds as an WP:SPA who clearly is only here to promote this one person. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think that I have violated the common rationales for blocking, nor have I given improper weight (WP:DUE) to Kriyananda's side of arguments to promote him. My sole motive is to make the article neutral while following WP:CONPOL, and my edits reflect that. You may show evidence to prove otherwise. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what NPOV means: it does not mean we give both sides equal weight. It means we show the facts, which in this case are that Ananda lost the sexual harassment lawsuit. We don't need to put in Ananada's "takes" on the verdict, because of course he disagrees (WP:MANDY).
 * You aren't simply striving for neutrality, you're trying to advocate. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in the common rationales under WP:NOTHERE: "Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear @David Eppstein and @HandThatFeeds, in this case, obscuring or discrediting the allegations against Kriyananda through primary sources can be considered promoting him. Rather, my attempt is to represent the article in a disinterested tone, not of one which has been influenced by the language style of anti-Ananda websites one finds on the internet. Wikipedia is a neutral site, not anti nor pro.
 * WP:MANDY is not a Wiki-policy, but nevertheless it's a good point. The reason it is still valid to mention Kriyananda/Ananda's perception of the lawsuit is because the jury wasn't exposed to the facts properly. Ananda wasn't allowed to question the witnesses (reported here) to check the truth behind the allegations of sexual misconduct. Leaving a huge possibility that the women were lying under oath. If they were infact lying, then Ananda's side of arguments cannot be dismissed. That's one reason Ananda has been reported to have stated "we have been silent...but now...(we can) speak freely", and "There were many outright fabrications". Can we prove the truth of the allegations? No. We cannot dismiss them either, they are of grave nature. Hence, both sides need to be represented enough to let the readers decide what to make of it. Exactly articulated by WP:NPOV's page in a nutshell. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User Earl Andrew - Conflict of Interest and Disruptive Editing Violations
On 13 November 2023 I edited Ekos Research Associates to clean up unsourced content that violates WP:Verifiability as well as WP:Promotional, WP:Logos, and WP:COI.

User Earl Andrew ("EA") has disruptively undone my edit in various forms 5 times in the ~48 hours since.

EA's direct edits of the article are in violation of WP:COI, as they are in conflict as a self-identified employee of Ekos Research Associates and they have been warned multiple times over weeks to propose edits on the article talk page, not make them directly. EA continued to repeatedly undo my edit, at various points claiming my edit was vandalism or otherwise not providing any evidence or explanation. EA has been unwilling to meet my requests to constructively discuss the edit in the talk page. EA has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page.

Given the persistent displays of bad faith, a level 2 warning for disruptive editing was noted on EA's talk page at 23:08, 15 November 2023. EA continued the behaviour with 2 disruptive edits since that warning.

EA is a longstanding, substantial Wikipedia contributor but seems shockingly unable to maintain perspective when it comes to Ekos, which they acknowledged employs them as a senior employee. Weeks of numerous warnings for COI and disruptive editing do not seem to matter. Could a block be necessary?

I am happy explain further if needed. Thank you.

Balancingakt (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That page history is a gong show; I've protected the article for a day so that this can be discussed in more detail. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is kind of a confusing thread to me. Clearly, there is a disagreement between yourself and Earl here. I am not sure what you mean by referring to WP:LOGOS; nothing there says that we shouldn't have logos in company articles. We typically do; Google, General Motors, even small random companies like Gadzoox and Intuitive Surgical. We even have logos for companies that are sussy or outright illegal (FTX, Stratton Oakmont, Enron, Halliburton, Blackwater (company) etc). I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that merely having a company's logo in an article constitutes a conflict of interest. Likewise, I am unaware of anything we have about cities or photos of buildings in infoboxes. What policy or guideline is this based on? You may have a point with the street address, but "one of the six things I kept removing actually needed to be removed" is not a great justification for edit-warring.
 * Nobody has particularly covered themselves with κλέος in this affair, though. I would not call myself a world-class expert on WP:COI but my understanding is that this kind of thing is discouraged (especially if it's contentious). Aren't people with active COIs supposed to make edit requests instead of editing the employer's article directly? Why not do this? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the considered feedback jpxg. WP:Logos states: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons." Ekos Research Associates' logo is not reasonably familiar to the general public, unlike the major companies you listed. An employee of the company being the one to select and add the logo, as Earl Andrew is, adds further to the likelihood that the purpose of its inclusion is for advertisement/promotional reason. The infobox images show up on blurbs when the company's name is run through google search, for instance.
 * The conflict of interest issue is a separate rationale. WP:COI sets out that users with identified conflicts of interest, as Earl Andrew is, should refrain from directly editing. Ultimately all of the content I removed had no source, other than a self-confessed employee of Ekos adding it. That is an issue with both the Ekos Research Associates page and with Ekos boss Frank Graves' pages--lack of verifiable sources. I have worked to trim that unverified content and add new content that meets WP:verifiability. Balancingakt (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:COIADVICE makes an allowance for uncontroversial edits, which the business address and logo surely are? Special:Diff/1185319514 doesn't seem worth an edit war, and multiple editors have objected on the talk page to treating Earl Andrew's edit as controversial. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On this note, I am also not sure what Balancingakt means by "unsourced". The stuff they are removing is obviously sourced: the company's website is linked right there in the infobox. You can go there and see what their logo is, and their street address is at the bottom of the page. I don't think we need specific inline references for this, it's just common sense. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:COIADVICE allows for uncontroversial edits. But these are specifically outlined to be limited to (quoting):
 * (1) remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,
 * (2) remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy,
 * (3) fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors,
 * (4) repair broken links,
 * (5) remove their own COI edits, and
 * (6) add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.
 * If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. 
 * @Mackensen could you explain how adding the business address and logo fit into this definition? Balancingakt (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Balancingakt's edits look fairly ridiculous to me. Deleting the lead sentence of the article claiming COI ? Deleting a bunch of infobox parameters claiming COI ? How on earth was this rewrite remoteley acceptable ? It turned the article into little more than an attack page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of Balancingakt's edits to Frank Graves (pollster) look to be equally terrible. They seem to have absolutely no understanding of sourcing policy or when it is acceptable to use primary sources - it is perfectly acceptable to use someone's CV/web profile to source their educational qualifications, year of birth or full name! The following Earl Andrew around, reverting completely acceptable edits made years ago while screaming policies that they clearly haven't read frankly looks like a harassment/hounding campaign. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm, yeah ..., what was going on in these two edits that I just reverted, to Mullaghmore, Tullyhunco and Kirklees College, both removing a reference that included an Archive.org archive URL, with edit summary Removed dead link. No archive available.? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I went back further in their edit history and there are a very large number of these edits (removing formatted citations simply because they happen to include a URL which is no longer active). I've reverted these too. I don't think this is being done in bad faith, as Bal has less than 200 edits. But I do think that there needs to be some clear guidance somewhere -- I don't know which page it should be on -- because I have seen many new editors laboring under the idea that a dead link tag means "the book/magazine/etc has retroactively ceased to exist so please remove the entire citation". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One of my recent projects here has been to work through identified dead links through Wikipedia's [external links project]. My apologies if I made an error or two. Generally I believe you will find those contributions are solid. Balancingakt (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks for responding. However, as says, removing such citations is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes the website changed its archiving system and the citation can be found at a more recent URL, for example. Also, you haven't really answered my question: why did you remove the citations here and here when it included an archive link? You are probably using a different editing interface from me. Can't you see the archive.org URLs in those two references? JPxG, I've looked at your last three reverts and they were all indeed marked as dead links. The two I highlighted weren't simply marked that way. There was an archived URL right there in the reference! (And I don't want to completely distract from the issue of the edits at Ekos Research Associates.) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to remove dead link citations that include an archive link. The | external links project provides a way to access random pages with dead link flags. To help that effort, I locate pages with dead links and try to solve the issue through adding an archive link or identifying that a citation is needed. Either I overlooked the archive link in error or my editing interface did not display it. My apologies. Feel free to review my other edits. Balancingakt (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate 86.23.109.101's detailed review but I am concerned their arguments here are turning uncivil and not assuming good faith. Any of the edits I made to Ekos Research Associates and Frank Graves were to either remove unsourced, promotional content, content added by a self-professed employee of Ekos and Frank Graves or to add content from reliable sources in line with Wikipedia policy. Where is the attack?


 * I have not been following Earl Andrew around harassing him and to suggest otherwise is again uncivil and in bad faith. I am sensitive to WP:HOUNDING and I have been careful not to engage in broad, punitive investigation of Earl Andrew's entire Wikipedia history. I am trying to work with him to understand and resolve only the specific violations of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy that he self-identified (i.e. he is an employee of Ekos Research Associates and its president Frank Graves and has made promotional edits over years to their pages). Earl Andrew has elected not to meet my constructive outreach in resolving things. I have put in hours of work editing, researching and adding to these articles to improve their previous conflicted, unsourced, and frankly promotional state in line with Wikipedia policy.Balancingakt (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that this topic has turned into an unfocused assessment of the sprawling, unrelated Wikipedia edit history of myself and Earl Andrew, starting to approach WP:WITCHHUNT instead of discussing the topic at hand: whether repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term.
 * The facts are:
 * (1)Earl Andrew has self-declared that he is a senior employee of Ekos and has been identified and warned that WP:COI directs him not to make direct edits to the article.
 * (2)I made recent edits to the page to remove information that was unsourced, promotional in nature, in violation of logo policy, and/or added by Earl Andrew while he was in conflict as an employee of the subject. In other words: with rationale drawing from multiple clear Wikipedia policy violations.
 * (3) In violation of WP:COI Earl Andrew continued to make direct edits, reverting/rolling back my edit or re-adding the content that I edited out in line with policy. He made false claims of vandalism and/or provided no edit rationale for doing so. He was warned that this persistent unconstructive behaviour could constitute disruptive editing and politely requested to discuss in the talk page (which his WP:COI status requires of him anyway) but continued the disruptive, warring behaviour.
 * Refocusing on the original core of this topic: Weeks of numerous outreach, advisory, and warnings for COI and disruptive editing of Ekos Research Associates do not seem to matter to Earl Andrew. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I see some assumption of bad faith on your part. Scroll up and you will see editors pushing back against your representation of a HQ address, for example, as unsourced when it's there in the linked company home page. There is some WP:ABOUTSELF latitude for primary sources, and one thing that links your two types of edits, removing material at Ekos Research Associates and removing dead links, is that you do not appear to be looking for sources yourself. Per WP:PRESERVE, that's the best thing to do. If you think the location of a company's headquarters should be referenced, for example, first look in the article text to see whether it already is, and if not, look for a reference in the business press. On logos, WP:LOGOS seems to me to need a bit of attention; it appears to contradict itself, saying in the intro: The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. but below, the Advertising section that you refer to: Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons. (Both were added at the same time in 2004.) I believe the intro represents what we actually do: articles on companies as a rule have the logo at the top (usually in an infobox), and those that are too complex to be copyright-free form a significant category of fair use uploads here on en.wiki. But you've come across something that really does seem to be contradictory. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtful explanation on primary sourcing and logos Yngvadottir. My concern still remains that Earl Andrew should not be making any direct edits to the Ekos Research Associates article as per WP:COI, as he is a senior employee of the firm. I made an edit, which albeit has some room for debate. Earl Andrew disruptively reverted that edit repeatedly and disurptively, instead of discussing it on the talk page, which WP:COI binds him to do. I am trying to build a better article. I cannot do so if a conflicted contributor makes edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, refuses to discuss, and does not heed my polite personal outreach or even warnings. I am here for help if you can provide it.
 * Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but Balancingakt nominated Ekos Research Associates for deletion, which closed as "keep". I also note that Earl Andrew commented at the AfD, but refrained from expressing an explicit view or from directly improving the article specifically because of a conflict of interest. My take from that is that Earl Andrew is well aware of what COI is, and hence no action is required.

I endorse the IP's view that this edit by Balancingakt was problematic. The source was not a specific criticism of EKOS, indeed it simply mentioned general polling accuracy figures in a neutral manner without comment, so to paint it as criticism of EKOS is simply adding original research and not writing to a neutral point of view. Just because something is in a reliable source, doesn't mean it should be added to an article - other policies have to be considered as well. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ritchie333 Thank you for joining. Yes, I nominated the article for deletion because as the record shows it had zero reliable sources for any of its information and was almost entirely built by Earl Andrew, who self-declared as an employee of the company itself. That nomination was in line with WP:AfD and helped improve the article greatly.
 * Ritchie333's information is incomplete: Earl Andrew did engage in direct edits and had even edited my AfD request to remove reference to his conflict of interest--very disruptive, dishonest and inappropriate. Earl Andrew has continued to deny violate the direction of WP:COI. Earl Andrew has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page, which I can elaborate on but ANI demands brevity.
 * |The edit Ritchie referenced remains a verifiable conclusion from a reliable source, which I directly quoted in the citation. The quote explicitly acknowledges that Ekos did not meet the accuracy standard of the top 5 polling firms. Does Ritchie333 read the quote differently? If Ritchie's objection is article-scale balance, I am working on incrementally building out the reliable sources. It takes time but longer-term balance will come, if there is balance to be found in reliable sources. You don't delete an entry because it provides a distinct and well-evidenced assesment of the subject's work. Happy to discuss.
 * I am concerned this topic keeps losing focus on the specific topic at hand: whether repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "As I say, Earl Andrew has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page." Pull the other one, it's got bells on. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic is whether the repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term. Why are you engaging in ad hominem attacks in the range of WP:WITCHHUNT instead of discussing evidence related to the specific topic at hand? Does how many/what nature of edits each user has made determine whether someone violated Wikipedia policy? Balancingakt (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Balancingakt, you appear to be mistaken in some way. What do you mean, Earl Andrew had even edited my AfD request to remove reference to his conflict of interest--very disruptive and inappropriate? Their only edits to the AfD that I can see are these 2 edits noting COI and suggesting sources and this follow-up statement that they've listed sources. Those edits don't remove any text, and as Ritchie333 says, they admit the COI. What are you referring to that was "disruptive and inappropriate"? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See | 15:47, 3 October 2023 Ekos article edit here where Earl Andrew removed reference to his COI in my AfD request. Apologies if I I may not be diff referencing correctly. If there is a better way, please let me know. Balancingakt (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're putting pipes in URL links (links with single []) (<sm>and you also appear to have an extra 0</sm>). Rather than fix your diff link above, here's the edit at the time and date you refer to. That's Earl Andrew removing parts of your PROD rationale (you PRODded the article on October 3, Earl Andrew made his edit to the rationale, you reverted him and removed the PROD all on the same day, then you started the AfD on October 6). I tend to agree with Earl Andrew, that was an unnecessarily over-the-top and personalized PROD rationale that lost nothing by being shortened. Reporting editors at this noticeboard are scrutinized too, so that we can figure out how best to solve the problem. Tone it down and be precise and you'll get a better hearing. Do you accept that the article was kept after discussion at AfD? and that Earl Andrew responded to the AfD by suggesting several useful sources (I see you used at least one of them in seeking to improve the article)? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Yngvadottir. Too often Wikipedia degenerates into combat, where if you are the more reserved advocate, your side loses. Your civil explanation is rare and greatly appreciated. I note that your finding means that Earl Andrew disruptively edited my PROD rationale, changing my words to remove reference to his COI, a disruptive and bad faith action to take.
 * I fully accept that Ekos Research Associates was kept after AfD discussion, as that discussion identified reliable sources that otherwise were otherwise completely lacking nor easily identifiable in my corrective research due to Ekos' huge search engine volume of self-produced, promoted polls that were a work product of the company/article subject. The articles for Ekos and Frank Graves were both largely filled with zero-citation, corporate-sourced, extremely promotional content and 100% met the requirements for deletion.
 * Per my user page I am focused on a project to bring improved rigor and evidence to Wikipedia's representations of the bias of major media outlets in Canada (including polling firms like Ekos). My intention is to have greater evidence-based discussion to be able to hold all media outlets to public account. I believe in Wikipedia and what good information can do for the public. I want this article to be better and will work do make it so if the employees of the company and its owner will allow it to.
 * I need your help to ensure Wikpedia users and policy dictate how that article is improved, not conflicted employees of Ekos. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article?
 * I will take care of the rest. Balancingakt (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

At the top of the thread, Balancingakt wrote "Could a block be necessary?" It seems one could. Balancingakt, this is a warning that if you continue to harass Earl Andrew in this manner, there will be a block. You have said enough on this subject matter and need to let consensus play out. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Should I not ensure full, correct information is provided for other ANI Wikipedians, @Ritchie333?
 * How am I harassing Earl Andrew? I have tried extensively to work with him to understand and resolve only the narrow, specific violations of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy that he self-identified (i.e. he is an employee of Ekos Research Associates and its president Frank Graves and has made promotional edits over years to their pages)? I have tried to constructively resolve this with Earl but Earl continues to violate WP:COI in making direct edits to his employers page, refuses to talk about his COI, and does not heed my polite outreach including warnings of clear violations provided.
 * Are you here to threaten me or can you please help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, you are not being "threatened". You are being warned that your behavior is violating Wikipedia policies and can result in sanctions against you. You've repeatedly been told that Earl Andrew has not violated COI, but you stubbornly insist he has, which can be construed as WP:HOUNDing.
 * Also, cut it out with the bold. It's not helpful and comes across as shouting.
 * I'll get right to the point: why are you so focused on editing articles about Ekos Research Associates and its employees? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Balancingakt from editing this noticeboard for 24 hours. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain why? Balancingakt (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As a non-admin and uninvolved user who had the misfortune of reading this entire exchange, I'll try to explain what just happened to you. After coming across something you believed to be an issue, you reported it here (which is fine), but were told that it did not rise to a level requiring administrative action. Instead of accepting that answer, you kept insisting without moving an inch, repeating the same points, the same accusations, even the same bolding of text. Many users tried to explain to you that your assessment of the situation was not correct, and that you should let the matter go. You didn't.
 * There comes a point when even well-meant (assuming good faith here) "wikipolicing" becomes a pain in the arse to the people who actually have to deal with complaints, as their time (the most valuable resource around these parts is time, for both admins and regular users) is wasted for no good reason, not to mention the disruption potentially caused by the flurry of complaints itself. It is at this point that the blocks come out, and you are lucky that you only got a partial block from a noticeboard for 24 hours. Use this newfound time to do something useful and move on from this discussion. Ostalgia (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I figure I should probably weigh in my two cents on the matter, considering this involves me! Bal has been a continuous thorn in my side the last few months, and I have certainly felt harassed by them. It's nice to see that others agree with that, because I wasn't sure if my feelings were justified or not. In my 20 years as an editor, I've never had an ongoing dispute quite of this nature. At first I assumed good faith on their part, but as you can see they seem to have one-track mind, that I am a tainted editor who has poisoned this site with COI edits. At no point did they actually cite any particular edit I made that was an actual conflict of interest. From the beginning, I have been very transparent about everything, about my work history and how it aligns with my edits to the EKOS Research article. But that hasn't been enough to satisfy them, much to my great frustration. At a certain point I decided to refrain my engaging with them, as I did not believe anything productive could be achieved through our discussions, and to benefit my mental health. I am glad to see others weigh in on this, as it both justifies my feelings and also lets Bal know that their way of handling disputes with other editors is not constructive. Thank you, everyone. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I've said before that the COI policies were never designed to prevent subject experts from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, or to prevent subjects of BLPs ensuring the articles are factually accurate and verifiable. Indeed, in its current state Ekos Research Associates doesn't look like a particularly good article, and I'd go as far as to say that you should be allowed to improve it per WP:IAR. I realise that's a bit of a minority view, and you're probably best to err on the side of the caution.
 * Incidentally, it's not just you - I have no idea what Balancingakt's problem is with Frank Graves, but they also went after (who ignored them). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally, it feels wrong for me to improve the EKOS article, outside of reverting vandalism, of course. I did feel that Bal's removal of the logo/picture/address was vandalism, though, as they left the article in a worse state than before, so I had no problem reverting their edits. In fact, it had the added bonus of them bringing this dispute to the attention of more rationale actors.
 * I did notice they went after Jiffles1 before me. While this is speculation on my part, I feel like Bal may have personal views that have led to them scrutinizing EKOS and Frank Graves more than anything else. I will admit that my boss has made controversial statements before that has angered people with more conservative view points, and this may be the cause of Bal's ... focus. The irony here is that Bal hides behind their username (which is completely their right of course), whereas I have been nothing but transparent about who I am, who I work for any my experience. Meanwhile, I am left to speculate what Bal's whole deal is.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's clear that nothing productive is coming out of this and either there should be no action taken or some combination of a one-way interaction ban preventing Balancingakt from interacting with Earl Andrew and a topicban for Balancingakt for all pages and people related to Ekos, broadly construed. While the discussion started out mostly reasonable, Balancingakt has made constant accusations, assumption of bad faith, put words in editors' mouths (see the exchange with Yngvadottir above), continually demand that people talk about only the subject and possibly infractions that *they* want to talk about, to practically demanding action with their own copypasta, and WP:OWN ("I will take care of the rest"). Ritchie333 has given enough escalating warnings that Balancingakt can hardly claim they weren't warned. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would very much appreciate a one-way interaction ban between Bal and myself, considering I have no intention of interacting with them.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment About Shouting
I see that Balancingakt found a way of SHOUTING that is not quite as blatant as the use of all upper case but is nonetheless obviously shouting, and did call for some action, which was taken. I remember once a few years ago that an editor used markup to increase the size of his words to maybe 24 points, which was even more disruptive than the user of all upper case because it took up space for the rest of the screen. As to the specific case in point, any form of deliberately repeated emphasis is shouting and is disruptive. Thirty years ago, some posters didn't know better than to use all upper case. It isn't thirty years ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * They've not edited since the 16th, so I suppose we'll have to see if they continue the shouting whenever they come back. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm now coming round to the idea that Balancingakt is simply a troll, and having had their appeal against the short block from ANI declined twice, have probably decided that the game's up, they can't needle Earl Andrew anymore, and have probably abandoned the account and have got another one to troll with instead. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While this is possible, they have gone for long periods without editing before, so I'm not holding out hope quite just yet.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Anon reinserting OR into an article
An anon keeps reinserting OR into voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants. They clearly don't know a lot about the subject and they do not cite any sources (which is why I now twice removed the discussion from the talk page, it's a waste of time for everyone).

This editor either has a dynamic IP address or perhaps travels a lot. The most recent IP address is this one. The previous ones are, and. Sol505000 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I had a look there and all of the IP addresses used to repeatedly make the disruptive edits seem to be part of the range 146.96.0.0/16. So if an admin were to stop the anonymous editor from editing the article, then the two possible actions that could be taken would be to either partially block the /16 range from the affected article(s), or semi-protect the page for at least a month. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  10:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Has a serious attempt at dispute resolution been made? I have semi-protected for a month due to the edit warring, but the talk page has no recent edits and other articles are involved. Please get input from WikiProject Linguistics. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There used to be extensive discussion on the talk page between the IP editor and other editors concerning the edit as recent as 9 hours ago, but the entire discussion has been removed by Sol505000 under the reason "WP:NOTAFORUM": see the page history of Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants. Also for convenience, permalink to last talk page revision before the discussion was deleted. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  12:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AP 499D25. Sol505000, I don't think a participant in a talk page discussion unilaterally blanking it is appropriate. See WP:TPO; these comments were not "gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material". I have reverted your blanking.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment that Sol505000 has never raised any question about the denti-alveolar/alveolar difference until the day he did his last revert. Previously, I had undid Nardog's revert twice because he didn't read the discussion at all - had he read it I would never undid his edits, but that past problem had been resolved before Sol505000's coming. Nardog did have some problem with the source of most added Chinese examples that is not inline, but that's a Wikipedia template technical problem, which I compromised by adding inline citations in a  way. As I was adding inline citation and double checking reliability of every example, Sol505000 came and revert my edit in the name of "full rv edit warrior", forcing me to do my last corrections with an undid function and immediately did a self-revert. Since Sol505090's questioning of the phonemic independence of "acoustically rhotic" sound (a convenient ad hoc name I used in analogy of rhotic vowel which Sol505000 strongly disliked for being "phonetic"), I have never done any insertion of  "rhotic alveolar" in the article, nor did I list the source to actively put that idea in the talk page (because I wanted to double-check some sources, etc. before preparing a persuative point with not just academic primary sources but also secondary ones that Sol505000 has to accept). It would take another week to see if everyone accepts that point for me to add it to the article. So there's no need for semi-protection if issues listed in the discussion page are concerned, however, I am going to push the inclusion of those examples unless anyone actively questions the citations supporting their inclusion (Nardog did, for lack of inline citation, I added inline ones and he was okay with that, case closed), which is not the case. I don't think that has any violation against any Wikipedia policy (except for being verbose ) because you can't say "No you cannot add that and I'm not going to tell you why you just can't". When Sol505000 did the last revert due to "denti-alveolar approximant", not only did he report that as "reinserting OR" albeit nobody had ever questioned that before in previous discussion, but he also reverted the inclusion of those examples with which he appeared to have no problem (to simply remove denti-alveolar from my edit, instead of a full revert, was easy). To me that's somewhat disruptive. --146.96.25.55 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like some experts in WikiProject Linguistics to resolute the dispute. Sol505000 doesn't seem to be familiar with Sino-Loloish phonology. I would hope a linguist who speak Danish/Icelandic/Mandarin/Dahalo to comment there. Both Sol505000 and Nardog have a false claim that the English /ɹ/ could never be "alveolar" in the way that File:Alveolar approximant.ogg was articulated. Such claim is in contrary with most English phonology descriptions (most reliable sources) and in contrary with most Wikipedia articles as well. There is an elephant in the room, and it seems most linguists in the Danish/Icelandic/Mandarin/Dahalo circle are aware of it but nobody wants to touch it. If a linguist inside the circle can join the discussion I believe it will be solved well. 146.96.25.55 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is not for resolving the editing disagreement. It's about the fact you kept forcing the content into the article against consensus. Just take it to the Talk page, follow dispute resolution steps, and accept the outcome. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Long term disruption by 81.100.97.187 at the Sarah Stirk article
persists in adding unreferenced content, in particular an unreferenced date of birth to. This is despite a three month block followed by a one year block.


 * 23:17, June 17, 2021, unreferenced DOB
 * 01:07, June 18, 2021, unreferenced claim about her personal life
 * 01:34, June 18, 2021, unreferenced claim about her personal life
 * 21:04, June 19, 2021, unreferenced DOB
 * 23:21, June 24, 2021, unreferenced DOB
 * 09:09, June 25, 2021, unreferenced DOB
 * 09:29, September 17, 2023, unreferenced DOB
 * 09:43, September 17, 2023, unreferenced DOB for her son
 * 13:37, October 18, 2023, unreferenced claim
 * 15:45, November 6, 2023, unreferenced claim
 * 00:50, November 19, 2023, unreferenced DOB
 * November 19, 2023, various unreferenced claims including unreferenced DOB for her son

Their disruption isn't limited to that article either, they are also problematic at and. FDW777 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 2 years. Talk about failing to get the point. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Zenomonoz reported by Andrea014

 * Sorry for my poor English! I told the user a lot of times to keep off of my talkingpage. He edits again and again. I am really helpless with him and the conflict is not tiny. Zenomonoz had insulted me in the deWP, I reported this to the administrators, who yesterday banned him from the deWP infinit. After this he made a deletion request for one of the articles I contributed for the enWP. After that he now is about to delete a lot in other articles I contributed. For my opinion it is nothing than revenge what is the motive. That he sometimes is full of hatred is to be seen on an old edit, he deleted himself two minutes later. Because of him I cleared my user- and talkpage and will never have any contribution in the enWP. For my opinion his repeated edits on my talkpage are a reason to ask admins for help as for me it is a kind of vandalism. I am really scared about what happened since yesterday in deWP. If I am wrong here, I beg you pardon, I am at the age between 70 and 80, and not used to the rules in enWP. It is the first time I ask for administrator intervention. Andrea014 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an inappropriate report. I have not vandalised anything (edit: Andrea014 initially posted this on a vandalism noticeboard, so the response refers to vandalism). You appear to misunderstand guidelines.
 * You are referring to off-topic 6 year old mistakes (socking, rude comment) which I did when I was a teenager and was unblocked for after I apologised and worked hard to repair via the WP:STANDARDOFFER.
 * You are incorrectly assuming you WP:OWN articles, and complaining because I edited "your" articles: here, here, here, here
 * Here is the alleged vandalism:
 * I have added citation needed templates to your uncited work: here, here, here.
 * I have nominated one of your promotional articles for deletion at AFD after it was deleted on German Wikipedia as it lacks notability and secondary source coverage. That is not vandalism.
 * The edit history of the pages that you claim I am vandalising are here: here, here and here. None of the edits constitute vandalism.
 * On enWP, all claims must be verified through secondary independent sources per WP:VER.
 * WP:FOLLOWING states Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. My edits are simply improving some of the articles you have contributed to. I checked your work after seeing the poor quality of the article I nominated for AFD.
 * Note to the reviewing admin: Andrea014 also appears to be WP:CANVASSING. On deWP she said I was ruining her articles on English Wikipedia (written in Deutsch), which caused a German editor to come over and incorrectly revert me for removing one of her uncited paragraphs.
 * Also, regarding my block on German Wiki: I accidentally attributed a homophobic comment as originating from Andrea014, but it actually was left by another user. I struck this comment immediately when I realised the mistake, but I was blocked for the misattribution anyway. German WP has its own standards, thats fine. This occurred after Andrea spent days defending a misleading claim that 50% of pedophiles are homosexual (which is unsupported by research – 11:1 is 8%) but it's irrelevant here. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What you write about deWP is wrong! As everybody can see who is able to read german. Andrea014 (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying? You deleted my comment! Here it is:
 * I write on my German takpage just for the records, as a case like this I had never before in my 9 years of writing in Wikipedia. The conflict with you startet on 1. November and ended with your block in deWP. Ended? No! Now you continue in enWP. What other people do is not my responsibility! Your kind of interacting is too aggressive and your editing on my talkpage in enWP is harassment, as I told you to keep off. Andrea014 (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrea, there was not a "conflict" since the 1 of Nov. There was a large discussion (link) involving another user about content on a page. That is normal, and it's also on a different Wiki. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion was not "normal"! Andrea014 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 6 years ago you have been teenager? So you are maximum 24 years old. This is fine, but in German WP you behaved as you could be a man with expertise and lifeexperiance. I told you there about my experiance but you had nothing else to do as to ridicule me. Andrea014 (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems Andrea014 may have a WP:COI. She uploaded a number of photos that were taken by Diana Ivanova as the author:  . Might be why she thinks it's a problem I adjusted the Diana Ivanova article by adding "citation needed" tags. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , would you mind voluntarily behaving in the way an interaction ban might else have to work? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was about to suggest something like that. Do I need to also voluntarily refrain from touching the list of articles that Andrea created? Or just no interactions as outlined in the interaction ban page? (e.g. talk page, edit undos, etc). I am happy to voluntarily enact an interaction ban for the sake of resolving this quickly. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The best would be not touching my (only) 6 articles. For these you are not neutral!
 * And that I should have an COI by uploading photos is funny! I asked a lot of people for giving fotos. But as I said in deWP you should have one it is important for you to give back. This - but only this - is no problem for me. Andrea014 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked ToBeFree because interaction ban states "the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other". Content that can't be verified in a secondary source can be removed or tagged with, which is what I did. But let's wait and see what ToBeFree decides. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is, what you did? This tells another story! Andrea014 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't make an authoritative decision in this regard; bans are imposed by community consensus. My idea does include not editing the few English articles has created or substantively edited, as the main problem currently appears to be you following her around while blocked on a different wiki for reasons related to your interactions with the same person. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. (edit: striking as I misread ToBeFree, I will volunteer to not edit Andrea's articles. See my comment below) It's probably easier if I voluntarily stick to the standard interaction ban rules, given the edits of the articles themselves were not ban worthy. I'm just leave the articles she created alone for a while, I'll probably lose interest. Not great that she seems to have suggested that an unrelated user on German wiki should weigh in on this ANI, which the user rebuffed , but my translation is a bit rough. It may cool things down if you are able to clarify to Andrea what the voluntary interaction ban means, and that my edits on the articles themselves were about verifiability (perhaps this will be much clearer in German)? Thanks, this is a good resolution. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For a while? You never will be neutral for these 6 articles. Andrea014 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad,, I misunderstood your comment so ignore my above response. I thought you meant it did not include not editing the articles, but you actually wrote: ”My idea DOES include not editing the few English articles”. Easy to misread. I can agree to this. I will not edit the articles so the ANI can be resolved. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * have nominated one of your promotional articles for deletion at AFD after it was deleted on German Wikipedia as it lacks notability and secondary source coverage. That is not vandalism. sounds to me like Conflict-of-Intrest/promo editing. Babysharkboss2 was here!!  (Shoot to thrill) ( Play to Kill ) 13:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that characterization is strange. The most relevant policy seems to be the one against harassment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, and, can you stop your bickering? If I see either of you quarrelling in this thread again, I will block you for 24 hours from editing this noticeboard. (Können Sie hier aufhören zu streiten, sonst gibt es eine Benutzersperrung.) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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


 * As per written on your Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Solidest
 * RE: Article:Afro Tech, contributions and edits
 * 1. They are clearly two seperate words, and how the subgenres name is predominantly displayed as well as typed across a plethora of sources and platforms, not a stylization. (Your move also only suspiciously, took place after the pages views were increasing. After your move ,it's back to near 0). Again ,seems malicious and unecessary, not even by accident or genuinely wanting to improve.Thus, if the bots or more established admins haven't found a problem, I think you should disregard it. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fusion_music_genres ; "This category contains music genres that could be considered fusions of various historical genres; that is, they combine elements of different genres together." As per numerous sources and evidence, this is or will definitely be the case , in future, if not so, already. 3 None of the sources , source nothing , if you have time to read properly ,they all mention or highlight the topic/ article. Thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * I have actually just found that you are the last and only editor on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech page's contributions that created at least three duplicate, citation, instead of re-using, which I have to rescue and fix, now. I don't know what your problem is but please stop with the fixation and malisciousness.
 * The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Solidest also displays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_ behaviour across, at least 3 different accounts , all evidentially what seems like constantly only "tracking" my edits, almost daily since I started my user account, I am new and not perfect , still learning and honing my editing skills, this user's behaviour has been highly perturbing. Please assist and/or advise further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And if not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, piggbacking and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry, there are literal, sabotage edits in my first and only page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech , such as duplicate, citation source references and then later on my talk page accusing me of listing "fake sources". Removing text and edits as well as  labeling them as "copy editing" and constant incorrect grammar edits, I would have to correct , after the user(s) block the "undo" function , forcing me to do manual "undos" when I am a new editor. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like a content dispute and neither of you have engaged on the article's talk page. That's where this discussion needs to start. @ToosieJoosie, unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry are inappropriate. If you feel there is a genuine concern and can back it up with diffs, go to WP:SPI. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be proof that the user is infact maliscious, since he/ she is a more experienced and longstanding editor. He/ she would've known to do that, instead comes straight here which highlights the constant sabotage and tracking of my edits and page creation. Perhaps the user's aim is not only to discredit me however to entirely get my account deleted. As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page where the user , again started a discussion instead of the article's talk page. Let's hope it will be resolved civilly and not reach that far. I kindly, thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToosieJoosie, your path at Wikipedia will be much smoother and you'll be more successful at achieving your desired results if you focus your comments on content, not on editors. Your most recent post to Solidest on your talk page takes a battlefield approach that simply escalates hostilities. I understand that Afro Tech is a new article and it's the first article that you created so it's natural to feel possessive over it. However, you don't own the article. Please, stop the accusations. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the statements made such as sabotage duplicate citations, then later on accusing me of listing fake sources and incorrect grammar edits after my editing are not accusations & can be tracked. Any mistakes I have or may have made are obviously because I am a new(beginner) editor. On the other hand,clearly disruptive edits made by more experienced user(s)/ editor(s), is highly suspicious. ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @Solidest's talk page as per Talk page guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; Please do not bite the newcomers and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  ToosieJoosie (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The page has already been reviewed twice by a user and a bot (user/s bot). Without any problems or highly concerning instances. I do feel as though @Solidest's behaviour is highly perturbing and accusations, exaggerated for alleged reasons mentioned prior to and perhaps others. @Solidest could we agree to disagree and you perhaps , fixate on something / someone else or create your own page(s),as what you're currently doing now is not only time as well as energy consuming but highly unecessary,too. As @Schazjmd mentioned it is a mere "content dispute", not such a big deal.
 * @Schazjmd I have focused on the content, @Solidest wrote on my talk page and I was simply , reiterating the reply on his talk page too as he/ she had done on, mine. The page move wasn't necessary as there are title(s) of the genre displayed the same/ in a similar manner without any issues.The user keeps on bringing up disputes that he/ she can self-pacify via researching or actually reading the "fake sources" I have been accused of. The user's arguments are also a clear indication of not researching or having any actual knowledge in the topic however creating disputes just "for the sake" of it. ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * please read WP:OWN, a policy page you still don't seem to have read, because asking Solidest to stay off an article you created is not allowed. You're both at risk of getting blocked from editing that article entirely because neither of you has started a discussion at that article's talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by "As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page" but in their first message here, Schazjmd told you this discussion ought to happen at Talk:Afro Tech. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 22:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I never ever asked anyone to stay off an/any article, what I stipulated or meant rather could be interpreted as him/ her @Solidest please not warring on my talk page or disruptive edits, without clearly researching or clearly for "the sake of it" - on my edits. I had no issues whatsoever, not even starting any talks on the page's article or anyone's talk page, whereas there's / was clear evidence of disruptive edits/ vandalism. @Schazjmd mentioned it was supposed to be initiated on the article's talk page, because @Solidest only initiated a discussion directly  on my talk page, that's where I had to respond. That's what I meant by "as advised". ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @City of Silver & @Schazjmd
 * RE: I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @Solidest's talk page as per Talk page guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; Please do not bite the newcomers and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point ToosieJoosie (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My edits are routine style corrections that I make on a regular basis within the music genre taskforce. I made the edits and gave reasons in the comments why wikipedia does it this way and not the other. ToosieJoosie started reverting and rolling everything back. I started the conversation on their personal page, not on the article's talk page, as I thought the issues of WP:MOS and sources placing were more about the user editing practice than the subject of this exact article (but I wasn't sure if that was right, and that's where I was wrong). I replied with more details about why it should be like that and provided links where it is written, they still disagreed and moved on to accusing me. This over-dramatisation over disagreeing with trivial edits is exactly what I was trying to avoid. If someone doesn't agree that wiki guidelines should be followed, I don't have the motivation to prove otherwise. Regarding the accusations of "fake sources" - my phrase was "false sources" and I further explained that I was talking about using the source where it doesn't support or match the sentence in which it was posted. That reference use was brought back to the same place. In the other place, I put Not in source, which ToosieJoosie also removed for no reason without making any corrections. The problem really isn't so much with the article itself (which is why I didn't make any more edits there), but with ownership and disagreement with the wiki's guidelines, and instead of finding a solution, it went straight to accusations and personal attacks, and accusations of puppeteering here sound even more ridiculous. Solidest (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am no longer going to back and forth regarding this specific article or "my faults". I tried to only focus on the content and even now a user/ editor has removed relative emphasis information and shortned the lead for what appears no valid, reason.Which I will try to restore as I mentioned it is, relevant information.  All of "these kinds" of edits were not taking place on the article, nor my edits elsewhere until "you"/ recently. Thank you everyone @Schazjmd, @CityofSilver and @Solidest for your feedback as well as encouragement, I look forward to being a positive and insightful editor , as well as to become as skilled as y'all one, day. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´-  ToosieJoosie (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToosieJoosie, before you revert this other editor's changes, please try discussing your disagreement with their changes on the article talk page first. Don't get into an edit war. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Afro Tech ,
 * WP:ADMINABUSE
 * WP:TOOLMISUSE
 * WP:MEATPUPPET
 * WP:ADMINACCT
 * ToosieJoosie (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's the second time you've accused someone of sockpuppetry or coordination (WP:MEATPUPPET). Either provide evidence at WP:SPI or you will likely receive a block. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you being biased and not referring to what clearly seems as disruptive / nonsensical/ unecessary edits highly suspiscious for a long standing, more experienced user , even in a discussion , couldn't back or explain?  Furthermore my life doesn't revolve around that article, I just highlighed it as the circumstances I was even "brought" to this page as a newcomer was exaggerated and unjustified when @Solidest didn't start any discussion on the said article's page and also wrote regarding the specific article on my user page.  Please do not bite the newcomers. Even , @Schazjmd  stipulated that the initial talk was supposed to be done on Talk:Afro Tech , not here, I also apologized for "fixing" the disruptive edits instead of engaging in tallking first , why am I now what seems like  being constantly  baited into edit wars or provoked?
 * I apologize for using those links, however I think Civility should be used in fairness for all editors. Nowhere have I harassed or "bitten" anyone, instead it seems like the other way around.
 * WP:BLOCKNO
 * "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!
 * Experience or associated privileges shouldn't be misguidedly interpreted as a reason for default acquiescence from other members, and no Wikipedian is above any other Wikipedian. Editors who exercise these privileges should provide unambiguous clarity as to why, based on policies"
 * "How to avoid being a "biter"[edit] Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle in Wikipedia, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter". To avoid being accused of biting, try to:
 * Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)
 * Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, etc.).
 * Moderate your approach and wording.
 * Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
 * Avoid sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting.
 * Strive to respond in a measured manner.
 * Wait, i.e. calm down first.
 * Be gracious.
 * Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
 * Take responsibility for resolving conflicts.
 * Reciprocate where necessary.
 * Listen actively.
 * Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
 * Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.
 * Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcoming to new users. Consider writing a personalised message.
 * Don't fill the page with maintenance templates or join a pile of people pointing out problems. Having multiple people tell you that you did something wrong is unfriendly and off-putting, even when each individual comment is gently phrased and kindly intended.
 * Avoid nominating user talk pages for deletion.
 * Remember that it's okay to make mistakes—we're all only human. Standard welcome or warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning.  Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia."
 * ToosieJoosie (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (Contd.) Besides @HandThatFeeds, I may have stipulated that out of annoyance for the said reasons above nor myself or the said user, at the time even engaged in any disruptive discussion or "edit war". I will accept and internalize @Schazjmd advice "stop with the accusations". Please let's just leave it at that, this is all not normal at all, highly toxic and time/ energy consuming. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that Solidest is making edits that are "highly suspicious". The best place to address that concern is WP:SPI and if you want, I'll help you file a report once I know what evidence you have that Solidest is violating the WP:SOCK policy.
 * And I'll say it before anybody else does: please don't copy and paste large sections of text like this. A link to WP:BITE would have worked just fine. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @City of Silver in the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. RE: I am not going to repeat myself or back and forth. Please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am the IP editor who made prose edits at Afro Tech. I have few edits but am a lurker on this noticeboard (and others). I don’t have any particular attachments to the edits at this article, I understand it’s under construction and they were more to point out prose issues than completely solve the problem. However, ToosieJoosie accused me of vandalism because I am an IP editor while acknowledging in their edit summary (diff 1184978801 - sorry I am on mobile and in a rush) that they will take my changes into account (i.e. they are useful and not vandalism). I was a bit put off by this and would just like to say please don’t do that anymore ToosieJoosie. That isn’t what vandalism means on Wikipedia. You make a big deal of others biting you but seem to have no qualms biting me. That’s all. Happy editing, everybody. 2001:1970:5E26:5A00:7DFE:FFF8:E754:89AE (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and opinon. Please see User talk:Daniel Case @Daniel Case, for mine (response) in referance to specifically you and your edits. As well as the summary description/ comment on only- specifically my edits as "ruff / clearing out prose fluff" etc.  which included, blanking, if I recall correctly - I replaced the edits , in a manner taking your opinion edit into consideration to avoid WP:BITE ing your edit "as an IP" furthermore not to seem bias WP:OWN as the author, whilst retaining the edit and source(s). especially blanking which happens to have a paragraph at WP:VAND, if I am not mistaken.  ,directly after another user also on the exact same day referred to the lead cite etc.  as "irrelevant when that's the standard music genre box parameter" etc and blanked.Please forgive me if I am wrong and used the incorrect, description. Again, I think this discussion or if other suggestions/ edit/ content disuputes should be initiated at the specific article's talk page Talk:Afro Tech. Please respect my wishes , RE:" I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023" . Thank you and likewise.  ToosieJoosie (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Does "I'm not going to repeat myself" mean you're not going to compile evidence for a report at SPI? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I never ever requested an investigation or said that I would anywhere for any user(s), as a newcomer I simply stipulated the phrases as into try and understand what was going on and out of being WP:BITE.n, and annoyance,  as per RE: n the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. Once again, Please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡  ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @City of Silver ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you feel badgered. I promise you, I'm doing my very best to keep you from getting blocked for breaking a rule that you, since you're a newcomer, might not fully know. You are not allowed to say or imply that Solidest is sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting if you're not going to request an investigation because that would be you violating the policy that says personal attacks aren't allowed. As The Hand That Feeds You said earlier, you have to "provide evidence at WP:SPI or you will likely receive a block." <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 20:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @City of Silver, thank you. Would @Solidest writing directing on my user page regarding a specific article and initially mentioning "I was engaging in an unhealthy manner", as well as then furthermore "bringing" me here instead of again having not started a talk on the specififc article's talk page also warrant as , personal attacks aren't allowed?
 * WP:MEATPUPPET stipulated "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." I was not aware that simply, stating it as a newcomer out of annoyance for and for all reasons above, results in getting blocked. Thank you for informing me, now I know. Again, not once have I harassed anyone , I further even reverted my post on his talk page in response to his on mine, which he never did nor directly apologized for. Lastly, this is resulting in mundane and unecessary back and forth as well as repetition of statements which I am trying to avoid. Again, please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´
 * ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, at this point I believe you need blocked for WP:DISRUPT and WP:NOTHERE. Continuing to demand Solidest be punished while crying WP:BITE and posting extremely long copy/pastes of rules (which you clearly did not read, hence having to explain MEATPUPPET to you repeatedly) is either intentionally disruptive, or indicates you do not understand the rules well enough to contribute here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support block. This editor's recent report at WP:RFPP is entirely beyond the pale; please see my message at User talk:Daniel Case for more. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 21:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to add "and per User:HandThatFeeds" because yeah, of course. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City  o f  Silver </b> 22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @City of Silver, @HandThatFeeds, @Schazjmd & @Solidest  please see my response ; User talk:Daniel Case 🙏  ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * What were we supposed to look at there? I don't consider the edits that were made by IP to be anything destructive and worth protecting, on the contrary I think they were an improvement to bring the article to a neutral look. And you requested page protection once again showing WP:OWN. In conversations, you continue to be aggressive to anyone who makes edits to articles after you and demand that literally any change be coordinated with you (Talk:Afro Tech). At the same time you do not perceive at all the point of the complaints addressed to you. On your talk page Schazjmd explains to you again how to use and cite sources, after I pointed this out on the very same page before and asked you to return my correction (which you still haven't done). Instead, you are once again being accusatory starting with "why you are tracking my edits". Of course your edits will be tracked after this conversation, given that you refuse to correct your own mistakes, while reverting fixes of other people. Literally in every discussion you participate, you display an accusatory and aggressive attitude with throwing rules at other editors (User talk:Daniel Case) right after it was pointed out by others above. And yet you are completely unwilling to understand the point of the complaints towards you as here you say that you shouldn't be on this ANI page at all, since the claims were explained to you not through the article's talk page, but through your personal talk page, adding "I have been experiencing, 'bias', 'mob justice' like baiting and provocations both in the thread at ANI as well as via 'tracking/ WP:HOUNDING' and constant "unwarranted" threats of being blocked".
 * All I see from my side is many editors trying to explain to you the basics of editing wikipedia articles and communication aspects (WP:BASICS), and getting aggression and accusations in return. While you respond kindly on this page, but keep accusing the very same people on another page. You've tagged me in one day in 5 of your posts saying that I'm being silent and not editing the Afro Tech anymore (and yet you keep accusing me in some of these posts). I honestly don't make edits to the article, just to limit communication with you that is not changing at all. Solidest (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Solidest. As per mentioned on User talk:Daniel Case City of Silver appears to have WP:HOUND ed, my edit and  then further directly accused the notion being carried out solely because of your (@ Solidest's) "content dispute"  - (which I stipulated on numerous times was never even supposed to be initially posted here but was supposed to have begun, first and initially Talk:Afro Tech along with the other initial discussion regarding the said article in hand which you also posted on my talk page instead of the article's talk page as well ). - I merely stipulated that was not the case and further highlighted, what  was the case ,  which @Daniel Case simply unprejudicly further reiterated not because of " WP:OWN ". Regarding, @ Schazjmd, I also stipulated that I appreciated his feedback and input whilst including "my reasoning" &  opinion that I believe that he could've simply reverted, edit ( with a summary and descripting or dire case , written on the article's talk page instead , regarding the specific referencing as well - "If a sentence contains information that people might disagree on, or information that is not commonly known by most people, it likely needs a reference.".I am currently editing other and will begin working on other article , ideas, as well. Please be reassured, Solidest that I only referred to your silence not out of malisciosness however also to highlight limited communication, no longer engaging in warring or unpleasant exchanges such as here, currently, at ANI. However the matter still seemed to be ongoing , which I found strange. My intention was and is never to disrespect or undermine any editor or their edits, as stipulated numerous times I have never ever engaged in any form of harassment. Never in my wildest dream did I imagine , this to be ongoing like this and I am unfortunately  slightly losing the enjoyment of editing due to all of this.  ToosieJoosie (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will remind you that you called my detailed explanation of the three corrections you rolled back "highly toxic behaviours, which includes literal bullying and gaslighting" and "a habit of twisting words into your own version/interpretation for your own gain or benefit" and "fixation(obsession)" and "highly, demotivating and shocking, which is probably what you like/want". And then after my first response here, you wrote yesterday that you expect me to apologise for it. And later today in several places you said that you were inappropriately added to this page (due to the procedure, but ignoring the fact of the claim itself). And now after you asked to react at your protection request you're calling my further response strange. Well, there's really nothing more to add here. Solidest (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, Solidest. To reiterate, the said discussion was never supposed to have been conducted on my talk page in the first place and that's where I stipulated my quoted opinions, frustration and annoyance but it was supposed to have been conducted on the specific ,article's talk page.
 * You initially added in the title on my talk page ; "posting false sources" as well as sarcastic and conscending tones, such as "you probably don't have the experience" ( obviously, I am a newcomer?) , "and also your approach of accusing other wikipedians who correct your own mistakes of being malicious is not healthy behaviour either."
 * All your edits were also conducted without talking neither elaborate or sometimes even no summary/ description or summary descriptions that were non-factual when the information was clearly stipulated or highlighted in the sources etc "., such as the page move, which I had stipulated coincided with another genre titled, in a simialr manner when you stipulated -  "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate." i.e. Afro Tech / Hard NRG. ( even when I 'thanked' you, it was by accident  and happened to be my first 'thank' and I didn't know how to "undo" the action - again, I am not perfect and still learning/ honing my skills)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro_Tech&action=history
 * I really do think this discussion was / is supposed to be taking place at Talk:Afro Tech and not here. ToosieJoosie (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand why you keep bringing up the this article here, when the tone and manner of your communication with other editors is the issue here. And you keep continuing to make claims against me for following standard wikipedia editorial practice, while adding made-up stuff that can be refuted with literally a couple of clicks (which I did in the post above). It seems to me more and more like you've come here just for trolling and provocation than for anything of substance, so I think I'm not going to continue this dialogue any further. Solidest (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response, Solidest.Is it not the initial and highlighted reason why you "brought me here" / started this discussion and also wrote directly on my talk page? As per contribution logs and history, there is nothing that "I am making up".
 * User talk:ToosieJoosie
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro_Tech&action=history
 * "I never came here", you started this discussion here and on my talk page instead of initiating on, Talk:Afro Tech. ToosieJoosie (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is looking block-worthy to me as well. One of the great weaknesses of WP:BITE is that it doesn't come with an equal corollary that in turn, newcomers have a responsibility to learn Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and to act civilly to other editors regardless of any real or imagined provocations.  I am very unimpressed by ToosieJoosie ostensibly apologizing and taking swings at Solidest in the same damn paragraph, or by their apparent belief that BITE both authorizes newbies to attack experienced editors with impunity and immunizes them against following the rules.   Ravenswing      13:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The corollary you're looking for is WP:PACT, or in the narrower case of newcomers who won't learn our policies and social norms and insist that everyone else bend to the way they expect things to work instead, WP:CIR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While both of those imply what Ravenswing was lamenting the absence of, an essay stating their exact point—that new editors have a responsibility to acclimate themselves to the community’s norms, does not exist and, I agree, really should be written (CIR, which has often been used to justify both blocks and unblock denials, is explicitly aimed at users unaware of these norms, most often due to inadequate English-language skills) Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just gave it a shot; see WP:BITEPACT. I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever tried this so if you want to give me notes, please feel free or if you'd rather just make any changes or improvements you think are necessary without running anything by me first, please feel free. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 19:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, there are several essays to that effect -- I wrote one myself a number of years back -- but what I was wishing for then and now is a guideline, with equal force and validity as BITE.   Ravenswing     21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's clear that my initial characterization of this as a content dispute was wrong, and I apologize to the participants for my error. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Block - The entire discussion on ToosieJoosie's part was more digging their own grave than actually listening and learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnironicEditor (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that User:ToosieJoosie has made liteally hundreds of edits about the trivial issue of the capitalisation of Afro Tech and Afro house, on Teahouse, Requests for page protection/Increase, User talk:Fieryninja, Talk:Afro house, Talk:Styles of house music, User talk:ToosieJoosie, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, User talk:Daniel Case, and Talk:Afro Tech. ToosieJoosie shows no sign of taking on board any of the advice given to them, and no sign of slowing down their campaign against the great wrong that was done by changing the capitalisation. I think adminsitrators should consider blocking this user, because endless pointless agitation degrades the wikipedia enviroment for all of us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Once again the same editor performed a page move request without warning me nor initiating a talk on the article's talk page which I did when I came across the banner @Talk:Afro house as well as listed sources, it is not my fault that both subgenres are spelled like that as they originate from the same country amongst other similar attributes - I also formally requested for a third editor;s opinion which I am still waiting for, please don't take and twist my seeking for guidance and suggestions as well as stipulating my opinions which we all have a right to   @ Teahouse   and twist it into something else  and bring it here.  I had also respectfully stipulated "I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023".
 * I believe I have done nothing directly wrong or seriously harmful to yourself @Tagishsimon & @Solidest to warrant for this, I have not even responded to Solidest's last response Talk:Afro house nor have I "successfully managed to even 'counter' the page moves requesting another or more page moves" which would result in a prolonged edit war as well as further disruptive edits via re-directs etc. for the page(s). Thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not "seriously harmful", but at the same time on other pages you keep saying towards me that I was " 'threatening' to move the other Afro Tech once again". When I specifically warned you (as you asked) that I'm going to do it through WP:RM to reach consensus and get other people opinions just so it doesn't look biased or harmful to you. And also that standard fixes within the music genres project on new articles (renaming according to manual of style) is once again referred by you as WP:Following and "the editor clearly appears to be 'obsessing' on me / my edits". Which just goes to show that your behavior doesn't change. So I guess it's rather "moderately harmful" to me? Also looking at your recent (unfinished?) nomination on Talk:Afro house with exactly the same arguments that you made before and I have explained in detail and politely why they are wrong, and taking in account the same conversations you multiplied on various talk pages today, you still refuse to comprehend explanations of the rules and other editors arguments, it still appears to be empty words to you. Solidest (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the/ a 3rd party, opinion result:Talk:Afro house. Thank you for your response, I am referring to Afro house which  was only published yesterday ,you did not warn or suggest a page move for , regarding Afro Tech the initial page mover I reverted, you also didn't warn for , only today you warned for which would be  @ Afro Tech 2nd move/ move request and the first actual, warning - ever for both, in total 3 moves - and yes I do find it unfair that a page in the same genre Hard NRG that only you specifically contribute to for 3 years with a same/similar to title hasn't encountered these actions or issues.  I interpreted it and felt as though it was threatening because as per previously stipulated before and previously you would never even warn before moving , so now it's even as per taunting etc.  I have actually had enough of this and please have your way, you win. Move the pages 100 times more,- even if you see fit, this is unhealthy for my mental health and not what I thought  or intended my editing experience would be like not even having or made edits , for more than 20 days, yet.I am even currently entirely  demotivated and reluctant to create any other house/ subgenre music articles I intended and had ideas to create because it appears each time I do, it's specifically you commenting on my flaws/mistakes, shortcomings and  trying to what seems like specifically only discred my edits, today I even appreciated and took 1 of suggestions into consideration and did a "clean up". However to reiterate I have really had enough, also I would please no longer like to continue in this or any other dialogues as into not  constantly disturb other editors as well as creating a spectacle for 'watchers',(if, any). Thank you for everything and take care.  ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support block of user not prepared to edit in accordance with consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Support block or TBAN TJ quotes policies and links without understanding what they mean and seemingly without even reading them. There is clearly a CIR issue, and one which needs addressing. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi all -unfortunately once again,
 * I sincerely apologize to the editors constantly being notified because of "this thread" and what seems like isn't being moved on from as well as new/ different angles to re-open and/or continue it, each time.
 * @AirshipJungleman29I don't understand why you're bringing what is a clear content dispute ( please forgive/ correct me if I am wrong, here).
 * Please see ; Talk:Afro Tech, as well as regional and local scenes listed in the same way, same genre /style of Hardbass, Deep house & House music - also once again not encountering these kinds of discussion/ content dispute-  in reference to specifically what AirshipJungleman29  is referring to, ; I was also not even bothered with the articles edits and moved onto other  edits, you made a point to specifically respond ,once again after days - obviously I would get the continued thread, new message notifcation, and it was only between the two of us. I believe I have a right just like everyone else to dispute content. Of course, since this seems like an ongoing manner perhaps you should formally request a content dispute resolution.   ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of "quoting links without understanding what they mean and seemingly without even reading them".
 * I have pointed out to TJ that Template:Infobox_music_genre clearly states that the |regional_scenes and |local_scenes parameters of the infobox are explicitly for "Articles". TJ's response is classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, quoting three articles where they think this is not the case. They are correct at Hardbass and Deep house, and I have removed the parameters from those infoboxes. At House music, however, the infobox perfectly satisfies the parameter usage guide—each of the scenes linked are to specialized articles on localised variants of house music. Now, perhaps ToosieJoosie wishes to bring up WP:BITE? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they've opened an arbitration request instead. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! This was quick. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Wow indeed. Gobsmacked passerby here: it really needed to happen, you guys, and I saw quite a few valiant attempts to prevent it. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Fcom1212
This user has started to create rapid and clear cut copyvios and they are not stopping. Even after several G12 notices on their talk page. Can an admin please go through their deleted and live contribs and see if this warrants a block for copyvios and disruptive editing, I think it does. Seawolf35 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">T--C 00:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Got indeffed by Bbb23 as I was typing the post. Seawolf35 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">T--C 00:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Birotron


I've previously worked on this article, and wanted to revisit today, only to be dismayed that a bunch of IPs (probably the same person) are exhibiting severe WP:OWNership issues on it, reverting just about any improvement I or any other editor made. I also discovered that what the IPs want to revert to appears to be a copyvio, so I've taken the rather drastic decision to delete the entire article per WP:G12 and re-appropriate the title as a redirect (as I believe there are enough reliable sources to mention this instrument somewhere on Wikipedia).

Admins can see the deleted history of the article here. In particular, as well as plenty of edit summaries that are basically "stop editing my article", this one (again, admins only, sorry) appears to be outing an editor. And this is a flat out WP:BLP violation.

I'm conceding the fact I might be wrong about the copyvio (it's possible it's actually a reverse copyvio), in which case I'll apologise and reverse the deletion. However, in any case, I think this is worth having a discussion about. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * After looking at the history of the article I think I need mind bleach. The user in the second diff is open about his real name, so that's not an issue, but the amount of belligerent ownership is staggering. There's nothing there which would be of much use for a trying to recreate it, a blank page is it anything far more helpful, so even if it doesn't meet any particular policy who cares? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy completely unsourced collection of fancruft, Batman! Ironically, it almost certainly is notable, but looking at the history I'd suggest that any article that makes it into mainspace be semi-protected ... for ever. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article using some of the book sources I have. In doing so, I spotted an interview with someone who I'm certain is the cause of the unreferenced fancruft that was there. Without wishing to fall foul of the outing policy myself, they self-describe as an expert on the Birotron, owning one of the few models that were actually made, and self-identify as being from the same geographic area as where their IPs locate to. I'm beginning to think this is simply a subject expert who's just never been advised on what Wikipedia policy actually is. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked for copyright violations, but the rewrite from the ground up seems fair, although there are a few early revisions from 2004–2007 that were untainted by any of this that it seems a shame to lose. There are some pointers to music magazines in the history, although with bare URLs that have likely link-rotted by now. There does seem to be some coverage of this in 20th century music magazines. If you want crazy edit histories, though, the edit history of Talk:Marvin Winans takes some beating. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That... just wow. What the hell? Who does that? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, what flavors of crazy haven't we seen on Wikipedia at one point or another?   Ravenswing     23:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored the early history that is known to be copyvio free. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The previously mentioned IP was back yesterday trying to revert to the previously deleted version. reverted them twice and left them a warning not to add copyvios. I've also had a word. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure this was reverse infringement (or, at best, not copied from the site mentioned in the G12 summary - I haven't looked for this content elsewhere). The earliest wayback archive of the page is from October last year, and our version of what's there was built up piecemeal over many edits a long time ago (representative example). —Cryptic 09:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused. Why is this not at DRV? Are we reviewing deletion decisions here now? Is there anything AN/I isn't for?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed gaming
User seemingly gamed the system to obtain extended confirmed status. Endless effortless sandbox edits. I can mention the numbers, but WP:BEANS and all. User came to my attention because they posted on my talk page, an act they probably regret now.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1700546771373:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, please forgive me, I really want to make changes to this Wikipedia. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I promise to be very careful from now on. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't take away my rights. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pls forgive me. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've yanked extended-confirmed; those edits weren't even pretending to legitimacy. —Cryptic 06:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pls give me a chance I won't do anything like this again. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How can I get it again please help. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Will I be able to get it back again? :( LionelCristiano (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask at WP:Requests for permissions after you've made another 500 productive, substantive edits, and be happy you escaped a block. Editing your sandbox or changing the dates in Turkey so they contradict their cited source (or saying essentially the same thing seven times in a row here!) aren't it. —Cryptic 06:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are all my changes reset now ? Do I need to start over ? Isn't it possible for the last 260 edits I made to be considered invalid ? LionelCristiano (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not fair. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone deserves a 2nd chance. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And you will likely have the opportunity for a second chance; it will simply require a lot of productive editing. Cryptic let you know where you can ask for permission after doing so. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to make 500 changes from scratch. I wish my last 260 changes were canceled. LionelCristiano (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LionelCristiano, you seem to have the wrong idea about what has been done. You can still edit the vast majority of our articles. Extended confirmed status is only needed in a very few extremely contentious areas. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now do I have to make 500 changes from scratch for this ? LionelCristiano (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ┌───────────────────────────┘ LionelCristiano, if you ask once more, you'll have to make 1000 changes from scratch. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1700551486852:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt">— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm new here so I don't know, sorry. LionelCristiano (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're fine, man. We've all done some stupid stuff as newcomers. Just read up on some important policies, don't do this kind of thing in the future, and you'll be fine. I appreciate you want to help Wikipedia, it's a nice thing to do. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LionelCristiano, almost anything you need ECP to do directly, you can still request (usually by making an edit request): the point of that is that another editor gets to see your request and determine if it is appropriate. Why does that not satisfy you? ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Being new is exactly the point. The reason for the 500-edit rule isn't to be mean to newcomers.  It's to ensure that new editors have the experience to do certain tasks properly before gaining the permissions to do so.  This is not a race, and we don't hand out prizes for being the first to cross an imaginary finish line.   Ravenswing      17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a race, and we don't hand out prizes for being the first to cross an imaginary finish line., couldn't have said it better myself. Babysharkboss2 was here!!  ( Shine on you ) ( Crazy Diamond ) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LionelCristiano, if you ask once more, you'll have to make 1000 changes from scratch You can do that? damn. Babysharkboss2 was here!!  (Shoot to thrill) ( Play to Kill ) 13:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Lionel - you just right now reverted an appropriate deletion of tagged, non-RS supported text. Gave no edit summary. Restored it without RS refs, in spite of wp:burden. As pointed out here. Which you then deleted (fine in itself) - showing you read it - but you didn't fix the problem you created as requested and self-revert. All of this brings into question your assertions that you are a well meaning, non-gaming, "I promise to be really careful," simply well-intentioned newbie. This is not good editing. What are you doing?2603:7000:2101:AA00:7149:2D24:20FA:AD16 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍🏿 LionelCristiano (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible ultra?
User:Max Kleinehelleforth has created non-notable articles related to the Super Mario video game franchise and series, such as this article on the Super Mario fan wiki, the German version of the wiki (now deleted), New Super Mario Bros. U + New Super Luigi U (which is now a redirect to New Super Luigi U), and removing a redirect to write about New Super Mario Bros U. Deluxe (again, a partially non-notable topic that could not have its own article). I even warned them two times on their talk page, but they kept on with their disruptive editing.<span id="Davest3r08:1700661279653:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Davest3r08 > : )  ( t a l k )  13:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They also reverted my edit that restored the New Super Mario Bros U. Deluxe redirect.<span id="Davest3r08:1700661727967:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Davest3r08 > : )  ( t a l k )  14:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One person's "ultra" is another person's "subject matter expert who got slightly over-enthusiastic". Looking at their edit history, they're not exactly a single-purpose account and I'm sure they'll learn their lesson when they see their hard work being deleted on notability grounds. We've all been there. I don't see a need for admin action unless they become really disruptive. Thanks for raising your concerns though, always the right thing to do. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Why was this prematurely archived? Let it run
On 9 November there was an election for Mayor of Hackney. On the declaration the following day, a casual vacancy for councillor arose in the ward the new Mayor had represented. By law the Council must call a by-election the same day but it has done nothing. It is legally impossible for this by-election to happen in 2023 but Cazenove (ward) says it will. If the Council doesn't call the election how do we handle that? 31.55.242.67 (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with Devonian Wombat or Kleinerziegler? --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare the last by-election.  Tom Dewey resigned as councillor on 16 May 2022 and the election took place on 7 July. 31.55.242.67 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Neither user appears to have edited that article. What specific bad behaviour from Devonian Wombat or Kleinerziegler are you alleging on Cazenove (ward)? --Yamla (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are just asking about a specific (empty) subheading on that article, if you think it is inappropriate, why not just remove it? I don't see what that has to do with the two editors in question or with admins generally. Or if you are uncertain, you can bring it up on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Council doesn't call the election, and an editor alleges misconduct, is (s)he going to be blocked as Kleinerziegler was?  (Don't answer immediately - let's see what (if anything) the Council does this week). 31.55.242.67 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors should not allege misconduct. See WP:NOR and WP:NLT. Instead, editors should include what reliable sources (WP:RS) say. --Yamla (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one thinking this IP is either Kleinerziegler block evading or someone trolling? Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The allegation by 86.23 is that Kleinerziegler said Deviant Wombat was committing "electoral fraud" (in quotation marks).  Can we have the diff of where Kleinerziegler wrote those words? 31.55.242.67 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it (21:33, 18 November). 31.55.242.67 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just discovered this website .  It says "Caroline has been a Labour ward councillor in Cazenove since 2018."   It doesn't say she is no longer a councillor and a by-election is urgently needed.   In fact, two weeks on I can only find this, which says:

"Woodley's victory means she can no longer be a councillor. The outcome of the by-election that will take place in Cazenove ward as a result will provide a further gauge of support for Labour and the Greens, perhaps influenced by the stance of candidates and their parties on the Israel-Gaza war."

Yamla says we can only accuse the Council of "electoral fraud" if a reliable source raises the matter first. Maybe someone who has a Twitter/X account could message @DaveHill, a Hackney resident for forty years, for comment we could use. He is extremely reliable. Alternatively, Holly Lewis is at @we_made_that along with Mark David Flynn and Eva Avdolous, all extremely reliable, and Holly is on LinkedIn where you can view her credentials, and see also. The other two are also on LinkedIn. 80.43.77.79 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * None of those would be reliable sources. The only administrative action that would be necessary here appears to be with an IP editor who does not understand sourcing policy? —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (Looks further) Original thread was "Election tampering and bias by user:Devonian_Wombat", closed noted as "OP has been blocked, and nothing else in this thread requires action by ANI.", archived here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who did the initial block, to see if the scent of socks is in the air. —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still can't tell if this is supposed to be related to the "Election tampering" accusation I blocked over, or if this is a rant connected only by the theme of alleged electoral fraud. (Note that the allegations jump just a wee bit from Australia to the UK.) It seems likely that IPs 31 and 80 are the same person, but using multiple IPs is not sockpuppetry. I do think that if IP 31/80 can't explain what outstanding matter there is for an administrator to address, they should be directed away from this noticeboard. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 17:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Part of me thinks this IP is trolling. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This close occurred overnight. It would be helpful if closers could give advance notice during daylight hours in the OP's time zone of their intentions. More evidence of Holly's reliability is at. In the previously linked discussion with Holly she discusses the importance of by-elections. For confirmation that she is at the Twitter address given see the retweet 8 November 2023. The radio this morning was running a government ad "Remember - no vote, no voice." The Electoral Commission gives explicit instructions to Returning Officers on what to do when a council seat falls vacant. The facts are these: upon a casual vacancy arising the Council must immediately call a by-election and the poll must take place not more than 35 days (excluding weekends and public holidays) after the call. Thus the 2022 by-election was on Thursday, 7 July, 37 days after Tom resigned. As the weeks after Caroline vacated her seat roll into months and the Council refuses to call a by-election my question is this: how much of this undisputed fact can editors insert into London Borough of Hackney without risking a block for accusing the Council of "electoral fraud"? 31.55.242.67 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * dude, no one has any idea what you're talking about. ltb d l (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting.  The procedure is set out in the Local Government Act 1972.   No legal qualifications are needed to understand its provisions.   For example,  gives the election date Thursday, 21 December 2023.   Notices of the vacancies were published this month, .   The councillor resigned 32 days before the election date.   This page  gives the timetable for the Mayoral Election.   The notice of casual vacancy was published on Monday, 25 September 2023, three days after the resignation, 34 days before the poll.   Caroline Woodley vacated her seat on Friday, 10 November 2023.   Far from publishing a Notice of Casual Vacancy, the Council is maintaining that she is still a Councillor and no by-election is necessary!   This is "electoral fraud".   If you still don't understand come back and I'll break it down for you. 31.55.242.67 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong place. Nothing you are posting here has any obvious relevance to Wikipedia or this board. MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The very relevant issue is that if editors post the sourced facts above without any allegation that the Council is engaging in "election fraud" will they risk being blocked because the reader will likely infer that the Council is engaging in "election fraud"? 31.55.242.67 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Don't accuse people of crimes. Don't even hint at it. If you come up with better sourcing that is directly on point, raise it at WP:BLPN or something. But don't post again based on what you've got so far. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you go around accusing others of electoral fraud, then yes, there's a chance you'll be blocked. I would also argue that you don't have the sourced facts to add anything about electoral fraud to London Borough of Hackney. As the council is a small, recognizable group, WP:BLPGROUP likely applies here. Negative or controversial claims must be sourced to reliable, secondary sources—preferably multiple sources. Everything provided so far has been a primary source, along with some original research based on the law and public records. Woodroar (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So how about we say:
 * "In its report of the Mayoral Election on 9 November the council says only that 'Caroline has been a Labour ward councillor in Cazenove since 2018' without mentioning that she is no longer a councillor.[cite source already in the article]. No Notice of Casual Vacancy for her seat has been published.   A new councillor will normally be elected within 35 working days of the seat falling vacant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.242.67 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the rush? We're an encyclopedia, not the news—and there's no deadline. Most content should be based on reliable, secondary sources, and we should always let those sources guide us. Woodroar (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If it is "an undisputed fact" you can find a reliable source for it and discuss it on the article talk page. Continuing to argue a carefully constructed point on an unrelated noticeboard will get you nowhere. Daveosaurus (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Why wait for a "reliable secondary source" to point out that no Notice of Casual Vacancy has been published?  It's not on the website. 31.55.242.67 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Elissa Slotkin
This isn't a specific issue as much as a request for additional administrative eyes on the ongoing discussion at Talk:Elissa Slotkin. I recently began adding or standardizing the mention of FiveThirtyEight's scorecard of how closely members of the US House vote with President Biden across relevant articles -- it seemed that some articles included this info, others did not, and it seemed like something where consistency would be positive for the encyclopedia. I did so at the Slotkin article but seem to have walked into a minefield with two editors who seem to battle with every other editor in the talk page (one of the editors is apparently a new account for a prior editor who was banned from Wikipedia after editing this article).

Interestingly, whenever these two editors get into a disagreement with another editor, an IP editor seems to appear to argue their point more aggressively (just today, one (who has already previously been warned on this article) abrasively commented that I would have seen something "if you were not blind" and wrote "I just know you are lying" which is quite uncalled for.

This article is already subject to additional page protections, and from other talk page discussions, it seems a number of editors have been blocked as a result of edits to this article. There's also apparently a social media campaign to recruit editors to push an agenda at this article.

I don't particularly care about this article (or the subject) so plan to disengage but thought appropriate to raise the issues for wider awareness from others on this website. Thmymerc (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Hezarfen
I had notified User:Hezarfen of the extended confirmed restrictions for articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan after they made a number of contentious edits in those related articles. Hezarfen reverted my notice and then proceeded to revert all of their edits back. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @KhndzorUtogh: As a point of order, WP:GS/AA was amended a few months ago to be somewhat narrower than the old scope, but the edits about Artsakh clearly fall into the new scope of Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both. You warned them fair and square and linked them to the GS page, and they continued, so I've blocked 72 hours, which hopefully will get the point across. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 02:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin I will review the amendments, thanks. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior from SurferSquall
User:SurferSquall has continued their disruptive behavior on their talk page after being blocked in October (see the the previous ANI discussion). It started again several days ago with this edit, which makes it clear that they learned nothing from their block. Then they continued to spout the same worn out points that "the consensus, no matter how many people agree with it, is false" (for anyone not familiar with this case, SurferSquall has been going to extreme lengths in an attempt to get Planespotters.net to be recognized as reliable, despite overwhealming consensus that it is not). When asked once again to WP:DROPTHESTICK, they responded with "Neither you nor any admin have the right to “shut me up” over advocating for a perfectly usable source." It is clear that SurferSquall has refused to get the point, and that they never will. Given their current and previous behavior, I stand by my statements in the previous ANI discussion that I do not believe that another temporary block or a topic ban will be enough to stop their disruption, and therefore I propose an indefinite block. - ZLEA  T \ C 19:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * An indefinite block over a source. How lovely. Someday you’ll actually take a look at the source yourself, I hope. Every time I attempted to discuss the reasons that it is a valid source, somebody, usually @SteelPillow, became harsh and defeatist; Again I state there is no reason for you guys to hate this one source despite abundant proof it is reliable. The “consensus” on this is a perfect example of public opinion not aligning with pure fact, and that’s a difficult thing for me to deal with when you all are so violently against this source. I should not have to beg on my knees for you to simply read my proof of it being reliable, and to take a detailed enough look at the site itself. Yet you will not. I have proved wrong every single accusation against Planespotters being unreliable, yet it has gotten nowhere. At rush of being labeled as a retard again, it continues to be baffling. I still ask one single person to actually look at it. Consensus, especially if flawed, always has the ability to change; and it is wholly unfair for me to be blocked over attempting to do so, and it is wholly unfair for you to expect me not to be frustrated that the “consensus” is indeed wrong. It is wrong. That is fact. It can be proven so. It has been proven so! SurferSquall (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Curiously enough, people who have already looked into the issue appear to have come to a conclusion regarding 'facts' that differs from yours. Or does 'looking into' only count if they then agree with you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bringing your battleground behavior to ANI is not going to help you. No one has ever labeled you a "retard" in the first place, so we can add false accusations of personal attacks to the long list of disruptive behavior. -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked for one week on October 22, 2023. Since that block expired, all that they have done is comment on their own talk page in support of the reliability  of Planespotters, and then comment here at ANI. I have a lot of criticisms and concerns about the editor's behavior over time, but I see nothing justifying an additional block since the October 22 block expired. Perhaps drawing in uninvolved editors at WP:RSN to evaluate the source in question might be the next appropriate course of action. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Already been discussed. See the WP:RSN thread linked at WP:PLANESPOTTERS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree broadly with, though we did the (un)reliability to death years ago and are fed up with revisiting it. The guy may be incorrigible, but they are free to state their beliefs on their own talk page, just as long as they do not bring them back into wider circulation. I still think that a topic ban, on both articles and talk pages, would help keep things that way. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes the most sense to me. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328, This would be great, if they truly were independent non-biased editors. It seems a rapidfire of misconceptions and ill-reached conclusions are part of what led to many of you believing this is an unreliable source. SurferSquall (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , consensus is clearly and unequivocally against you on this matter, and consensus is the foundation of this project. I spoke up in your defense three days ago, but if you show disregard and contempt for consensus in other places, then there will be significant consequences. I highly recommend that you drop this subject. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * for you to simply read my proof of it being reliable What proof? You insist there is proof and then refuse to show it to us (and no, the website itself is NOT proof) For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See the fifty million other discussions that have already taken place on this. It’s been discussed, and I’ve refuted the majority of it. SurferSquall (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They're only posting on their talk page, if no one engages then there's not a problem. If you find it troubling and engage on their talk page then that's really on you. As long as they restrict the complaining about Planespotters.net not being used to their own talk page, with no one engaging, there is no issue. It takes two to argue and if no one responds and everyone ignores it they're just shouting into the wind and not bothering anyone. So I'd recommend removing their talk page from your watchlist and moving along. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 23:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My talk page is of little importance here, though, it’s the ability to use it as a citation on articles without it being removed that’s a problem. SurferSquall (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, SurferSquall, that's something you'll have to live with. It is not accepted, and for now that's the end of it. You can claim you refuted all the counter arguments, but you're alone in that opinion. If you want to continue arguing on your own talk page for its reliability, that's fine, but if you start pinging other editors to join you in that mess, that's step one towards a block, another block, for disruption, and it may be the only step necessary. User:ZLEA, you will need to drop it too. Look away from that talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Except it isn’t opinion, it’s fact. Give me a single argument against it being used as a source, and I’ll refute it for you! You ignoring my statements does not amount yo my incompetence in any way. If you’re admitting that you haven’t even read what I’ve said, well, go away then, you have nothing important to add. SurferSquall (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did jump the gun by bringing the up behavior here a bit early. That said, I would encourage SurferSquall to bring Planespotters.net to WP:RSN.  The sooner we can put all this behind us, the better. -  ZLEA  T \ C 03:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * SurferSquall is reading "retard" for "incompetent", and is the same sort of hyperbole as "beg on my knees" above; several people have actually talked about incompetence. Canterbury Tail makes a good point.  Uncle G (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While it is uncommon, it is indeed possible for the majority to be incorrect on an issue. All of the points about it being an unreliable source can and have been refuted, either by myself or other editors (in earlier discussions). You are calling me incompetent without first inspecting what the issue even arose from. SurferSquall (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the majority is wrong, on Wikipedia you still have to respect that consensus rules the project. All of us have ended up on the losing side of an argument at some point, and we were all fully convinced we were the one who was correct. Consider this a test of your ability to peacefully work with others - by dropping this issue and moving on to some other way to help the encyclopedia along. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be easy to do if this was a standard issue- however Planespotters is one of the most cited sources on Wikipedia. SurferSquall (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? It's cited in well fewer than 2000 articles -- that's a tiny number.  There is nothing about this that is not "standard issue" except for your refusal to drop the issue. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I should’ve specified the Aviation category. Thus it is indeed one of the most common citations. SurferSquall (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
24.199.15.170 is clearly WP:NOTHERE with disruptive edits such as these:, ,. Butler Blog  (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

陳慧珊19700530


Can someone take a look at this user's contribs? There's a lot of odd behavior; first it was just some useless formatting changes, and now multiple spam drafts and blanking a talk page. Thanks, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * and nonsense drafts deleted. El_C 05:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

RaeesAbbas22
User RaeesAbbas22 has been disruptively editing the Battle of Ramkani page by changing sourced information in the infobox, as well as violating 3RR. Despite attempts to get them to converse on the talk page, they still edited the page until they finally joined the talk page most recently. Here are his edits:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The page was previously protected from an IP user for doing the exact same thing. The aforementioned IP user also disruptively edited the talk page by changing what I said into whatever they wanted to say as shown in these reversions below. I believe this Ip user is the same individual.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

For former edits on the main page itself by the IP user, you can see on the page itself since the revisions list seems excessive to add. To conclude, I believe this user RaeesAbbas22 is the same Ip user that has been disruptively editing the page (and talk page when trying to discuss).

ANI added to their talk page: Noorullah (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Noorullah, I don't know if they were that IP editor, but no one has even informed them that WP:3RR exists, so they cannot be sanctioned for that, even if the edit they keep reinserting on its face seems subpar (i.e. sourced content replaced with unsourced). Next time, please use to inform them of this. I've also alerted them about the WP:ARBIPA WP:CTOP. Thanks. El_C 07:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @El C I did inform them about edit warring on their talk page in this:, but they removed it (alongside the ANI notice) here: on their talk page.
 * I’m not sure if this would also show them being involved as the former IP user but they added this on my talk page (in a topic that the IP user opened) Noorullah (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh, mobile diffs — the colours are so jarring, it took me a while to realize I've already seen that warning. Anyway, WP:3RR was not linked anywhere in that message, that's the issue. El_C 15:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @El C I see, okay. What do you think I should do next? On the talk page, the user seems adamant on believing he is correct (while replacing sourced content with unsourced content). Noorullah (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Report back here, or feel free to notify me personally on my talk page, if they ignore the warning by continuing to edit war. El_C 15:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @El C Well I personally cannot revert the page because that would drive me into an edit war and possibly at fault for 3RR. I’m trying to discuss on the talk page, but I’m unsure if that will work. Noorullah (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, you definitely can restore the original sourced content that was replaced by the unsourced one, Noorullah. I would not deem it edit warring on your part, but if they revert you after the warning I issued then, again, please report back. In this instance, the WP:ONUS (and the WP:RS / WP:CITE maxim) is on them, not you. Regards, El_C 18:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @El C They did it again.   Noorullah (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

More block evasion by 156.57.226.6
Recently came off a Ponyo block. Same style/interests. Quacks loudly IMO. <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  03:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Aloha27, which blocked account is this IP being used to evade? courtesy ping. El_C 09:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been a long-term issue for a couple of years, I believe the first IP I recall to be User 47.55.51.181 Regards, <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  11:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note how Aloha27 evades the question.  He has a habit of making spurious reports.   For example, on 15 May 2023 he claimed 2.26.47.169 was a sockpuppet of a "banned user", which is really annoying because people believe him, and on that date he commented "I may be wrong".   He was, as User talk:Aloha27/Archive 1 demonstrates. 2.102.10.43 (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Find someone else's leg VXfC. Have a nice day, won't you? <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  12:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Potentially disruptive anon
User:89.206.112.10 is posting personal comments as a way to promote their POV at Talk:History of Kyiv. The article in question includes material that makes it subject to WP:GS/RUSUKR, and I don’t believe non-EC users are permitted to edit talk pages or participate in project discussions in the subject field. Would a neutral admin please give advice or take appropriate action? Thanks. —Michael Z. 12:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For pages and topics under the standard extended-confirmed restriction, non-EC editors are permitted to make edit requests on talk pages, as long as their contributions are not disruptive. Insisting that everyone be informed about your topic restriction which expired two years ago is disruptive on its face, as well as plainly not an edit request. I see has already dealt with this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Persistent BLP violations at Yogi Ferrell
Just trade rumors. I've requested page protection, and a filter is no longer allowing me to revert unsourced torrent of edits, interpreting my actions as disruptive. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, the latest edit gives his team, translated, as "Because you believed blindly that you were the best, someone lied to you." 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Account blocked, page protected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SFR. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)