Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Competence is required

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 22:52, 12 September 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353#Suspicious_edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repost just to add highlight:

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

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

Repost just to add highlight:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the RfC has decimated into a mirror image of the bickering between you both, I don't believe any editor will invest time to comment there. I am leaving this message just to let you know that the RfC is, for all practical purposes, a non-starter/ender. Lourdes 06:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The credit would go to Dustfreeworld's several hundred word response, twice the size of everyone else's put together. Vacosea (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad to know that you’re still here after I haven’t replied for four days. Sorry if I’m too keen on discussing how to improve the article at the article’s talk page. It seems to me that you are very good at mathematics. Perhaps you would like to count how many links you’ve added to this discussion as well. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And some of us thought your long responses were having the opposite effect on the talk page, must be worried over nothing then. Vacosea (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Bmchedlishvili

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard#Bmchedlishvili

A plethora of drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Editing restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Six month moratorium on making new drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More adventures in copyediting

With increasing frequency, I'm encountering new-ish accounts devoted to rapid copyediting with mixed results. For many, I'm guessing English is not the native language. One such account is LevMax10 (talk · contribs), who has received notices since April regarding speed of editing, inability to discern promotional content, trouble with WP:ENGVAR and MOS:OVERLINK, and gratuitous changes that don't really improve anything, among other issues. Speed and not proofreading their own edits may account for numerous grammatical errors, though many edits suggest basic grammatical difficulties--by way of demonstrating, I offer a few, mostly from the last week: [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; [65]; [66]; [67]; [68]; [69]; [70]; [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79]; [80]; [81]; [82]; [83]; [84]; [85].

Not gross violations, but an example of encyclopedic quality being pecked to death, a nibble at a time. The latest volley of edits--notwithstanding determination to continue wikilinking names of countries--looks better. But their belated response isn't terribly encouraging, and they appear to be plowing ahead, regardless: [86]; [87]. I don't think they get it. Does anyone believe this is a capable copyeditor? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Extra Eyes Please on Nakba denial

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether the article topic is plausible or not (I think it is a POV fork and designed as such) the version I encountered initially [88] is not something any competent, good faith editor should ever introduce to Wikipedia.

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

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

Explain why you were tag teaming[89][90] to remove my flagging of unattributed quotes with {{who}}, leaving them apparently in quasi-Wikivoice or unattributed, contrary to MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and all normal Wikipedia style? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe if taken out of context. Why should I need to be an expert on this topic or familiar with it? I'm not even being allowed to introduce views from published and widely cited scholars in the field[91][92][93]. We are not relying on my knowledge of the topic (basically none), I just noticed an extreme, extreme POV violation (stating opinions as facts in Wikivoice) along with misuse of quotes in a mystifying way. I'm desperate here to salvage some semblance of NPOV, I admit it, and if ANI thinks I should just walk away, so be it. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

an editor who made this

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

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

"We are not relying on my knowledge of the topic (basically none)" Wait a minute. Do you mean that you have never read texts on relevant topics, or that you have never worked on articles on relevant topics? Dimadick (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

To differentiate fact from opinion requires no special knowledge. I have passing familiarity with the history of modern Israel.

• Fact: Israel displaced Palestinians.
• Opinion: Israel was wrong or culpable for displacing Palestinians.

Culpability could be determined by an international court though. Wrongness could only be determined by a person's own opinion, or God's if they believe in that. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ad Orientem: Well in case you would like some constructive feedback, it certainly didn't feel particularly respectful, or courteous, to this individual editor, to have a page immediately slapped with tags, hastily noted as a "Huge NPOV Fail" on talk and dragged to both WP:NPOVN and WP:ANI within 24 hours of the content going up (possibly within 5 hours if I'm getting the timestamps correct), having barely had time to breathe, and without even a chirrup on my talk page or any real substantiation of the issues at hand on the talk page either. If that is your showing respect, may I never feel the wrath of your disrespect. I hadn't realised that you were an administrator before I saw the mention here in this thread, and I wouldn't have expected it from the paucity of direct communication and open dialogue that I received from you along this chain of events. When I pinged you on the talk page for details of the issues, I heard nothing. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO the page was, and remains a POVFORK with the tags being entirely appropriate. I did in fact receive your ping which I responded to with my comment at the NPOVN discussion. However, I see that I forgot to alert you on the talk page that I had commented there. That was a failure on my part for which I apologize. As for the issues, obviously the NPOV matter remains under discussion. Regards the AfD, conceding that the discussion still has at least four days to run and setting aside my own opinion on the merits, as of right now it looks like it is heading for either a weak keep or no consensus which is effectively the same thing. That could change of course. But given the volume of commentary already generated, a wave of negative !votes would be needed to swing the discussion. My experience at AfD suggests that is unlikely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope your take-away, AO, is not to go to ANI with an NPOV problem in the future. It's particularly hypocritical when you're telling other people to dial down the temperature, etc. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Phrased like AO did, perhaps, as a simple NPOV issue. This still appears to me to be a possible case of intentional POV pushing and ADVOCACY. The same can't be said for AO's actions or in my opinion mine. Some people here seem dead set on phrasing opinions as facts, which is not something Wikipedia does, and either cannot differentiate opinion from fact, or do not wish to do so. Also the edit warring to keep quotes from even being attributed at all (again, we do not just drop quoted material into sentences without saying who is being quoted, the quotation marks are not enough) is bizarre and speaks to a behavioral problem.

Am I trying to make anything say that it is a fact that Israel was justified in displacing Palestine? Nope, never tried to do that and would not. Other people (Iskandar, nableezy, dimadick) seem to see it as a fact that Israel is wrong and not justified and are intent on it being portrayed as such. That's textbook ADVOCACY. Judgments of right and wrong are not facts and even in the most heinous articles we don't typically use that phrasing. Culpability is AFAIK something that can be determined by courts of law, or at least overwhelming consensus across a broad spectrum of researchers and possible viewpoints, and by and large needs to be clearly attributed. Some editors fought tooth and nail against that. And they seem to be getting away with it.

I went into the situation considering it a simple NPOV issue then I looked at the article in detail, and I am still not sure everyone giving these editors a pass looked at the version I first encountered in detail. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now there is actually an incident requiring administrative attention. DIYeditor has repeatedly accused others of improper behavior without evidence. When exactly is WP:ASPERSIONS going to be enforced for this crap? nableezy - 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I have clearly and repeatedly given the evidence, and I said "seem" meaning I am stating how things appear to me, not what the facts are. Again I suspect an inability or unwillingness to differentiate between statements of fact and opinion. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the earlier call of Trilletrollet for a boomerang at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Your userpage might appear to be a fake article or violate WP:UP#NOTSUITED if you want to get into necessary actions. BOOMERANG indeed. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gratuitous commentary of that sort is exactly the reason why I think a boomerang is in order. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? Am I seeing things or does your user page blatantly violate Wikipedia guidelines? That's a gratuitous observation? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to file a complaint. And yes, it is. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The topics in your user page are actually directly related to the topics of this ANI thread. If you cannot see the violation, refuse to see it, or don't care, that speaks to your own willingness to interpret and follow Wikipedia guidelines. You won't fix it yourself, I have to take it to MFD or something? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that is more relevant to this ANI and any calls for sanctions here. It's a behavioral issue. I think you should just fix it yourself now that it's been brought to your attention that you may not use those templates in that fashion. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone clue me in on what's wrong with Self's userpage? Levivich (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOTSUITED (uses article templates, "part of a series" etc., on a non-article user page) or a "fake article" which I have seen discussed at MFD but I am not immediately finding the rules or deletion criteria about. Isn't it obvious? I already cited NOTSUITED so are you just ignoring that, didn't see it, disagree, or what? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nav templates? You need to back off, stop harassing other editors, and go find something productive to do, or you will find yourself voted off the island before long. Levivich (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The joys of Wikidemocracy indeed, never mind the written rules, it's actually rule by faction and popularity contest. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm comfortable just letting this thread die. The article is in much better shape now and presumably will continue to improve now that it has the attention of a wider array of editors. What I encountered when I first saw it:

• Nakba denial is the denial of Zionist culpability for the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, the displacement event that Palestinians refer to, along with its accompanying impacts, as the "Nakba" or "catastrophe".

What it says now:

• According to some historians and academics, there exists a form of historical negationism that pertains to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight.

We are moving in the right direction. Thanks to all for their attention and input. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple violations, not following policies and hounding also user is removing cited information without explaination

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note this incident too (which may be related to the reported issue involving the user mentioned) in which the IPs coming from the country belonging to the country from which the blocked user (at that time) is probably from hounding me during the blocked period:

Incident link(s) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1175987758&oldid=1175985225&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Blanking of pages from IP (again from a country that the blocked user at that time is probably from) and reported user nominating the pages - Special:Contributions/59.103.214.154

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Delhi_Leaders_Declaration&oldid=1181520882

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Biofuel Alliance Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP asking to nominate the article for deletion in the protection request page while an increase for protection is requested for the involved page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1174802239 Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elaborate, please. What about that addition is problematic. One would imagine that if you were focusing on improving the page, you would have taken much greater notice of the paragraph above that addition, given that it is in a much poorer state. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if you're referring to the 2023 Asia Cup page, the user was removing Sri Lanka, a nation which was a co-host along with Pakistan. However references confirm that Sri Lanka is a co-host. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that edit has nothing to do with the Asia Cup. You stated that this edit is non-neutral and flippantly stated that it shows a lack of competence. I'm inviting you to further explain why you think that and why you are taking such umbrage with it. It feels as though you were browsing their contributions looking for anything to put a spin on. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to one of their non-neutral addition targeted against a specific country.

They added, "According to the Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit, India is a flawed democracy." A neutral statement may look something like, "According to the index published by Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit, India is categorised as a flawed democracy." or "As per the Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit, India is categorised as a flawed democracy."

Instead you can see how opinionated the statement looks. For which I spoke about the "competence" thing. and the user involved felt the my improvement edits to Mizoram Bridge collapse were incompetent.

Note: - Also the page involved here is a contentious topic - Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Funny how the involved user tagged this diff and didn't tag the next response in which the decision was reviewed blocking him for a week for policy violation.

Also another nomination for a notable article (also created by me) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi Leaders Declaration Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The following edit is confimed to be a false information published by a news agency and the news agency themselves apologized for that. It doesn't make the removal of this "false edit summary". - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1174767930

The edit summary justifies the edit. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

AfD nomination of the user failed here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Biofuel Alliance and they immediately made another nomination of another page created by me - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi Leaders Declaration. The Editor Interaction Analyser provided by the user itself shows who's hounding whom.

This user's disruptive editing also one of the cause for the page 2023 G20 New Delhi summit to have an Extended confirmed protection and its a blatant attack that they're making here in reverse. - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1174802001 Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thewikizoomer Actually, I think Pirate of the High Seas is correct here. Pakistan was, indeed, the official host of the tournament [94] but multiple games had to be played in Sri Lanka as the Indian team refused to travel to Pakistan ("India would play its matches outside Pakistan and the PCB would retain hosting rights.") The current wording ("The matches were played as One Day Internationals (ODIs) with Pakistan as the official host and Sri-Lanka as the co-host for select matches involving India") is fine - the wording that you inserted ("The matches were played as One Day Internationals (ODIs) with Pakistan and Sri Lanka as the official host") is technically wrong. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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

  While you may be right that India refused to play in Pakistan, however, non-Indian matches were also held in Sri Lanka because, it is not only India that has refused to play in Pakistan. Multiple references suggest that Sri Lanka is a co-host.

  So, yes, the edit related to co-host issue can be discussed in that article's talk page futher. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• the user not following 3 revert rule @Thewikizoomer can you identify where 3RR was violated? GabberFlasted (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Also, @Thewikizoomer I have to agree that you are holding PotHS to a double standard here. You've accused them of hounding you and removing cited content without explanation, and in light of that I'd ask you to explain these three edits. You've complained that they are nominating your articles for deletion but you've done precisely the same thing. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Khalistan Tiger Force was nominated by me as it wasn't a significant organization, it is just one of the many organizations that the Indian government banned for terrorist acts. Moreover, the group didn't have any activity which is of significance, considering the activities of the group internally in India and also outside India. Only until the recent killing of Harideep Singh Nijjar, the outfit got popular which happened way long after I nominated it for deletion for not holding significance.

  Regarding Jai Shri Ram, the statement which was removed, was removed because it appears like an opinion, the specific statement didn't had any citations, made a direct attack on a religious slogan for being used in communal violence. The Wikipedia policy asks editors to stick to a neutral point of view and not assume something based on an article.

  Regarding Mizoram Bridge collapse removal from the Disasters in India template, the edit was made as a part of cleanup process and not disruptive on the assumption that the user involved here made the edits as part of their behaviour in which they proceed frequently to add information negatively about a specific nation. For example, their additions which is are totally unrelated to 2023 G20 New Delhi summit appeared and were later removed for being totally unrelated and biased not sticking to the neutral view. Hence this was a part of cleanup process which was done because the assumption was the user made them with malicious intention towards a specific nation. Infact, I improved this page from its poor formatting after finding out its significance. Now the article is reverted to its old state by the involved user. One can see my improvements. There are tons of errors in the page, I fixed but were reverted. Indian railways in not called some "federal" thing like they call in other nations.

  Regarding the edit in Freedom of religion in India, they simply stated the information twice, an editor inserted a whole paragraph which repeats the context in the paragraph just above that which didn't appear constructive and disrupted the easy reading format which Wikipedia wants its editors to adhere to without disturbing the context and entering repetitive statements. Also it can be observed that it is simply the travel advisory information which usually any country updates from time to time about the country their citizens intend to visit. Unless there is no change in advisory what is the need to add repetitive information. It's like the page will increase more and more with monthly advisories. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  1) Saying the content removed from Jai Shri Ram did not have any citations is quite peculiar when it seems to me that it had 15 citations. It also seems to me that the first form of that sentence was added back in 2020 by a user who is very much not banned, despite your edit summary.

  2) So you acknowledge that you removed the content from Template:Disasters in India in 2023 simply because it was an edit made by Pirate of the High Seas, without even looking at it to weigh the value of the content? You can call it a "cleanup process" or decide for yourself that your own edit was "not disruptive" but that is quite concerning.

  3) I agree that the wording in question in Freedom of religion in India was a bit clunky and repetitive but a total removal of the content isn't necessary either. I am more concerned with the edit summary PROPAGANDA NOT ALLOWED. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  1) It had citations related to the incidents relating to the communal violence and not related to "The slogan has since been employed in connection with the perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths". Since?

  2) No, I do not, because, I saw the content carefully and if you look at the first edit, the wording completely is different. it was a removal made to a topic which was termed as contentious, the removal took place because of it having connection and matching behavioural patterns of that user who at that period resorted to edit warring to the page 2023 G20 New Delhi summit in trying to include unrelated and false claims which appeared to be non-neutral. Later when an admin said that it holds significance, I have gone through guidelines again and understood the guidelines, hence made improvements to the said article.

  3) Should we let the non-neutral statement stay there? also note its repetitive. "Propaganda" in edit summary because of the wording of the entered information and the user's behavioural pattern in targeting a specific country and trying to add false/non-significant information like they did in the 2023 G20 New Delhi summit article which is non-neutral again. The edit summary justifies that removal.

  My whole edit history can be referred from beginning to end to observe my efforts in trying to protect policies and improve Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Long term POV disruptive editing at Zviad Gamsakhurdia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they continue... "I mean, there is a reasonable doubt based on these evidences that the user is Armenian, but he may actually not be Armenian, just trying to stir tensions between Armenians and Georgians by writing such stuff, but I don't know, it is suspicious. (...) Well, he might be just anti-Georgian Armenian, I of course know many of them, but anyway, all of these are just my suspicions, I am not engaging in personal attacks, this is just a (very) reasonable doubt." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You only cherry picked the part which you liked, but did not include other part, where I explicitly stated that I was not attacking personally anyone, I was just thinking that you were Armenian because you specifically added "Armenophobia" while the person in question is not "notable for Armenophobia" (your addition) at all. Moreover, there was a similar pattern, that's why I noted that it was just "reasonable doubt" and that I was not personally attacking, I even noted that you may not be Armenian, I just thought that you may be though. It was just my opinion, not a personal attack meant against someone or insulting to Armenians either. I did not use "Armenian" as insult in here, so it is not a personal attack, it is just an opinion which I got from your your edit history, which was focused on Armenia. And for me the part of your edit history, which seemed to add many negative information about Turkey and Georgia, just seemed like an evidence that you are biased in this topic. Your nationality was not itself an evidence, it was just my opinion that might be Armenian, not meant as an insult. Even if admins block me, the truth is still truth that it was not meant as insult, but I can not do anything against block anyway, so go ahead.

I also want to note that there was a bad wording from me due to me not knowing English quite well. By "of course I know many of them", I just meant that I know many Armenians, not many anti-Georgian Armenians, for me, it just seemed weird that this user made anti-Georgian edit, that's why I noted it. I even write in the text that it seemed weird for me that he made anti-Georgian edit, I know Armenians and not many were anti-Georgian. So it was bad wording from me in this paragraph which the user cited, the paragraph meant to contain a different meaning.Silveresc (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So this is my full text, if admins decide to ban me, go ahead, but I did not mean this text as an insult, it was just my examination, but I really did deem his edits anti-Georgian, moreover, his emphasis on adding "Armenophobia" and his Armenian-related editing (including negative edits about Georgia and Turkey) made me thought that he was anti-Georgian xenophobic Armenian. I want to add that this is not a general opinion on Armenians, but specifically about this user, based on his edit history, I just thought he was anti-Georgian xenophobic. Reading out of context, without considering the discussion throughout 1 month, this can really be read as "personal attack" outside of context, but I don't think I can do anything about it anyway, just noting that someone might be Armenian is not an insult though, It was just my opinion.

I want to note also why I used term "pro-Armenian", without explanation, it really looks like a personal attack, but it is really not, but I don't expect anyone to dig up this long thread to find what happened. When this user started his disruptive editing on this page, he initially started it by adding that "Gamsakhurdia was known for Armenophobia"! Only later started he writing that "Gamsakhurdia was chauvinistic and xenophobic to everyone"! His initial motivation was to emphesize supposed "Armenophobia", but I managed to get hand on sources which he used and there was no mention of term Armenophobia, so he had to remove it, but he started even worse disruptive editing, now he added into article inflammatory buzzwords like "chauvinistic, xenophobic, hysterical" and etc! So his edits became even worse, now he tainted article with non-neutral information even more! I was actually surprised why would anyone rush here, to the page of Georgian national hero and write something like "He is known for Armenophobia" (What Armenophobia? He actually has even visited Armenia during his presidency and met Armenian President, who then said that Armenia and Georgia had constructive relations), but then I dig up his edit history, and all I saw was him editing Turkey-related pages, and writing bad stuff about Turkey there! I mean, there is a reasonable doubt based on these evidences that the user is Armenian, but he may actually not be Armenian, just trying to stir tensions between Armenians and Georgians by writing such stuff, but I don't know, it is suspicious. I can understand about Turkey since difficult Turkish-Armenian relations (although disruptive editing is still wrong), but why Georgia? Well, he might be just anti-Georgian Armenian, but anyway, I don't get why would he resort to being anti-Georgian, however, all of these are just my suspicions, I am not engaging in personal attacks, this is just a (very) reasonable doubt and I am just trying to show how non-neutral and biased he is by pointing out this fact.

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

I think this is some addition edit warring from this morning, [95], [96], [97]/[98]  // Timothy :: talk  17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC).

This is not edit warring, I did not make 4 edits in 24 hours, the last edit is me editing my own edits, I did not revert, I just edited my own edit by adding "and" in the end of sentence. So, it is not edit war. I made only 3 reverts and have not made any more edits so far at that page at all, so this claim is not true from this user.Silveresc (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, think I got all the diffs in order:

• Starting version: [99] as of 04:04, 22 October 2023 which you change "Most" to "All" here [100] at 05:01, 22 October 2023, and it is reverted here [101] to the stable version by Chipmunkdavis at 05:23, 22 October 2023
• Here [102] you change “Most” to all again at 05:24, 22 October 2023 and it is reverted here [103] by Kashmiri at 07:04, 22 October 2023
• Here [104] here you again change “Most” to all again at 09:43, 22 October 2023 and it was rv again here [105] by Chipmunkdavis at 19:58, 22 October 2023

3RR is the “bright line” WP:EW but edit warring is not limited to 3RR violations. I think this article is also covered under GS for Eastern Europe, 1RR restriction, and you were informed [106] here You were also warned in a similar article at User talk:Silveresc#Warning about edit warring on War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) page, and at User talk:Silveresc#June 7, 2023.

The community can decide if this is edit warring. If I'm wrong I will retract the point, but this is the same type of battle grounding and bludgeoning that took place on Zviad Gamsakhurdia.  // Timothy :: talk  23:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, after 3 edits, I purposefully stopped reverting so not to break rules about edit warring. This is despite the fact that another user still reverted my last version of the text. It looks like you visited my Talk page, carefully reading my discussions with other users, but if you read it carefuly enough, there is a last discussion, which took place during my editing of Abkhazia page. It was a related discussion to this one and you can read it and see that after being notified by a user, I avoided edit warring by agreeing with the user and removing information which I have added. I said in the end: "Ok, I will edit it. But I will find other sources that majority of countries recognizes it occupied." So I agreed to remove text before providing the other source. This shows my intentions to avoid edited warring. After being notified, I have tried to end edit warring. In this case too, I have avoided edit warring, I did not revert 4th time, so this is noteworthy.

About notification about contentious topics, the notification you are talking about, happened not in regards to Abkhazia page, but another page. I have not been notified about Abkhazia page and whether it is considered or not contentious topic.

Also, the fourth link you provided about my edit, appereantly shows that I did not revert, I just edited my own last edit and added "and" in another place. This can not be considered edit warring, but you still presented it as evidence of me edit warring. Then I objected, and you did not present any counter-argument, you started talking about 3 revert rule, implying that you agreed with me that I made only 3 reverts and my fourth edit was not a revert. But, based on the rules you have cited in this thread, it seems like you know Wikipedia rules quite well (better than me), so you should have known that my fourth edit (me editing my own last edit) is not a "revert" and can not be presented as edit warring, yet you did that. May I ask, why did you still do that, despite all of this? What exactly was you motivation with providing appereantly false information that my fourth edit was a "revert"? Silveresc (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I provided no false information. The revision at 09:41, 22 October 2023 has the statement "and many other sovereign states" and you change it to "all other sovereign states"[107].

The community can determine if the above and your overall edit history merits further action. I believe it does to prevent further disruption, preferably a tban from Eastern Europe broadly construed for repeated edit warring and battle grounding on Eastern European articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you are not telling truth right now. You have referenced this edit of mine [108] saying that it was edit war, but appereantly, in this edit I just edited my own text (previous version is also mine), there is no revert, I just changed position of "and" in the sentence. Yet you still falsely referenced this as an example of me engaging in "edit war" by reverting content, which is simply not true. Silveresc (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I get it, you want to ban me and exclude me from editing, it is pretty evident, thanks for clarifying your real motivation.Silveresc (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

By the matter of fact, all my edits which were added were with the only goal - to clarify Russia's illegal invasion and occupation of Georgia's territories, Russia's interference in Georgia's sovereign internal affairs to extend its influence - similarily to what's it is doing right now to Ukraine (before invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there was invasion of Georgia in 2008 - it has been clarified many times). Even though I have found significant opposition from some users, who, as I have read on Talk page, justify and support Russia's actions, I have tried to observe rules and have not reverted more than 3 times and abandoned situation not to engage in edit war. I tried to follow rules, but if there will be decision to ban me anyway, well, I don't think there is anything I can do, let it be.Silveresc (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not the content of your edits that is problematic, I am not involved in your content dispute, and do not care how it is resolved.

The problem is your behavior while editing. Period, nothing else. Edit warring, PAs, talk page bludgeoning, personal comments about the ethnicity and motivations of editors, an amazing number of reverted edits, and most of all NOTLISTENING to the multiple warnings and notices you have received. By looking at your talk page, this is the third page you have recently had this problem on.

If you are going to edit articles in the arc of territory from Eastern Europe and the Balkans, to North Africa and through the Middle East, to South Asia you are going to have change the way you interact with others and learn to build a consensus, even when its frustrating and bothersome because it's always frustrating and bothersome to build consensus.

As for wanting to ban you, why do you think this thread is still open? Why do you think you only received a slap on the wrist article time out to think and not a topic ban or complete ban? Maybe other editors want to give a chance to see the problem and change course and prevent a ban? Could it possibly be we are not all out to get you?

If you are banned it is because you didn't listen. My final reply, not worth any more pixels.  // Timothy :: talk  05:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing of truck related articles by Providence IP range

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

Continuing [109], without responding at talk page or here. All unsourced changes to multiple articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Ahmadech4

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

Not sure if this is a language-related WP:CIR issue, a simple refusal to listen to what they have been told, or both, but User:Ahmadech4 keeps asking how to create an article on Farzad ghaderi, an Iranian MMA fighter who clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria, after their multiple recreations of the article have been deleted, and the article has been creation-protected. [110] See both Ahmadech4's talk page and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#why delete Farzad_ghaderi article for this chronic failure to take the slightest notice of anything anyone says. An indef block would seem appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk · contribs) personal attacks and insisting to remove cn tags on Coat of arms of Lebanon

There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the coat of arms of Lebanon, here Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Lebanon#Coat_of_arms and here Talk:Lebanon#Coat_of_Arms_2. However this user is edit warring based on his original research, and removes the cn tags regarding the "coat of arms" claiming I'm spamming links, instead of providing proper evidence. Also on the talk page, [111] he's calling You seem to be heavily biased in all of this however, spamming this page with the same thing over and over again. Perhaps, we need someone else that isn't as heavily invested in this as you are to decide which is a personal attack. I'm saying the page is wp:or, he calls Prove it.[112] failing to understand. What am I supposed to prove? Beshogur (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

You mean casual discussions on my talk page archive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First I doubted Wkpdsrnm2023 suitable for editing here, now I doubt you User:Beshogur's suitability. There's clearly a content dispute here. If you're unable to accept that, then you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project which requires editors to be able to accept sometimes they may disagree in good faith about whether the sources available may establish something or not and they therefore need to listen to what the other side is saying and if you still disagree with their PoV, explaining why you feel your interpretation is correct. And if you are unable to convince the other editor by yourself, seeking the help of others achieve some sort of consensus. Intrinsic in this is that each editor needs to be willing to accept that their interpretation of the sources and how to handle them in accordance with our policies and guidelines might be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe can you check the content yourself. Others users have pointed this WP:OR as well. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I may have a clue as to what the reaction from Beshogur was all about. After digging a little bit, it seems that they are adamant that Turkey has no official coat of arms for whatever reason, it seems to be one of their main prerogatives and I don't understand why but they even mentioned the subject here in this ANI thread about Lebanon. They've been involved in renaming articles and images about Turkey's emblems and they're trying to do this for other countries' symbols and coats of arms as well, for Lebanon as in this thread's case but also in France's article, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=France&diff=1170195837&oldid=1170066091.

I think the reason why they are doing this is to normalize the idea that some countries don't have coats of arms so that Turkey doesn't stand alone on this issue. Now, this is all just a hypothesis, and I could be wrong but I looked into Turkey's coat of arms situation and it seems as if Beshogur is actually aware that there is an official coat of arms for Turkey as stated on the Turkish president's website, as they stated here about a year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey/Archive_35#National_Amblem%2FCoat_of_Arms_of_Turkey. According to the link on that talk page, it says (in Turkish): "Arma / Güvenlik Alanı : Arma, Cumhurbașkanlığı’nın ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin amblemi niteliğindedir." which translates to "Coat of Arms / Security Area: The coat of arms is the emblem of the Presidency and the Republic of Turkey.". As they stated in the linked comment, "Interestingly the English version doesn't mention this, while the construction sheet mentions this several times. [15] and doesn't appear in 2020 version. Not sure when they did change this." so they are aware of this fact.

Again, this is all a hypothesis but I believe that Beshogur is trying to cover this information up and even go as far as trying to rename articles and images, even other countries' articles, to support this idea that "There isn't a rule in the world that a country must have an emblem" as they stated previously. Now, is this correct Beshogur? If not, then you wouldn't have any issues with me bringing this up on Turkey's talk page as well as all of the other relevant pages so that we can figure out what's happening, would you? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The translation is wrong. Do you even speak Turkish? Nitelik rather means attribution. Don't mislead people. Beshogur (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

hypothesis but I believe that Beshogur is trying to cover this information up and even go as far as trying to rename articles and images, even other countries' articles, to support this idea lol what kind of conspiracy is this? Beshogur (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nitelik isn't used there, niteliğindedir is. So far the only person misleading anyone is the one quoting things that aren't there. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You know agglutinative languages exist? What kind of nonsense is this. Beshogur (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, until you can prove otherwise the translation is correct. Here's several translations to back up what I said:

[113] [114] [115] Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Attacks on a specific individual and his people

Here [116] and here [117]

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

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

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

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

User:Andriyrussu

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

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

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

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

Bergenoslo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nest of accounts editing to promote Yacob Lumenda Piang Ampatuan

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

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

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

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

Disruptive behavior from User:SurferSquall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeeks, I didn't realise it was that bad. It is clear that a permanent block is the only way. If promises to behave mean nothing then how can anybody ever be confident to lift an indef block? And if a mere topic ban, then what topic will trigger this behaviour next time? He's even still dickering about the subject on his own talk page, as the only place accessible to him! Enough! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten or was not aware of much of SurferSquall’s history before the July discussion. I wish I had seen it sooner. I don’t believe a topic ban will be enough, as this user has shown zero regard for consensus and I believe they would treat a topic ban similarly. I believe that an indef block is the only way to prevent further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The user had been blocked before, and they insisted on pushing their own vision and opinions over a collaborative environment. I also think that just a topic ban will not be enough.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

39r3i93

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need unbiased admin support on bad faith edit warring claim

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

---

There seems to be bad faith consensus and editing manipulation from the page on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

User @StephenMacky1 undid a revision claiming disruption despite editor's comments on etymological and factual corrections.

User @MrOllie further undid the revert of those edits with no reason attached. Under the talk page to the article or original editor they did not further elaborate.

User @PatrickJWelsh minutes later edited the page adding an oxford comma to make it impossible to revert the edits without unjustly reverting their edit.

All 3 users speak German and have a pro-German bias on their pages. It seems they are acting in bad faith to suppress information on a page of German interest by maintaining the page's biased language claiming "you need to get consensus" and then refusing further elaborations on details. 188.147.68.180 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Obvious evasion of the blocks on 188.147.76.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2a00:f41:48b4:2642::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the block evading, axe-grinding, anti-German POV pusher. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The other two editors were entirely correct to revert the recent edits. If there is bias in the current article, I'm sure we all wish to remove it. Please start a discussion on the talk page.

If anyone comes back to reinsert polemical language about ethnicity, state propaganda, etc. without prior discussion and consensus, I would propose low-level protection of the article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Srich32977 and HighBeam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll try to summarize my HighBeam edits (and close this controversy):

1. [118] – remove "via=HighBeam" from cite news template. Rationale – the original HighBeam url is dead and the archive url remains. Editors clicking either one will see they are HighBeam related. They do not see that the archive url content is a fragment unless they open it.
2. [119] – remove the "{{Subscription required|via=[[HighBeam Research]]}}" from the |publisher=AScribe {{Subscription required|via=[[HighBeam Research]]}} citation. Rationale: A "subscription" is not required to access the HighBeam archive url. Nor does Ascribe require a subscription. There is no Ascribe-url being presented.
3. [120] – remove the |via=HighBeam Research |url-access=subscription parameters from the citation. Rationale: same as #2 above. One uses a citation "url-access" parameter for subscription access and the other uses a citation required template.
4. [121] – Remove the dead HighBeam url plus the "warnings" about the url. (There is no archive url.) Rationale: the HighBeam url is dead and cannot be recovered. Rather than leave it there, it's better to leave the original publication data (Women's Wear Daily etc., thus satisfying WP:V.

• So some of the controversy deals with "via" {{Template:Cite web}} says the following: "via: Name of the content deliverer (if different from publisher). via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail. It may be used when the content deliverer (e.g. NewsBank) presents the source in a format different from the original, when the URL provided does not make clear the identity of the deliverer, where no URL or DOI is available (EBSCO), or if the deliverer requests attribution." MY OBSERVATIONS:

1. HighBeam was once the "content deliverer" for the material. But no longer. Highbeam was never the publisher of any material.
2. Using "via" is optional ("may be used when") under four conditions:
   1. "the content deliverer ... presents the source in a different format..." This would require a look at the HighBeam cited material and original source. But we don't have access to the original.
   2. "when the URL provided does not make clear ...". This does not apply because there is no URL provided for the original.
   3. "where there is no URL available ..." This applies to the edits concerned. (And, again, is optional.)
   4. "the deliverer requests attribution.

SO: Item # 3 seems to apply. And with this in mind I will limit/discontinue my removal of the "via=HighBeam"s from the citations. Will this be of any benefit to the readers? I don't think so. It is just clutter in the citation. I will, however, continue to remove the "subscription" admonitions. – S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• "If those two specific parameters (|via= and |subscription=) are not harming anything, they shouldn't be removed." (User:Isaidnoway) [122]
• "Definitely leave in the |via= field, agnostic on the rest." (User:Mr.choppers) [123]
• "Please stop removing via until you have consensus" (User:GreenC) [124]

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

GreenC is moving the goalpost. Originally the objection was about removing the "via" and "subscription" parameters. Now the objection is about removing either the "via" or "subscription" parameters. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What difference does it make? It's like saying consensus is against removing |via=, but it's OK to remove |via= + |subscription= because there was no consensus about that combination. What will you say next, it's OK to remove |via= + {{subscription required}} because we didn't mention that template. Your arguments are specious with endless pedantic permutations. In fact your "goalpost" is to stop removing either one of these parameters, in any combination, or anything to do with subscription and via (when there is a dead link), until you have consensus. -- GreenC 17:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• You said at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Yes, this is a clutter-removal project. And I think it comports with WP:DEADLINK. Need more be said? How does your removal of these two parameters comport with DEADLNK? Based on the guidance at DEADLINK, shouldn't you be 'trying to repair a dead link'. For instance, in this recent edit of yours, a quick search with the headline found this source, which supports that quote. Here's another one, that you could have fixed with a quick search, source. I see more value in trying to fix the dead links, than this "clutter-removal project". You say you don't think its of any benefit to the reader, (leaving these parameters intact) but doesn't leaving those two parameters intact inform the reader that the source was obtained through a subscription to HighBeam? Even though the link is dead, at least the reader knows where it came from. 👻 Isaidnoway (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Srich32977, are you okay to stop removing the (|via= and |subscription=) parameters unless you can show evidence of clear consensus obtained at a relevant community forum for such removal? Doing otherwise will be considered disruptive and immediately blockable. Please let us know. Thank you, Lourdes 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I said above I'd stop removing the "via" parameters. My statement was commented out as off-topic. I restored it. Again, I will say it. "When a citation says 'via HighBeam' I will leave it as is. – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no consensus to remove via OR subscription. The latest comment by administrator User:Aoidh: "concerning the subscription parameter I don't see how removing it when the link is dead would be helpful". -- GreenC 16:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since I was pinged I do want to stress that my being an administrator isn't relevant to that discussion, as I was only giving an opinion as an editor but I do think a consensus should be established before continuing the mass removal of either parameter. - Aoidh (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Srich32977, I will ask you once again - are you okay to stop removing the (|via= and |subscription=) parameters unless you can show evidence of clear consensus obtained at a relevant community forum for such removal? Lourdes 05:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I invite you all to look at this edit: [125]. It avoids the "via" parameter because the archived HB story is a partial rendition. Also, using a Template:Link note enables editors to add a note about the HB archive without saying a subscription is required for access. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is not the only WP:FAITACCOMPLI activity by this editor. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Or variants: Iterresise again went on a sweep, this time of changing disambiguation pages to a new lead/intro format this editor invented, then after the fact came to WT:DAB to "propose" the change, only to be met with consistent resistance. The editor is engaging in a long-winded WP:ICANTHEARYOU pattern (not listening to reasons why his proposal is not practical, and instead just repeating the propsal again as if no objections were raised), and battleground behavior there, has not undone the mess he made, and insists "I see no harm in removing 'or variants' language at this time" [126], which is difficult to read as anything but a declaration that he's going to continue no matter what. Then he histrionically complains that multiple editors disagreeing with him amounts to "WP:TAGTEAMING" [127]. This brings to mind WP:COMPETENCE: an editor has to be able to understand how the WP:Consensus process works, and that being disagreed with is not being personally attacked.

The editor then engaged in an actual WP:TAGTEAM / WP:GANG behavior, by going through my talk page looking for other people I've had disagreements with, and attempted to recruit one of them to join him in opposing me [128], which is small-scale WP:CANVASSING, and more victim posturing.

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

PS: This editor is one who routinely blanks out any crticism or complaint posted to his talk page, but the issues are worth a review: [129][130][131][132][133] A fairly long litany of objectionable unilateral actions, followed generally by nothing (there or anywhere else) that resembles an attempt to establish a consensus for what the editor wants to do. I even checked the talk pages of every single article mentioned in these complaints, and Iterresise only posted to one of them. This was after he engaged in the WP:POINT behavior of removing the most famous prog-rock band in the world from List of progressive rock artists[134]; their sole discussion input was to ask "The entry for rush doesn't have a real reference. Why is it included? I already sent a message on the reverter's talk page."[135] (Tracked that edit down, too, and it's more unreasonable hostility [136], taking someone to task for citing an album.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You stated on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Or_variants:

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

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

And again we're right back to the underlying competence problem: criticism is not "disrespect". No one is owed special "respect" here, just the equal respect of regular human dignity. Iterresise is clearly looking for the deference sort of respect, and seems not realize he is just one among a vast sea of equals, any of whom may raise concerns about edits and unconstructive behavior patterns. For this editor, any criticism is a reason to dig in and battleground repetitively. When someone is at ANI for meatbot and fait accompli actions and avoids addressing these actions (even after an administrative warning to stop them, because they've continued during this ANI), never indicates any understanding why they were disruptive, but instead verbally waves their hands around trying desperately to distract people away from the topic of the ANI with claims of victimhood, this is absolutely, positively, unmistakably handwaving. "Do not look at the man behind the curtain", turned up to 11. So is pinging me to a talk page and then trying to make me out as having been wiki-stalking him. Same with implication that I've falsely accused him of something ("What evidence to you have that I am?", after I already provided the diff [137]). And so on. I am starting to doubt my own belief in this user's behavior probably improving over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Iterresise, on the face of it, your editing spree as described above on multiple articles, seems highly disruptive to Wikipedia and blockable. Is there any forum where you can show consensus has been obtained to undertake these mass changes? (May I also request you to desist from making any such or newly found changes you might wish to make on a mass basis until these discussions have been concluded?) Thank you, Lourdes 08:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• I've looked for a consensus for these mass changes and I can't find one. They likely ought to be reverted. Can we get a script written to do that? I wouldn't fancy doing it manually.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• There is also something worrying about Iterresise's post on Infinity Knight's page mentioned above, where they ask Infinity Knight if SmcCandlish "has been disrespectful elsewhere". The notion that SmC was "disrespectful" to IK in the first place is far-fetched enough; asking for dirt from "elsewhere" is downright battleground-y. Bishonen | tålk 14:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Also, in the first of the above cases, it's Iterresise making a statement then unilaterally acting again without any input pro or con [138]. In the second, Iterresise misrepresented me as having said something in support of his removal actions, which I had to correct [139]; he has been met with no agreement on the talk page and is doing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU thing again with regard to clear and well-stated rationales for the template's use. It's as if because Iterresise has excercised his own pre-judgment that the template is an evil and the guideline must mean "always no matter what" where it says "often", the die is already cast.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish has captured Iterresise's editing and interaction patterns perfectly, and I wholeheartedly support their proposed actions: require Iterresise to undo the whole slew of dab intro and cross-reference edits, and topic-ban them from same. I'm less optimistic about the potential of this editor to reform their attitude; the attempt to recruit Infinity Knight is particularly galling and suggests a scorched-earth mindset to me. I won't be surprised if this is not their last appearance at ANI. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Iterresise, given your deliberate avoidance of answering my clear query above, let me issue this final administrative warning. In case you undertake any mass changes of any areas as mentioned in this discussion, you stand the chance of getting immediately and indefinitely blocked. Secondly, you do need to revert all the mass changes you have undertaken without consensus, and while having an IDHT attitude to multiple editors advising you to stop. Let me know if any part of this is unclear. Thank you, Lourdes 05:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• And it's getting worse. I wasn't even looking for anything like this; it just came across my watchlist. Iterresise has now very inappropriately accused someone of WP:OWN [140] simply for reverting [141] an undiscussed change Iterresise made [142] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. Iterresise's change had nothing to do with grammar, as they suggested, but with adding unecessarily legalistic wording. I'm starting to think that a broader topic-ban from MoS (which is covered by WP:CTOP) might be in order, since the problem this ANI opened with comes down to Iterresise mistakenly believing that an MoS line-item that reads "often" equates to "must" and empowers him to go on an across-the-board "enforcement" rampage. Even where MoS does not have use-editorial-discretion language like "often" and is more emphatic, we still treat it as a guideline to which exceptions may apply, and use consensus formation processes (WP:RM, etc.) to go about implementing changes at articles to comply, and listen to principled objections, and don't act as robotic enforcers, much less ones who accuse anyone who opposes them of being OWNers (and all the things Iterresise has accused me of). If Iterresise is going to react this way every time they are reverted making a change at a guideline page (where most any undiscussed change by anyone gets reverted), then this user should not be editing any guideline pages at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comment

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

---

At Talk:Race (human categorization) I wrote a comment questioning the value of one of the sources used to make a rather extreme statement in the article that "Modern science regards race as a social construct", sourced to an assertion by a popular-magazine journalist rather than any survey of the field. This comment was entirely with a view to either revising the text or finding better sources to support it, which seems to me to be exactly what talk pages are for. This comment was removed twice with accusations of "off topic" and "soapboxing".[143][144] Looking through the talk page archives we see this same group of editors who appear to favor one view in academia, and want for Wikipedia to present this as the only view. I am sure this is contrary to policy here. Some people have been saying it's time to "fix Wokipedia".[145] This looks like the kind of thing they are talking about. Richard Calthrope (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• LTA. Indef'd. Lourdes 08:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am one of the two editors who removed that off-topic comment from the talk page. I was just starting to write a reply. Now I can just say: Thank you for acting swiftly. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow. An Elon Musk troll. What a shock. Cullen328 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wokepedia is a different encyclopedia, the Uncyclopedia perhaps? Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Please revoke TPA from Sant Eshwer Foundation

• Sant Eshwer Foundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk page abuse, please revoke TPA -Lemonaka‎ 11:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a beta test of my changed script, WD, if I mangled with something, please tell me. -Lemonaka‎ 11:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate remark

Objective3000 made some uncalled for comment [146] some folks thought it was a bit out there, like a "bizarre accusation". Someone else even mentioned it seemed like the editor were accusing editors of Islamophobia.

I reached out to the editor on their talk page, reminding them to be cautious in sensitive discussions [147] they replied by questioning whether other editors were okay with their contributions, without acknowledging their own potential mistakes [148] So I added this [149] The conversation then shifted towards the blame game [150] I reiterated that it's odd they're shifting the blame to other editors without acknowledging any possible errors on their part [151] The editor proposed getting administrators involved [152].

That's the situation we find ourselves in. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the situation we find ourselves is that my post ended with an improvement to the article (1,919 character reduction). I was nice enough to not bring an editor here for the false accusation that I accused anyone of Islamophobia as I respect the editor's work and they did not push it after my response. My reason for starting the thread was because an editor added more text about beheadings even while it was under discussion. But I did not revert that editor or bring that editor here. The editor who complained about my initial edit did not continue after I responded and the discussion proceeded normally, which is more than I can say for most discussions on that TP. Infinity Knight then came to my TP. I politely and repeatedly explained the importance of WP policies and guidelines. But Infinity Knight seems to be tightly holding on to a stick. I would not say that I actually proposed wasting admin time. I just gave the standard answer to someone repeatedly claiming editor misconduct for no reason. BTW, that page could do with some admin mediation. But, I've seen a couple of admins indicate they're not getting near it. A sane decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see Knight started a discussion on SMcCandlish's TP with the same title and same type of complaint last week User talk:SMcCandlish#Greetings, which also appears to have been off base. Perhaps a suggestion that Knight refrain from such activity might reduce wasted time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to make it crystal clear, do you have a beef with the terms "bizarre accusation" and "accusing editors of Islamophobia for arguing for some inclusion of the topic is not helpful"? Before, you mentioned that "editors have broken the rules on WP:CIV and WP:AGF." Why did they drop those words in response to your comment? Can you break it down for me? Infinity Knight (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I explained this on my TP and on the ATP; but you only included out of context diffs. As for why one editor misread what I typed; you are asking the wrong person. They did not respond to my response. Instead, the discussion continued and a 1,919 reduction improving the article was made to an article where editors have been complaining about length. What's really odd is that you were not even in that discussion. I probably shouldn't have responded here and really have better things to do then repeat explanations already made. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice Infinity Knight (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced about the "one editor misread what I typed" explanation, as we have the diffs for two editors right above. We've already gone through the WP:V and WP:RS concerns with Objective3000 here amended, discussing sources like BBC and EFE. But what's Objective3000's next move? They open a new section and dive into the topic of Islamophobia. It'll be interesting to see what the administrators make of this. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI is not about content disputes. And, you didn't even dispute what I posted in the thread -- in the thread itself. But what's Objective3000's next move? They open a new section and dive into the topic of Islamophobia. So now, at ANI, you are accusing me of future actions that I have never given any thought to? I am not asking for a WP:boomerang given the editor's lack of experience, just that this stop. But, this is a boring timesink. WP:IDHT WP:BLUDGEON WP:CIR O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not up for a lengthy back-and-forth with you. Let's see community's take on User:Hemiauchenia and User:Jprg1966 comments. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I found Objective3000's mention of Islamophobia (or ""inflaming") as the "only reason" for the inclusion of the Hamas beheading allegations to be a presumption of bad faith. To argue that page content is Islamophobic, but not the editors who placed it there or argued for its retention, is ... fraught. We're all trying to edit in accordance with policy, and the answers are not always as obvious as saying "follow policy X". All that being said, I don't think anyone's conduct in this situation requires AN/I solutions. We all, myself included, can stand to take a step back and examine how we can improve the tone of discussion on what is a very contentious article. As someone who's made many edits to this article based on talk page suggestions, I would like to see discussions that focus very specifically on page content and as little as possible on the motives of other editors. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Infinity Knight (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I found Objective3000's mention of Islamophobia (or "inflaming") as the "only reason" for the inclusion of the Hamas beheading allegations to be a presumption of bad faith. Jprg1966, I made no such claim. Not only did I not claim it was the "only reason" (your emphasis), I did not claim it was "any reason" (my emphasis). Again, I clearly stated that using an unverified trope 18 times results in the article looking that way. In no way did I accuse any editor of anything. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no desire to be involved in this. Nothing anybody said in that discussion is worthy of any form of sanction. I would advise Infinity Knight to avoid opening ANI threads like this and instead open arbitration enforcement sections instead for Israel-Palestine related issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Close this thread and WP:BOOMERANG WP:TROUT for Infinity Knight. IK, ANI is reserved for intractable disputes, persistent or severe violations of behavioural norms, or other forms of major WP:DISRUPTION, and nothing you have brought here even remotely qualifies for crossing such a threshold. And that's true even if there was cause to see a minor violation of community expectations in the mode of Objective3000's communication--and in this instance, I'm not even seeing that, if I am blunt. I've reviewed the entirety of the dispute presented here, and I find nothing per se objectionable in the manner in which Objective raised their concerns about this content issue.

First off, O3K's comment was that, given the facts and sourcing, the content in question caused "the article" to appear to be Islamophobic (to their eye, anyway). That is not remotely the same thing as accusing editors (let alone a specific editor by way of a specific action) of being Islamophobic, or of such editors conducting themselves here in a fashion dictated by such a bias. Errors (be they defined by bias or other concerns) can creep into articles quite irrespective of a concerted plan of POV editing. Being able to describe our content frankly (even if it offends the sense of editorial or personal rectitude of editors who contributed to that content) is not just permitted, it's absolutely vital to our iterative and consensus-based processes.

Furthermore, even if Objective had been more direct in implying that there was active bias by certain editors in that space, that would not constitute a per se policy either. So long as they didn't cross the line into casting WP:ASPERSIONS about specific violations of behavioural policies or content standards that they (Objective) could not support with evidence, such observations are not just fairplay, but in fact frequently necessary to call the spade for a spade, when it comes to a piece of content appearing askew as regards NPOV. This is not just a regular, expected, and functionally unavoidable consequence of our processes for even the most mundane content, but also particularly necessary as a safeguard where it comes to topics which may be influenced by implicit bias.

The standard you suggest (that one cannot allude to the possibility of an apparent bias in a bit of content, using even the vaguest language that doesn't even imply any specific editorial fault), is utterly unworkable on this project, even (if not especially) for CTOP areas. Even the making of so much of a mountain out of so little of a molehill, as you have done here, has potential to chill discussion in areas where we need volunteers to be able to speak candidly about their perspectives, provided they keep them within the confines of conduct, both as regards general policy and the elevated GS standards.

And you can't just up-jump concerns here by vaguely implying that "multiple editors" voiced the perspective that the comment is unfair. The Israel-Hamas conflict is at the moment the most contentious single topic on the project, for obvious reasons. You can't stake the slightest of positions there just now without running afoul of the perspective of someone willing to tell you as much, often while taking umbrage about the disrespect shown to a conclusion that happens to align with their own outlook. More (much more) is needed in terms of substantive violation of policy or community expectations in order to justify a discussion here.

What seems to have happened in this instance is that you went to Objective's talk page with what you felt was a reasonable observation about rhetoric--and though I can't say as I agree with your assessment there, you were at least polite and apparently operating in good faith. And Objective's responses were consistently of a similar tone. However, after several back-and-forths where O3K just was not convinced by your outlook, and refused to concede to your stance, you should have dropped the stick there. Instead, apparently feeling you were entitled to some sort of concession on this debate, you escalated the matter here, despite a complete lack of context that justifies such a reaction, or evidence of a violation of project norms that comes anywhere close to demanding community attention. In short, I'm much more concerned about your judgment in relation to this little tempest in a teapot affair than I am Objective's, and I strongly suggest you withdraw the complaint and agree to disagree. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I'm grateful for your response. It's evident O3K's comment stated that, based on the facts and sources, the content in question made "the article" seem Islamophobic, at least in their perspective. O3K did not specifically reference any particular editor; they solely noted that after certain "changes" "the article" appeared to be Islamophobic. Is expressing such an opinion significantly below the threshold of acceptable conduct? I apologize, does it make sense to me? Frankly, I'm not entirely certain. Hence, I am retracting the complain and opting to hold differing opinions. Thank you for diving into this topic. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for receiving my thoughts in the spirit they were intended, Infinity Knight. For what it's worth, I think there is a good argument for keeping reference to these accusations in the article, with attribution, whatever the factual and social factors behind the severing of heads and the reports and rumors associated therewith (good grief this project gives you occasion to make some grisly statements on occasion).

I think whether one believes there is some basis in fact about these claims, or if one believes they are complete misinformation and claptrap, we should be able to agree that Wikipedia has a role in discussing and contextualizing such extraordinary claims, providing the reader with the best information possible to arrive at their own conclusions about just what did or did not happen. The Streisand Effect applies here and I think we have to unfortunately engage with these topics, no matter how much we'd like to bury them by leveraging WEIGHT/RS a little heavier than normal to make the NPOV process a little easier and cleaner. So I hope consensus will continue to lean in that middle path direction.

I also think there's a reasonable argument to be made to use *-phobia terms sparingly (even sometimes in cases where one feels relatively confident it is genuinely at play). But it's even more important (in my opinion and I believe that of most of the community at large) that there not be unreasonable restraints on an editor sharing such an opinion with candor, if they feel it is appropriate when discussing a bit of content itself. Now, every rule has its exceptions, so I'm not saying such descriptions can't be considered disruptive if habitually abused by someone clearly operating in bad faith, but in this instance everything O3K said, they were permitted to. I understand you taking a shot at convincing them to use a less lightning-rod-like description of the issues, but their choice was still well within the span of reasonable commentary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise I hope it's alright to pose a couple more questions:

• Is it considered appropriate to point out specific differences and edits and declare them as 'racist changes'? Could you please confirm? You said "the content in question caused 'the article' to appeared to be Islamophobic" to O3K. Can you elucidate the distinction between the scenario described and the O3K diffs presented above?
• Do you perceive any rationale behind User:Jprg1966's statement: 'to accuse editors of Islamophobia for advocating the inclusion of a certain topic is not helpful' Moreover, regarding Jprg1966 contribution earlier in this conversation, did you observe it, and would you be willing to provide your perspective on it?

I also had the impression that, especially in a highly sensitive and controversial topics, we should exercise greater caution, emphasizing exceptional civility and conduct to prevent the escalation of tensions. In my humble view, focusing exclusively on whether those changes are perceived as 'racist' by some or not might not be the most productive approach. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer the other editors question that is seen in that initial diff, yes it does matter if people are actually beheaded or not if it's not factual information and it's being used in conversations. If editors are throwing around tropes in talk that are used in way which dehumanises an ethnic group then that is problematic and it should cease. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath Agree on if editors are using tropes in their discussion that dehumanize an ethnic group, that is a concern, and such behavior should be stopped. I believe WP:NPA addresses such situations:

• Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

If we consider that serious accusations may have been made, inflaming, according to User:Jprg1966 above. I'm unclear about where to locate the serious evidence (diffs) provided by O3K. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The only person here that has made accusations about another editor is you. I made no accusation against any editor or group of editors. Period. My comments are all aimed at a content issue, verifiability, and how this comes across to the reader. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If you were this sensitive about insinuations, why do you make comments like this? This whole thread reminds me of this one, in which the same editor will not let go of what they think they can use against an editor. Similar to this which they claimed constituted a warning against an editor here. At a certain point one has to wonder if it is trolling, cluelessness, or pursuit of a vendetta that makes the complainant here unable or unwilling to drop something when it is clear they are not getting their way. But also, at a certain point it stops mattering and something should be done to make them stop. nableezy - 14:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Please Close and rapidly introduce Infinity Knight to raw seafood. The original post carries no real accusations of violated policy. IK themselves stated "I don't see it as a personal attack" and has delegated the perception of issues to some folks and someone else. Objective3000 stated that they felt the article currently had a non-neutral appearance, and happened to do so by using an icky word. Was it the best word to use? Probably not, but I invite anyone who actually believes they were accused of Islamophobia to please feel welcome in adding your perspective to this thread. Absent that, this seems like IK did not get the "mea culpa" they desired out of O3000 on their talk page, over the course of a reasonable discussion, and came here to try and force one. This report hinges on the worst possible interpretation of a comment on an article's status. Unless Infinity Knight can cogently articulate what behavior of O3000's they (not someone else) believe violates policy and is chronic and intractable, there is absolutely nothing to be gained here. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Is User:Snepjand evading a recent block?

Could you please check whether Snepjand (talk · contribs) was created to evade a block on Ojando (talk · contribs). See recent history at Immortals of Aveum. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Close enough. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sinwiki12 constantly reverted for making inaccurate changes to articles concerning China

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

---

Sinwiki12 just made a change to the Wikipedia article for China that removed a mention of the 1989 Tiananmen square protests. I reverted this change and noticed that this account continuously makes changes to articles concerning China that are reverted for inaccurate or completely incorrect information. With the amount of reverts and warnings on their talk page, I think it's clear something needs to be done. Progenitor Eri (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

heads up!!

remember to notify sinwiki of this thread, like i've done a few seconds before replying here cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost every edit was disruptive. Indefinitely blocked, and tracking their talk page. Lourdes 06:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Progenitor Eri (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Duo? of editors making pompous/excessive or otherwise odd edits to articles

Creativityhuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Evanwilliams1121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are making similar kinds of unhelpful edits to articles, mainly related to health care, in a pattern that seems like an attempt to avoid an outright block. They have been messaged repeatedly, but continue the same behavior. Most of their work has been reverted, by myself and other editors.

Here's examples of what's happening:

1. The main problem is these editors using the wiki for a creative writing exercise (or perhaps the application of AI query results), transposing already reasonable encyclopedic text into affected, pompous, or excessive language.
   1. Creativityhuman: [153], [154], [155], [156] (esp. laughable) and many more
   2. Evanwilliams1121: [157], [158], many others
   3. Both accounts mucking with Healthcare in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. A secondary problem is converting English to US standards where they don't belong.
   1. [159], [160] (twice in a row)
3. And there's some outright vandalism:
   1. [161] - not that much, but given they're the same editor, it adds to the pile of issues.

It is my estimation that this user or users are not here to build an encyclopedia. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve blocked both. No responses on their talk pages to warnings, etc Doug Weller talk 19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. If indeed they are the same person, I hope that somehow their IP address can be watched for the creation of additional accounts, something I suspect with Creativityhuman being created after Evanwilliams1121 was challenged. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. I’ll cu tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Now it appears to be a trio. See Conference meetings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a couple examples: [162], [163]

Conference meetings was editing in articles CreativityHuman previously touched (second example above is one), and in an article later touched by Evanwilliams1121 ([164]), and in an article touched by both ([165]). Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I just discovered the already blocked and globally locked GeorgeBlair01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in similar kinds of edits. And the new account Farkthurd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was caught quickly after two edits. So this is definitely a user who keeps coming back for more, doing the same kind of malicious editing. Can we block account creation from their IP(s) for a limited period? It sure would save work for other editors. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can IP block as there seem to be too many IPs. I've CU blocked 7 so far. I think they are all related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Applus2021 but am checking. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is Applus2021. Evanwilliams1121, GeorgeBlair01 and Adamhoffman29 are three more confirmed socks with similar behavior. We've managed to catch this lot before they spammed their pet topic. MER-C 16:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on 2011 Rugby World Cup final page

Hello,

I am here to report that User:PeeJay keeps vandalising this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rugby_World_Cup_final

Could you please order him to stop?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoldciusMenbug (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. "New Zealand won the game because of the referee" is something you'd expect to read in a fan forum, not an encyclopedia. Stop edit warring to insert content that is against the WP:NPOV policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@MoldciusMenbug You have also failed to notify either Pawnkingthree (talk · contribs) or PeeJay (talk · contribs) of this ANI report, even though the red notice on top clearly requires you to do so. Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia; calling a good faith revert "vandalism" is a serious breach of our assumption of good faith. This is very likely not going to end as you think it will. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It gets better, folks. Looking over MoldcuisMenbug's contribution history, of their 180 article space edits to date, a full third of them have been reverted. Seems that problematic edits and edit warring are staples of their activity. Ravenswing 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked MoldcuisMenbug for one week for disruptive editing. Among the many factors are edit warring, false accusations of vandalism, obsessive focus on criticizing a sports official, and failure to notify the editors reported at this noticeboard, though last one is the least of it. I have advised the editor to spend the next week studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting long term block and rev/deletion of comments

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

---

• 45.237.49.1 (talk · contribs) Has contributed nothing other than personal attacks and hate speech [166]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

1 mo. Lourdes 06:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This comment [167] requires further admin/Steward level attention (maybe emergency@wikimedia.org should look at it?). <redacted> I doubt it is serious but this is not something to let go without notifying someone. This is above my pay grade. // Timothy :: talk  06:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Follow up to #Removal of talk page comment

Nord Rhein Westfailure (talk · contribs) made a personal attack on my talk page[168], obviously referring to the thread #Removal of talk page comment Richard Calthrope (talk · contribs) started here yesterday. Reeks of sockpuppetry. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That username is a parody of Nordrhein-Westfalen, and objectionable. Narky Blert (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

TheAnaheimDude

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

This user is repeatedly adding-and-removing tens of thousands of bytes from the Evercade article, in a matter that I feel is disruptive. However, it isn't quite AIV-level vandalism. Hopefully an admin can address the situation. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've partial blocked them from the page. They can make a case to get their access to it reinstated. The curious thing is there definitely feels like an overlap with User:MasterStudentGamer who has been doing the same. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor (likely)

Logi0256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has continued to recreate the same page that keeps getting deleted for being blatant spam, this user was given a COI warning on their talk page when the page was first created so I might be suspecting a paid editor but it could also be a COI. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning indef IP blocks

Hi, I've found many indef IP blocks on Special:BlockList, some of them are obviously wrongly set, while some indef blocks for open-proxy seemed to be harsh. e.g. an indef block on 2016 for an IP as open proxy, but these addresses may not allocated to open proxy today. I'd like to ask for help if some sysops want to clean them up. -Lemonaka‎ 15:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Link to the filtered list — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You may find this list more useful. ST47 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)