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

A plethora of drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a perfect world, yes. But some people have erratic thinking patterns and like to jump around on what they're working on (myself included). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's also pretty unreasonable to expect someone to stick to making a single draft at a time when the AfC queue was four months long until the backlog drive this month. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering yeah it is unreasonable. That was one of the initial points of objection against the earlier 20 draft cap proposed by @Indignant Flamingo. I've gotten a lot of drafts accepted recently and I hope the backlog will not get as bad in the future, although I think it will kind of go on a yearly cycle.

It might be the case that even 20 at a time is unreasonable, but at the very least based on this restriction system, we will have a lot of time for me to reduce my draft count and see if it is reasonable or needs to be revised. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Massive OR and CIR issues. As noted above by Asilvering, far too many of these "don't have the sources to show notability", and those that do are often very poor sources. This indicates we're dealing with a massive OR situation. All editors (in this case especially Immanuelle) need to remember verifiability and keep in mind that we do not start adding content, much less creating articles, based on what's in our own heads, whether it's our own "beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." (And "add it" obviously includes article creation.)

The editor adding such material has the burden to prove it is verifiable in RS, and that's nearly always done by including inline citations with the content. That is not happening here, so we can assume that 99% of the time we see her articles without any citations, it is OR originating in her own head and can be summarily deleted. In this case, because of the huge burden imposed by the volume, tagging isn't good enough. The article should be exiled to where all OR belongs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Do you have examples of issues with their articles that have made it to main space? I don't see an issue with works in progress that have not established notability existing in draft space, that's exactly where it belongs. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible to create six drafts per minute without violating verifiability. All ideas for content "must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it", and "add it" obviously includes article creation. The sources must be in the draft. See my next comment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: I'm not sure you understand the purpose of draft space. Drafts are works in progress, they do not need reliable sources or to be verifiable just to exist as an unfinished article in draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but shouldn't the very idea of a proposed draft come from RS? I would think anyone would want to establish notifiability before expending any energy toward the creation of an article, but maybe that's just me. Whatever the case, how can anyone create six drafts per minute? Something's fishy there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Drafts can exist as a sentence or two to revisit later on and that's perfectly acceptable. Ideally, yes, you would include references in a draft, but sometimes people just want to make a note to revisit later on. I'm aware of several people who start their drafts off that way and add sources and expand later on when they have more energy. I say whatever way people want to contribute, let them, so long as they've trying to do so in a positive way (no evidence this user is not trying to positively contribute). As for the six drafts per minute, they mentioned making drafts in batches, which I don't see as fishy. I myself often have dozens of redirect creations in tabs that I'm just waiting to hit save on. I do it that way for a matter of personal ease and because I find it more efficient at times. Though I will say, it is unusual to create drafts in batches, but it doesn't set off red flags for me personally since Immannuelle has deleted or moved several hundred to main space since this discussion started. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Josh. Sorry about the delay in replying. It seems to me that this is what userspace can be used for. There is no requirement that articles or other content has to go through the official "draft" process. User drafts in userspace are a common thing, and maybe we should recommend that Immanuelle do that instead of overloading the draft process. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I will note that I used to make articles in batches. Imo that was one of the major issues of my earlier contributions in that I’d get a lot of not so good articles made which caused the encyclopedia issues.

I imagine once I’m down below the free draft creation limit (20 most likely) I’ll still do that. Making a group of 5 or so drafts going from 15-20. That’s just how I perceive Wikipedia. I think of interrelated things.

Now I think RS in drafts are needed to avoid issues with blatant hoaxes or BLP violations. Very few of my drafts are about living people (I think I have 10-20 which is a tiny portion of my drafts, mostly on historians)

blatant hoax needs to be blatant hoax not just incorrect information. none of my drafts meet that criteria but I did once look through drafts about to be deleted and speedy delete nominate one about a battle in 2020 Japan which I think came from an anime or something but was presented as historical. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• ec (Not a reply.) To the best of my knowledge, we don't have an absolute minimum number of RS for establishing notability enough for article creation. Maybe we should. If I see a a stub with no less than three independent RS, I'm inclined to say "You're at the wrong place. Wikipedia requires sourcing. Create your own blog." If there are less, it might qualify for Wiktionary. (Keep in mind there are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't mean we don't create them.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  A minimum number of sources is unnecessary for quite a few subject matters and I think this suggestion isn't really relevant to the ongoing discussion. If this is a suggestion you're interested in making you would be better off at WP:RFC. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, is there a reason you can't save drafts on your computer? You could have as many as you want there, and no one here would care. If you thought a draft was ready to be submitted, you could try out the formatting in your sandbox, and decide whether or not to proceed. Then if something else suddenly seemed more interesting ("Ooo, look, shiny!"), move on to the next thing ("Squirrel!") as often as you liked. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Editing restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• SupportOppose With a 1-year autoexpire. I've had some interactions with them. A good faith editor and even with the flaws in articles, a valuable contributor. But they need to wiki-evolve into more emphasis on quality and other aspects and less on quantity. This could be a nudge in that direction. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed from support to oppose. My same comments apply.....she needs to shift from quantity to quality but upon further thought 20 is too draconian of a limit for this editor. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@North8000, would you write a formal support/oppose in the section below ("complete moratorium on new drafts"), so it's easier for the closer to see consensus or otherwise there? Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with everything that North8000 said. An editor acting in good faith, but needs to focus on getting articles ready for mainspace before creating anymore. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose this seems a bit too restrictive as well as ambiguous. Limiting to, say, 30 or 40 ongoing AfC submissions, and requiring they otherwise draft in userspace would make more sense, since the disruptive aspect here seems to be all the drafts hitting the 6-month-mark. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is unnecessary micromanaging of a contributor whose work is in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: complete moratorium on new drafts

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

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

I read @Licks-rocks, @Æo, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Siroxo, @Lightoil, @Remsense, as supporting based on their comments above. I read @Hey man im josh as opposing, likewise. Others (@Elli, @Relativity, @Nick Moyes, @North8000) I read to have stated no opinion. I am tagging everyone in the hopes that we can move towards closing this thread, because I think this remaining open is causing Immanuelle undue stress and I do not wish that to continue. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with winding the thread down. Remsense聊 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose this moratorium for the same reason as above. Limiting them to a certain number of AfC submissions, and requiring that otherwise their drafts be in userspace, would solve the disruption here. Also agree this thread should be closed soon. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Elli would you make a formal oppose statement in bold, please? Just to make it easier for the closer, since this thread is pretty unwieldy. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I've added bold to my original comment. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I fully support closing the thread, and for the sake of an easier close, now formally: Support the suggested measure. Thanks for moving this along! --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think Immanuelle has been receptive to feedback and they appear to be making a genuine effort to clean up their active drafts (their deleted contributions show quite a few CSD G7 tags). They've also submitted a number of drafts, many of which have been accepted. I think this type of sanction is unnecessarily restrictive and and I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh I want to say for reference this is the change in my draft count since the thread started. The first one being the number cited in the opening and the second being the number now. I am not quite sure how many redirects were counted for misspellings or whatever, but it is potentially hundreds less drafts now.

  • October 20, 2023: 3,946 drafts
  • November 7, 2023, 3,500 drafts

  Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's pretty good progress @Immanuelle, thank you for putting the work in. I notice that you're not just deleting all of the drafts either, as your user talk page shows that in the last 7 days you've had 21 drafts accepted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Just to confirm and per my comment above. This would be my preferred option out of the two options. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would add that if this doesn't get obvious consensus in a short time, then this whole thread should be closed down. It started over two weeks ago now, and that's to long to be under scrutiny. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with an added recommendation to clarify the status of WP:REFUND requests under such a restriction. Immanuelle has recently set admins to the task of undeleting a bunch of drafts that are nearly identical in content. See this version of the page for around a dozen, with the ones I checked being copy-pastes of Onmyōji, so this isn't a theoretical issue, and a regular refrain in this discussion has been something like "I don't see that as a problem", so it's worth clarifying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps we can just say "Immanuelle, please don't ask for your drafts to be refunded, as it creates extra work for admins and is against the spirit of the restrictions". @Immanuelle, I see you're still popping in from break to watch this thread, can you confirm that you understand why this is being brought up? I do think we should allow for the caveat of "it's ok to ask for refunds on drafts that expire while on full wikibreak", so that Immanuelle doesn't have to keep interrupting what should be a more restful experience. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue that a restriction on refunds is entirely unnecessary until it's been shown that it's an issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, my intent with my phrasing of it as a request is more to make it clear that asking for refunds does actually create additional work for admins, and to be mindful of that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  These types of things should be reserved for when an actual issue presents itself. We don't typically implement restrictions, blocks, or protect pages pre-emptively because there might be an issue down the line. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Asilvering that's all quite reasonable. The only reason I refunded those drafts in the first place is that they were deleted in a way which didn't give me the opportunity to properly look over them.

  I'd say most reasonable is when on a wikibreak or perhaps if for some technical reason I get no notification then I can refund, but otherwise any refund will count as an addition to my draft coun below the limit. I agree with that. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  As you stated @Immanuelle, you had a good reason for the refund requests. You were not out of line in making them and, based on your explanation here, you wouldn't expect to request the undeletion of the number of articles you've added A7 CSD tags to. As such, your activity at WP:REFUND doesn't sound like it will be an issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh also as you can see on my userpage I have actually put a big deal of effort now to track my drafts and when they will expire, and stagger them out in such a way that I will not be accidentally mass deleting, particularly when I might want to keep some. I have notes present for particular days where a lot of drafts may expire, and have periodically gone through my drafts and randomly bumped some so that I do not end up swamped.

  I presume this will also help admins when g13 is happening since having say 5 drafts from me expire in a day is a lot more reasonable than say 30. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor needs to make the fundamental changes to shift from quantity to quality. But 20 is too draconian of a limit for this editor and this proposal is just a part of implementing the "20" limit. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @North8000 Do you oppose any number on the principles of it, or would you be happy with a bigger one? I used 20 because my intent was to modify the earlier proposal (which specified 20), but I don't care for 20 in particular. It does seem an easy number to monitor, but it's no easier than, say, 50 drafts. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that you are working towards the right goal but the math format is not good. My idea (and rationale) is below, the core of which is a limit of 5 new articles per week. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I personally would oppose that one because it doesn't help to reduce the overall number of drafts, it just slows their accumulation. At that point I think we're better off taking no action now, since Immanuelle has obviously learned from this experience that having thousands of drafts is not a good idea and that there is general opposition to them creating hundreds more. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Remsense聊 20:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Six month moratorium on making new drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This editor needs to make the fundamental changes to shift from quantity to quality. But the specific proposals are too draconian of a limit for this editor. Something like limiting her to 5 new drafts per week and going only through AFC, with an autoexpire of these restrictions in a year would seem to be workable, reasonable and effective. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This would gracefully evolve the situation to an AFC workload of 5 articles a week, or a little above that with re-reviews. Also evolve her to a new norm of more quality and less quantity over the next year. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's still far too few (and still entirely unnecessary based on the effort that Immanuelle is making). FloridaArmy has a restriction of (I believe) 25 submitted drafts at any given time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh what is the story of FloridaArmy's restrictions? I know they have draft related restrictions but do not know much about them otherwise or why they were imposed. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

First, just clarifying, that is 5 new ones per week Maybe this is too few. But please note that in the above proposals this number is zero. But IMO that max total drafts format is a bad idea. If there is a 6 month backlog, 25 total means 1 per week, 52 per year. If there is a 1 day backlog, 25 total means 175 per week or 9,000 per year.

Proposal: Topic ban from Shinto

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

---

Immanuelle is indefinitely topic banned from Shinto, broadly construed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violations of prior editing restrictions

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

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

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

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

One more: Draft:Ichinoyama Kofun. This uses Japanese sources, against what I believe to be the spirit of the editing restrictions of March 15. The exact wording is Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft. They must also ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright., and I think it's very possible to interpret this as "do not put machine-translated text into articles" rather than "do not use machine translation at all when composing articles". I do believe the previous ANI discussion was equally concerned with the latter of those two, but it is true that this draft does not appear to violate the restrictions as literally written, so again I post this here more as a warning and a record than as something that demands further action at this time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering I did not use Japanese sources directly. Rather that was taken with attribution in edit history from the article Emperor Ingyō. Here is a quote of the original from that article attributing it to who added it.

While the actual site of Ingyō's grave is not known, this regent is traditionally venerated at a memorial Shinto shrine in Fujiidera Osaka. The Imperial Household Agency designates this location as Ingyō's mausoleum/kofun-type Imperial tomb. Formally, this tomb is called Emperor Ingyō's misasagi (恵我長野北陵,, Ega no nagano no kita no misasagi), but is also given the name Ichinoyama Kofun (市ノ山古墳（市野山古墳). Another burial candidate for Emperor Ingyō's is the Tsudoshiroyama Kofun (津堂城山古墳), which is also located in Fujiidera. Ingyō is also enshrined at the Imperial Palace along with other emperors and members of the Imperial Family at the Three Palace Sanctuaries.

— Knowledgekid87

I presume User:Knowledgekid87 did the proper verification. I do not interpret using someone elses interpretation of a Japanese language source as being in violation.

I will continue with my break, but I consider this to have been important enough to warrant an immediate response. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

Im not sure what this whole discussion is about, but the information/references regarding the Kofuns were already present in the articles before I started working on them (See: Emperor Yūryaku#Legendary narrative). I've been fixing up the Emperor of Japan articles to include what is and isn't known about them (see: Emperor Chūai) according to the references already provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You're fine. User:Immanuelle was claiming that rather than using AI to translate Japanese sources they didn't understand (which they are expressly prohibited from doing), they were using the source you provided. Seems like this was just a passing reference of your edits. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Draft amount restriction, plus amount of content in a draft restriction

Here's my proposal:

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

This proposal could work because: a) It addresses the problem of the enormous amount of drafts that Immanuelle has. b) It gives Immanuelle a push to work on drafts to make them at least inclusion quality. c) It gives Immanuelle a bit more wiggle room with a 50 draft cap instead of 20. I know it's a very complicated plan, so if there's any other way of addressing some common problems, we'd all like to hear it. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even need to do anything at this point? They've been made aware that others view this as an issue and they've taken action to rectify it. Based on their talk page, they've had 21 drafts accepted in the past week. They've also been making an effort to A7 tag pages that they don't believe will qualify for main space. At this point in time they have roughly 500 fewer drafts than when this discussion started. Why does there need to be any sanctions at all when the user is responding to and attempting to adjust their behaviour based on the criticism they've received?

That's exactly what we should want out of people, and yet people keep proposing new sanctions that won't actually help to protect or improve the encyclopedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: You do have a point. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is way too much pressure. Immanuelle would have to improve 100 drafts a day, and then there's a massive influx of work at the end of the month - the worst of all possible worlds. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I managed to reduce my draft count by almost 500 over the past 2 weeks and it was maddening.

This also specifically counteracts some of the methods I put in place to lessen the burden on me and administrators

I have used the page User:Immanuelle/Draft Staggering to randomly select from my drafts and perform dummy edits on a few random ones a day (and g7ed pointless kanji articles or ones I saw as lacking a future, or improved when I saw an opportunity) so that in the future I will never have more than ten expire in a day, and can look through them carefully too decide whether to delete them or not.

This means that over the next 5-7 months my draft count will be able to effectively decline without overloading admins with g13 deletions

Now that I learned g7 deletions are easier for admins I will do g7 deletions instead of letting articles g13 delete. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Some "two birds with one stone" advice. Work toward making articles that are more substantial and explanatory. To a typical reader, many of your articles use terms that they don't know to explain a subject that they don't know. Suggest working on them to be more explanatory for an average reader and more substantial. This takes work. The result would be better articles and fewer numbers problems such as those being discussed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that nothing needs to be done here, but if Immanuelle created drafts at a rate of half a dozen per minute, is it really that strange that they should have to improve those articles in order to keep them? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{discuss real emo here...} 07:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

...is it really that strange that they should have to improve those articles in order to keep them – Not strange at all. I think they've been receptive to the feedback they've received and they're making good progress on reducing the amount of drafts they have since this discussion started (roughly 500 fewer now). Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

They have been improving those articles, so I don't really think it's fair to put this much pressure to do so on them. It is much easier to create tiny stubs quickly than to later improve those stubs, and as long as they're making an honest effort, I don't see why we have to retroactively punish them for their poor judgement earlier. AryKun (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is unnecessary micromanaging of a contributor whose work is in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. Creating and enforcing these rules would do nothing more than waste editors' time. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose What this discussion needed was not another proposal. Twenty days and five proposals is enough, this whole thread should be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

List of Spider-Man film cast members

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

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

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

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

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

Seconded. This user has a long history of being unwilling to collaborate and communicate with others. The constant radio silence from them is especially frustrating when editors are seeking to form consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they are right back to editing the article again, only leaving 5 edit summaries out of 11 edits on November 6. And left this message on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done a partial block on that article for a month. I'll also warn them that continued failure to use edit summaries will result in further sanctions. Fences&Windows 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of minor edit flag by User:Telecineguy

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

I've haven't even looked at this, but let me offer some advice, not only to Telecineguy, but everyone: Do not ever check the "minor edit" box. Why? Because no one has ever been dragged to ANI for "not marking a minor edit as minor". Really. I challenge y'all to find a single example. It doesn't happen. Just ignore it, or even hide it with CSS. It's not worth the trouble. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be better if the flag was only available for certain specific edits such as preapproved bots and certain administrative actions. Misusing the flag seems to be too tempting as a way to reduce or avoid peer review. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor flag shouldn't even exist for anything, yet page moves and rollbacks are automatically marked as so. Jerium (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Since they continue to mark non-minor edits as minor, I have warned them about continued misuse, and encouraged them to participate in this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Hi Aoidh. This is headed towards being archived, but some additional concerns were raised below. Can you please take a look? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

And another issue or two. Telecineguy is a prolific article creator (more article creations than me). But looking at a random creation listed on his user page, I found Chris Wade (real estate broker) so non-notable and dubious on BLP grounds that I have boldly made it into a redirect. That was created in 2007, though, when our notability and referencing standards were different. However, a creation from early this year, Das Boot (novel) (an article we undeniably needed!), is a poor job. It was started as an unattributed translation from German Wikipedia (I've just added the template to the talk page). And with this edit, Telecineguy for some reason added a section on the sequel, Die Festung (de:Die Festung (Buchheim); here, Telecineguy has redirected the title to the section), and in a subsequent edit also added a section on the author's U-Boot-Krieg (no German article, and not a novel). This makes the article a bit of a mess structurally, and I can't see any reason to incorporate those 2 other books. Moreover, Telecineguy linked the article on Wikidata to Die Festung instead of Das Boot (which I've fixed; it was the Wikidata edit that piqued my interest). Rosguill granted him autopatrolled in 2020, at the request of Utopes (link). I think that right should be removed based on the sourcing issues and lack of attribution. And I'm afraid to say his work could use some folks going back and checking it, if only for English and unsourced passages. Both Dora Hand and Das Boot actually need considerable work; if I had time, I'd have started on one or the other already. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking briefly at a recent article, Guillem's Graveyard (initial revision), it looks like some close paraphrases from websites documenting National Park Service plaques, but in the process of paraphrasing it, a number of errors are introduced: the length of the Modoc War is doubled, the creation date of the graveyard is wrong by a year, one of the sources is completely unrelated, and more. One example sentence:

In November, 1875, half of them were moved to the cemetery at Fort Klamath.

is rephrased with broken English and false precision as:

In November, 1875, 50 men bodies were re-interred in a cemetery at Fort Klamath.

At the very least, all of these articles need to be reviewed although the provenance issues may be even harder to tackle. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

An editor being autopatrolled should be because there are no concerns, and a number of valid concerns have been brought up. Looking at the post-autopatrolled deleted articles I'm assuming James George Bell House was meant to be a redirect because the article consisted only of a single wikilink, and SS John Sherman (1870) was speedy deleted because SS John Sherman already existed. @Rosguill: do you have any objection or concern with autopatrolled being removed, at least for now? - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's surprising to see these kinds of issues in new articles created by an editor with so many edits. I'm not sure it's enough, but putting new articles through NPP might help highlight these issues more consistently and would allow for better/earlier maintenance tagging, moving to draftspace when needed, and identifying potential copyright and attribution problems. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No objections to the removal of the permission, it seems warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In which case I've gone ahead and removed the permission and notified them of the removal. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Makes me sad, and I hope Telecineguy resumes editing, but too many problems for the articles not to be checked. I went back and did a quick and dirty fix-up on the Das Boot article, separating out a rewritten but also hasty article on Die Festung, which as I noted above Telecineguy had created as a redirect. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor with problematic article creations

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure what the best way to handle this would be, but I would prefer not to jump straight to a block, if possible. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Another article which I just found, Philosophical Scottish Rite, contained a lengthy copyvio of a French text translated to English, and a Legacy section which was not supported by the cite given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, my preference has changed. This edit has the following ref template (most of which they deleted two minutes later, but...)

{{cite book
 | title = Rite Ecossais Primitif - Complete Rituals
 | isbn = 9782352130840
 | author = Castelli Joseph
 | publisher = Maconniques
 | publication-date = 01/11/2008
 | genre = Esotericism
 | page = Out of stock
 | access-date = 07/11/2023
 | quote = No summary available
 | id = 9782352130840
 | location = Paperback Version
 | pages = 280 g
 | height = 250 mm
 | width = 140 mm
 | thickness = 18 mm
}}

Page=Out of stock? Quote=No summary available? Location=Paperback version? This is not good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If this is hoaxing, it seems like the point is to either be caught immediately or to continue existing for just long enough that you can point to it like it's a scandal. Remsense聊 21:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea why the thickness, dimensions and weight would matter for a book citation. Some books may be smaller than others due to there being a miniature version for example. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

I propose to block them from the mainspace until they have come here and explained these issues. Fram (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Fram. It's not blatant hoaxing, as the Adoniramite Rite is/was real and discussed in sources, but there seems to be some original research or wishful thinking in the sourcing. Fences&Windows 14:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Garcha1625

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

Aside from the constant restoring of unsourced content without so much as an edit summary, I am also concerned about the complete lack of any communication. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Also apparent blanking following an AfD nomination. [5]. Not sure if that would qualify for WP:G7. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I always get confused when a creator blanks the article after AfD. I never know whether it's an attempt to disrupt the deletion or whether it's their way of conceding that it isn't notable. @Garcha1625: please can you explain your behaviour? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    • It's also sometimes a novice frustrately just giving up. Sometimes that's a good thing, when the novice is really not writing suitable articles; sometimes it's a bad thing, and it's the deletion nomination that's wrong. Here, it appears to be a novice that has fallen into the trap of writing unsourced sportsperson biographies of living people and filler empty statistics articles for sports events that haven't happened yet. Addressing 2024 in the past tense is also a problem. Garcha1625, it is still 2023. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I think that my views on this user are clear, there seems to be a clear WP:CIR as well as a WP:NOTLISTENING or WP:NOTHEARING issue. I note they've created one other article that's been moved to draftspace, and one that's at AFD at the moment. All in all, probably a good faith editor trying to create pages about football in their country, however, their understanding of how Wikipedia works is poor. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
      • They've also created Draft:2023 Lao League 1 (2), which is a worse version of Draft:2023 Lao League 1 created by blocked user Yakuzar123 (a sock of LSS 2552 apparently, and another sock of them made substantial edits too). It wouldn't surprise me if it's the same user socking again. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
        • It is the same user by the looks of it. I've started an SPI but it's quite backlogged at the moment so it'll take a while for this user to get dealt with. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What‽

This was really confusing.

• Special:Diff/1182983847 — Garcha1625 (talk · contribs) creates the article at 2023-11-01T15:21:49 complete with AFD notice already in it.
• Special:Diff/1182979483 — ComplexRational (talk · contribs) nominates the article for deletion at 2023-11-01T14:52:49 half an hour before.
• Special:Undelete/2024–25 Lao League 1 — There are no deleted edits.

I was going to say to ComplexRational that xe had to tell us how xe did that, but it turns out that 2024–25 Lao League 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not 2024-25 Lao League 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Possibly the page blanking was to replace the minus with the dash, as a bogus copy and paste page move. This is a bit messy, and might need some administrator tools intervention. Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There are two pages 2024-25 Lao League 1 and 2024–25 Lao League 1. The only difference between them is a dash. The second page appears to have been created via copy-paste (including the AfD tag) about 30 minutes after the first was nominated for deletion. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's all a complete mess. If they somehow survive AfD, both should be put through WP:HISTMERGE and then moved to 2024 Lao League 1, which would be the correct title anyway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I might be a time traveler. In seriousness, though, please ping me if any cleanup is required in the unlikely event that the AfD does not end with deletion. ^Complex/_Rational 00:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And they've re-created 2024–25 Lao League 1 again, 1 day after deletion. Clear WP:CIR issues here. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked for disruptive edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Page: Battle of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Botushali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[6]]

Diffs on recent edit warrings:

1. [[7]]
2. [[8]]
3. [[9]]
4. [[10]]
5. [[11]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[12]]

Diffs on previous edit warring's:

1. [[13]]
2. [[14]]
3. [[15]]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[16]]

Comments:

Despite being reverted by several editors (5 or even more) editor Botushali keeps engaging in edit war regarding a source that even they acknowledge as reliable source [[17]]. Historian in question is Dejan Djokić (historian) with his book being published in 2023 by Cambridge University Press already mentioned by one editor on tp [[18]]. Botushali′s main excuse to remove it is that they think that Djokic falls under WP:FRINGE but the main problem is that definite information about the army composition or how the battle went on are scarce, which leads that many scholars have different views including Djokic, who is not alone in that assumption, i.e. it took me just a few minutes to see that even this source [[19]] supports Djokic′s view that Ottoman forces were confronted by alliance of Bosnians and Serbs with the conclusion of the author that: Next to nothing can be said with assurance about the number and multiethnic composition of both armies. So the argument about Djokic being fringe doesn′t hold. On the other hand Botushali made this edit [[20]] in which some Albanian historians claim that Albanians made a quarter of a Christian coalition. This claim is unsupported by mainstream international historiography and only by several Albanian historians and yet nobody removed it. If we are going to make any claims that according to Botushali fall under wp:fringe then we shouldn′t have double standards.

What is even more concerning is addition of Bedri Muhadri [[21]] by Botushali on the same page, a highly disputed and criticised author who is connected with Al Hadri institute [[22]], [[23]] and whose claims have been heavily criticised by international sources [[24]], [[25]], [[26]]. And yet nobody removed it.

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

Being an experienced editor, Botushali knows about 4RR rule in 24 Hours, but still it is obvious that their agenda is edit warring with goal of removing sources which they don′t like, also ignoring WP:Concensus on tp in which at least 4 editors disagreed with them and one more reverting them [[27]] with only one supporting their views. Also there is a concern of WP:cherrypicking of sources and obvious WP:OWN regarding their own personal opinion what is allowed to be in article and what is not without following any wikipedia guidance such is WP:RSN or others, believing that their word alone is enough, which leads to conclusion of WP:disruptive behaviour and should be sanctioned. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 11:36, 08 November 2023 (UTC)

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

It is unlikely, as is sometimes suggested, that Lazar commanded a broad coalition that, in addition to his and Vuk Branković’s armies and reinforcements from Bosnia, included Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs.

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

After I removed this excerpt on the grounds of it being WP:FRINGE, which resulted in an edit war on both sides of the debate, I initiated a discussion on the TP [28] to voice my concerns. After ongoing debate regarding the matter, it became apparent that certain editors began to make claims on what Djokic actually meant using their own abstract interpretations, stating that he still agrees that other groups were present. However, no one can gage that by looking at the quote, as the quote states that it is unlikely they were present at all, which again is a fringe theory. I then went on to ask these editors to provide a quote that evidences their claim that Djokic still accepts the established fact of non-Serb groups participating on the side of the Christian coalition multiple times, both in edit summaries [29] and on the TP (beginning from here [30]), but to date, every editor who has argued against this particular excerpt being a fringe theory has failed to do so.

Theonewithreason became involved with the dispute here and posted a TP comment [31] which clearly highlights how they seem to have ignored all of the concerns I raised in the TP discussion and in my edit summaries. Somehow, this editor seems to think my issue lies with Djokic's entire book, even though I have stated very clearly on multiple occasions that my issue is with a particular excerpt from the book and not the source in general.

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment In the past, Botushali had clearly stated his intention to continue reverting, [32], and he has done exactly that [33]. Now that they have been reported to ANI, they are all of a sudden conciliatory (I will refrain from making further RV's...), but I'm wondering if this is purely tactical and the reverting will resume once this thread is archived. Khirurg (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  "but I'm wondering if this is purely tactical and the reverting will resume once this thread is archived". It's not like he gets an immunity deal after this thread. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  While we were just looking at the quote on the article and not paraphrasing the source, some users think that this is a poem analysis. Botushali's concerns were absolutely justified regarding the quote. On the other hand, the same users continue WP:Stonewalling and demanding for consensus to remove WP:FRINGE content. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  As explained to you numerous times in the talkpage, a book by one of the top scholars of the region, published by Cambridge University Press is not WP:FRINGE. You are WP:IDHT at this point. Khirurg (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Again, you are mixing the entire book with a single excerpt. Nobody is calling the entire book WP:FRINGE, only the excerpt, stop confusing the arguments of others and misusing policies to discredit fellow editors. Botushali (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not discrediting anyone, you are discrediting yourself, first by calling a top-notch academic source fringe, and then on top of that by misunderstanding WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. There is no such thing as "this part of the source is fringe, the rest is not". Doesn't work like that. You can't simply cherry-pick a part of a reliable source you don't like and dismiss it as fringe simply because you cannot do that to the source as a whole. Either the whole source is reliable, or the whole source is fringe. It's actually quite alarming you seem to think you can do that. Khirurg (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thing is, the source does not revolve around the Battle of Kosovo. The rest of the source doesn’t discuss it, only that excerpt I’m assuming, and what is cited is WP:FRINGE. Two things can be true, yes? A text could pass WP:RS standards and at the same time contain something which can be considered a fringe theory. I see no reason why that’s not possible, this shouldn’t be an either-or. Find me the exact Wiki policy that states either the whole source is fringe or not fringe at all. Botushali (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  A source cannot both be WP:RS and WP:FRINGE at the same time. That is a contradiction in terms. You really should drop this, not a good a look at all. Khirurg (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  It’s as though you cannot hear me. The issue does not lie with the entire source, only the excerpt in question - the book may be WP:RS, but this particular sentence is proposing an idea that is WP:FRINGE - again, the whole book is not fringe, rather, a footnote from the book is pushing a fringe theory. Please stop confusing the two by intentionally ignoring my concern regarding a particular footnote, rather than the whole book. Botushali (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment on Khirurg's Intervention: I want to bring to the admin's attention that Khirurg here has been actively attempting to slander my name and get me sanctioned as part of a WP:WITCHHUNT ever since a failed and untrue "tag-teaming" report filed against me and a number of other editors I have no ties to back in September of 2022 [34]. Obviously, the report failed.

  Now, me and Khirurg are regularly engaged in content disputes across a number of articles revolving around Albanians and Greeks, and he has even followed me to pages revolving around Albanian articles that have nothing to do with Greece (by that, I mean articles which he has never edited on or shown interest in). There is a lot of back and forth, incivility, bad blood etc, particularly from Khirurg who tries to slander my name at every corner and turns every discussion into a you vs. me WP:BATTLEGROUND. Of course, diffs of all of these things can be provided, but this report isn't about Khirurg. I am simply stating this so that admins are aware of Khirurg's particular distaste for me and take his words with a grain of salt.

  It is no surprise to see him here, as he is always looking for ways to get me sanctioned and can regularly be found at any incident I am involved in on the Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, even after his failed tag-teaming report, he continues to hold an "evidence" page documenting what he thinks is tag-teaming. To help paint himself as a victim even though he treats fellow editors with much incivility and disrespect, he also created a collection of what he calls taunts. As you can see on both pages, I (along with a number of other editors) can be found there. There is also evidence of him reverting me on articles just for the sake of it, such as here [35], where it was apparent that he didn’t read the source and just RV’ed for the sake of it. After that, I opened up a TP discussion, where he admitted that the source was falsified in the past [36] but he clearly hadn’t checked up until that discussion despite the reverts. Another noteworthy example of Khirurg reverting me without looking at the sources (or intentionally falsifying content, that's the only alternative) can be found here [37], and I brought it to his attention both in the edit summary and my subsequent comments on the TP [38][39].

  So, the reason why I bring all of these instances up (the failed reports, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, reverting for the sake of reverting etc) is to try and point out that Khirurg is chasing me around on Wikipedia with WP:PITCHFORKS to try and get me sanctioned and punished because we are regularly on opposing ends of content disputes. As such, his comments here should be viewed with suspicion and an understanding that his involvement here comes down to something deeper than this particular incident. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  How long did it take you to write that torrent of vitriol, all the while claiming to be the victim of "slander"? You basically admit to trying to poison the well against me (take his words with a grain of salt), while claiming to be the victim. You are basically doing what you are accusing me of. Yet, as the above thread shows, you dishonestly tried to portray a high quality source [40] as fringe, all the while arguing arguing that a polemical tract about "Greek Barbarities" from 1917 [41] is a reliable source. This whole issue started with your long-term edit-warring to remove a top notch source from a high visibility article simply because you did not like what it said. You have no one to blame but yourself. Khirurg (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the source on Massacres of Albanians, as I said on the relevant TP, “Barbaritë” in Albanian is more akin to the word ‘atrocities’ than ‘barbarities’ - you’ll also notice I said the plausible issue with the respective source is WP:AGEMATTERS. I want the admins to understand that the issue regarding “Greek Barbarities” has nothing to do with the content dispute at hand. That’s part of a separate content dispute, stop trying to link them to make a point for this content dispute.

  Again, nothing you or any other editor has said or done on the TP has proved that the excerpt (not the whole book, stop ignoring that crucial distinction as if you don’t get my point) from Djokić is not WP:FRINGE. I haven’t done anything dishonest on that TP or content dispute, the only dishonest action is editors mixing the entire source with only a tiny excerpt from said source to ignore and dismiss my concerns. It’s not that I just don’t like what Djokić is saying in that excerpt; rather, it’s against the scholarly consensus and ignores mounds of primary and secondary sources. It’s a fringe theory, plain and simple. Botushali (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have been following the edits on the article and the whole issue is one quote that goes against a wide consensus in the literature. In my opinion, simply including this counter-consensus quote next to the widely approved statement before it, would give it undue weight. But regardless of the merit of the point, this certainly does not call for a discussion here. Çerçok (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed there is a disruptive pattern with numerous instances of wp:BRD breaching and persistent wp:OWN and using polemical sources as supposed wp:RS. I propose the specific editor to be placed in 1RR restriction. This will probably calm things down. Alexikoua (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear exactly how I've breached WP:BRD or shown WP:OWN behaviour here. I also did not use "polemical" sources, so please stop mis-citing policies. This is yet another editor who has a long history of engaging in constant content disputes with me and actually harassed me on my TP with false questionable "warnings" and the like a while ago - when I asked them to stop as per WP:HUSH [42], they deleted my section under a summary that accused me of behaving in a childish manner and falsely accused me of using WP:PEACOCK language I didn't actually use [43]. It would indeed be in this user's interests to have me sanctioned under a 1RR restriction to limit my ability to oppose them in content disputes. That hardly seems fair considering this editor's history with me and other editors in general. If I am to be subjected to a 1RR restriction, then so should they. Botushali (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I am uninvolved in the dispute, but I first added the source [44] a few months earlier which has become the point of dispute. There's a lack of discussion about the source itself and what it proposes and it seems that there are many debates which are unrelated to the core principles of wikipedia. The series "A Concise History of..." published by Cambridge University Press is intended to provide textbook material for undergrad/MsC/MA courses. The authors who were selected are all distinguished in their field. These works are intended to provide exactly what the title states: a concise overview of the history of specific countries. They're not extensive works about the history of specific countries and they don't focus on details of particular events like the Battle of Kosovo. The author discusses the impact of the battle and the narratives about it. One of them is that Serbia led a multinational Christian coalition. This is a narrative which the author disputes - rightly so, IMO. In itself, this is unrelated to the participation of specific feudal rulers like Muzaka or to the participation of contingents from Hungarians or Vlachs. The author disputes the narrative of grand coalitions in Serbian historiography and its bulwark of Christianity connotations. Hence the point of dispute between those who support inclusion or exclusion isn't discussed by the source itself. Both sides are involved in WP:SYNTH by interpreting it as something very different to what it proposes. More broadly, this problem arises from the way historiography is cited and often abused in wikipedia debates. The report itself doesn't describe any 3RR violation or any editing beyond the scope of what is permissible and because BRD applies to editors who want to include content, it doesn't apply to Botushali who opposes inclusion but to Alexikoua (who mentioned BRD) and all others who have edit-warred to include a statement which wasn't previously in the article. Another problem with such reports is that editors cite policies and practices which either apply to both parties or in some cases apply exclusively to them - like BRD. The article's history itself highlights low-level edit-warring [45] by all sides in the context of a content dispute. All sides should return to the article's talkpage and focus on discussing bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was writing up this comment while Maleschreiber was posting, so excuse me for any redundancy.

  As best I can tell, the contentious sentence was added 16 August. On 2 Nov, AlexBachmann reverted it, citing WP:FRINGE. Over the week that followed:

• 2 Nov: Khirurg restored it
• 2 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 2 Nov: Krisitor restored it
• 2 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 2 Nov: Krisitor restored it <--at this point, Botushali began talk page discussion
• 6 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 6 Nov: Theonewithreason restored it
• 6 Nov: AlexBachmann removed it
• 6 Nov: Theonewithreason restored it
• 7 Nov: AlexBachmann removed it
• 7 Nov: Khirurg restored it
• 7 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 7 Nov: Alexikoua restored it
• 7 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 8 Nov: Azorzal restored it

This complaint was opened complaining about "persistent edit warring" by Botushali, but this war involves multiple editors on both sides. Nobody has breached WP:3RR, and Botushali's conduct has been no more egregious than any other editor's. This is a content dispute. Warring editors are discussing on the talk page. I think this complaint should be closed and the involved editors should continue to work toward consensus on the talk page, using the WP:DR methods as necessary, and keeping in mind that WP:ONUS states The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Schazjmd (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User Paper9oll and his problematic behavior regarding articles about South Korea

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

---

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

• @MafiaBoy123: 1) you are supposed to notify them (see the red box right at the top of this article). 2) You're also supposed to provide the relevant diffs that support your claims. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Note: I left a message on Paper9oll's talk page. It has been acknowledged with his removal. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, his behavior makes editing on Wikipedia tiring. Every time I add some information to any k-pop related article, it is automatically re-edited to suit his personal tastes for instance: songs on an album page cannot be described as the "opening track", "closing track", "sixth song", they are re-used by him in a repetitive and monotonous way: "the song was described as". Imagine that the album has 10 tracks and each sentence starts with "song 1 was described as..." Every information that i have added to any page has been corrected or completly deleted by this person. This kind of behavior is really harmful to the Wikipedia community because it makes us question our editing skills. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@MafiaBoy123 You added a non-existence category (logged out as IP) and logged in, without explaining why you're even doing so twice, and fyi, please don't edit simultaneously while logged in and also out. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that when you are questioned about your edits, you either act aggressively (when people mention repetitive harassment) or act sarcastically (when others ask about reliable sources to edit on Wikipedia). Have you ever stopped to think that instead of helping, you've just been getting in the way with your attitude? Because the big question is: my sister edited several Wikipedia articles related to K-pop. But because of what you did, she gave up being a Wikipedia editor because of your selfishness. You forget that other people also want to edit and yet, you act rudely, aggressively, selfishly. What you're doing isn't cool! 2804:14C:5B41:84B6:185B:E3F7:F802:BFBE (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

And another thing: the user MafiaBoy123 is my brother and he is not at all happy with your attitude (that edit in the article about actress Kim Ji-woo that had no vandalism whatsoever and that you did the favor of reverting). You are so selfish that you made my sister give up and now my brother is thinking about giving up editing on Wikipedia because of you... 2804:14C:5B41:84B6:185B:E3F7:F802:BFBE (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So now you're getting your family to POV push? WP:MEAT - I would advise you stop the constant logged out editing as it violates WP:SOCK and will get you blocked if you continue. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 19:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@MotherofSnakes I already explained it clearly to you. Any editors are allowed to copyedit and no it isn't accordingly to my personal preferences. While I agreed that it may be repetitive, however I see it as the best way to be written, of course I'm now experimenting with newer writing styles (continously learning to improve; no one is perfect) by copyediting "the song was described as" to avoid the repetition however this doesn't means that the repetition can be avoid completely. Furthermore, I don't see how using "lead single" instead of "opening track" is considered as "wrong" writing nor using "final track" instead of "closing track". Lastly, I also see no point in adding contents concerning previous releases but introducing undue weight to the article (adding a brief sentence would be sufficient instead of a whole lengthy paragraph) nor is adding packaging useful information as from my POV, it's promotional by telling the readers that x and y is available for sell, neither is the content sourced reliably using secondary sources. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that such behaviour can be harmful to the community that we all create. You are not alone here. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@MotherofSnakes I'm already collaborative, the only content I have reverted are undue weight (lengthy paragraph writing about previous releases's achivements) and packaging, if you feel that this is important than you should have discussed it on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Other than that are simply copyediting and of course adding quotes to quoted minor paraphrased sentence, and I also stated to you that you can copyedit it if you feel that my writing is broken after copyediting however please don't add K-pop terminology (e.g. mini album, title track) here, we had a discussion previously at WT:KO to use "global" (or non-Korean; not sure what is specific term to describe) terminology like extended play (EP) and lead single. I did see Agassy was created because Soojin was watchlisted by me however I didn't touch it (but I did watchlisted it) even though I would like to copyedit it. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not the person who reported you. Just telling my side of the story because I was mentioned earlier. MotherofSnakes (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please check my recent article Agassy and re-edit everything like always. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the question is, but I do know that I do not see any diffs/specific examples of supposed problematic behavior. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please check the Drama (Aespa EP) article. Every edit of mine has been completly re-edited or deleted. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That article has a busy edit history. Being re-edited or reverted is not necessarily a behavioral problem. There are no discussions on the article's talk page. There need to be diffs provided to support behavioral/conduct issues for this to be a matter for administrators. Content disputes should be worked out on the talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I will not contribute to this page anymore because my edits will be reverted or deleted by this person. Check other pages like My World EP by Aespa or Invu by Taeyeon. I'm afraid to even create a new k-pop related article. I thought that wiki was a safe space but his behaviour and actions make me feel uncomfortable. MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not very helpful. If you believe that there is a behavioural issue, then you need to provide specific examples and explain why there are problematic. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Check his rude comments to my edits on Drama (Aespa EP). MotherofSnakes (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Now you're being evasive. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments like "Read huh, you go instead", "Nice nice 'previewu'", I am sure that there will be more in the future. As of now, I will stop contributing to any of "his" articles. MotherofSnakes (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@MotherofSnakes Asking me to read carefully wasn't nice either (in my opinion) when I did make sure to cross-check that whatever is written is indeed sourced, I intrepreted the minor parphased sentence as quoted however you have another viewpoint that it isn't. I'm admit that asking you go to ahead instead isn't being nice hence my apologies. However, the latter isn't directed at you btw, I'm actually complaining about the failed translation provided by Google I believe, well kind of vague. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I don't like such conflicts, I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way. Peace and love everyone... MotherofSnakes (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@MotherofSnakes No worries, this is a misunderstanding and/or different viewpoints, we are humans afterall hence it's always bound to be different viewpoints which I hope in the future (if we ever meet path in editing), if any conflicts can be resolved by discussion on the article's talk page. I'm explained my viewpoint on the removal and also the copyediting/formatting however I also see what you're trying to say to me i.e. my bad writing (I do agreed that there is room for improvements) however I'm constantly learning to improve and looking for inspiration on other articles that has been copyedited. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Note: Can someone please close this content related report? M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Except that it appears that MafiaBoy123 and his two sisters are all editing the same pages. According to 2804:14C:5B41:84B6:185B:E3F7:F802:BFBE. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Most definitely a WP:DUCK -- Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment Due to an obvious WP:FAMILY, wouldn't this be good to have a checkuser find possible socks? Jerium (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

TPTB

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

---

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

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

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

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

Lifetrance

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

---

Lifetrance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already blocked for edit warring on Trans woman, and is now resorting to blatant personal attacks. Funcrunch (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not nice. Per "Ban me and my 20 year old account, if you can", I suggest we do. Given their very limited editing history, we won't be missing much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Already done, just as I was filing this report. Funcrunch (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's me, Clarence Thomas, noted trans activist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused as to what they thought would be the outcome here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Malidoma some page locked and incorrect

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

---

Malidoma Patrice Somé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

please advise how to change these falsehoods immediately to represent the truth and ban this individual from suppressing the facts about Malidoma and his lived experience ever again. Fact$999! (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be taken to the article's talk page at Talk:Malidoma Patrice Somé with a strong, reliable source (WP:RS) so this information can be cited (WP:CITE). Please make sure you have read and thoroughly understood WP:BLP. There's nothing for admins to do here, as far as I can see. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

CIR block needed

If someone believes that they can turn User:Yashwardhan Kachhawaha into a net positive, they are welcome to try. I don't see it happening and think this good faith editor lacks the necessary competence to edit enwiki. They create or hijack multiple articles for the same subject (Sainik Kshatriya, Rajput Mali and Mandorva Rajputs), create subpar articles like Sankhla where they reject the cleanup-rewrite tag[46], or Tak rajputs which has been draftified, then recreated, and where they repeatedly removed the cleanup-rewrite tag[47] and restored text poorly copied without attribution from another article[48]. Other edits like this are not really improving things either. Whether they are the same as, or working with, User:Mandorva rajput, is not clear. Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 1 year for disruptive editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

please unblocked User:Yashwardhan Kachhawaha Mandorva rajput (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: What's the reasoning behind imposing a one-year block (as opposed to an indefinite block)? It's not something one sees often with named accounts, and the few times I have seen it, I've never understood it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Despite the large number of indefs I've given out, I do try to minimize them. My sense here is an earnest desire to do good work, but a lack of language skills that sours their efforts. I figure that a year could be a reasonable amount of time to overcome enough of that barrier, but now that you bring it up, an indef could be used for this and they can appeal when they think their language skills have improved. I woulnd't be upset to have my 1 year "improved" to an indef. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

please Unblocked User:Yashvardhan kachhawaha Mandorva rajput (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Does seem that way. I had made an SPI request a little bit before your blocks. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, when the requests to unblock the account popped up here, that was a dead giveaway. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234

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

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

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

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

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

The warning is completely appropriate. The edit in question was reverted four times by you without a discussion. That is simply edit warring and when reporting edit warring you must show the user was reported if the behaviour is continuing. Where else do you expect me to warn you about your edit warring

Diffs of the reverts (on the exact same edit) on the article The Amazing Race 19:

• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

''Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period."'' I didn’t realize that May was within 24 hours of today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

3RR is not the same thing as edit warring. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You are not obligated to warn anybody about edit-warring unless 3RR has been broken, and a report there does require a warning. Since I had not broken 3RR, your intrusion on my talk-page, despite being advised three times to stay off, constitutes hounding and harassment. Perhaps other users let you get away with your constant bullying, but your days of bullying me are over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

While I don't appreciate the way that Bgsu98 responded in their third diff, I think you should respect when someone asks you to stay off of their talk page if you ask others to do the same (1, 2, 3). If a user does not want you to post on their talk page and you believe they're edit warring then you should, in the future, go to WP:AN3 and make a report. Frankly a discussion on the article talk page would have been more appropriate than the two of you communicating through edit summary. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll echo Josh's comment above, but add to Bgsu98 that it's not really necessary to be angry with someone for notifying you of a discussion at WP:ANI, as it is required to notify an editor that such a discussion has been started. Sportsfan and Bgsu should consider staying away from each other, given the apparent hostility between each other. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Sportsfan's talk page history (2), there seems to be a lot of hostility between them and others (some them being hostile, some others). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If people don't want you to post on their talkpage, don't do it. That being said, WP:ANI notifications are exempt from that. Does this really need any admin action? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@EggRoll97, I don’t recall responding with hostility to any ANI notifications I’ve received because I understand they are required, It’s SF’s other nonsense (and generally unwarranted) warning templates that irk me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The only really problematic edit summary I see is this one, [53]... The edit summary "Pot meet kettle" isn't great especially as it is false... ANI notification is required, its not the same at all. Its not terribly civil, its certainly not nice... But its not awful and could certainly be the result of a misunderstanding about policy/guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: (edit conflict) My comment is referring to Special:Diff/1135673658 where you reiterated a demand to stay off your talk page in response to Sportsfan notifying you of an ANI discussion. While I understand (but do not agree with) the hostility in the other reverts, the repeat of the demand isn't really necessary in that instance, given that they're just following the instructions on this page to notify you properly. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Constant unconstructive editing from IP 47.19.230.10

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

The IP has also been warned about half a dozen times on their talk page, but they haven’t stopped making unconstructive edits. — Mugtheboss (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably a school. They've made one edit since coming off their most recent block and haven't edited in two days. Nothing to do here but observe. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat issued by IP

On his business cards he claimed he was an avacado.

-EEng

User:109.52.199.10[54]. Post has been reverted, but according to WP:NLT such should be reported here, so you can do the necessary. Fram (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Add 2a02:b121:12:93e9:20cb:af1:5fc9:c529 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to this based on this edit[55] (not to mention this[56]) — Czello ^(music) 14:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked. I assume this is a fabrication and that Mr. Wales does not have a criminal complaint against him in Italy? 331dot (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the claim is that a person whose Wikipedia article contains the disambiguator "fraudster" and explains in the lede that he is barred from practicing law in Italy and the UK has nonetheless posted a notice of claim on a social media website, rather than contacting WMF Legal directly as any competent lawyer would probably know to do. I'd call the post doubtful at best. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that the latest Google News search result for "jimmy wales italy" is from 2019, I do not think we need to worry too much about the founder going to jail. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As well as falling foul of WP:NLT the statement is simply untrue. I have edited Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) and have not been given any notice. Is Johnny out of jail now? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

According to a (plausible but not very reliable) link on the talk page, as of April. I'll add a couple of things while we're on the topic. One is Special:AbuseLog/36319536. Another is to note that someone using the same range as one of these IPs has been doing vandalism to the article since August (see history for details). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The IPs also geolocate to Italy, which is where the text the IP added (without a source) claims he moved to after being released from prison at the end of April this year, which is right about when the vandalism started. I'm sure that's all just coincidence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Long history of refusal to add sources

Today I saw on my watchlist that Rtkat3 had added unsourced content into a sourced sentence. I went to their talk page to leave them a notice, only to see that the talk page and its archives already have dozens of warnings regarding the addition of unsourced material, the creation of articles without sourcing, copying without attribution, and failing to leave edit summaries, among other issues. These warnings go back to 2005 and are as recent as a few days ago. This editor was also brought to ANI last year for repeated copying without attribution and lost autopatrolled in 2020 for repeated policy violations. I don't believe that another warning is going to be sufficient to prevent this editor from adding unsourced content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In my defense of List of Marvel Comics characters: 0-9, I was sorting the different characters named 8-Ball so that they would remain separate from each other as they just kept running into each other and made it look confusing. The issue where a revived 8-Ball was Moon Knight's cell mate and was revived by Hood occurred in Devil's Reign: Moon Knight #1 which I forgot to add the reference to. I just wanted to let you people know that and apologize for this incident. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Serchia

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing:

1. Long term edit warring at Kurds since April, attempting to remove sourced information about the Kurds being an Iranian people, claiming it to be "controversial" and "Pan-Iranism" without anything to back it up [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. They even just violated WP:3RR in that article right now - just before they did that, they reverted a edit warring warning I gave them, saying it "It is not an edit war"
2. WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS: Paniranism Paniranism Your entire history is POV not my edits
3. Included the ancient Median language as part of Kurdish, no source [64]
4. Disregarded the note twice in the WP:CTOP article Death of Mahsa Amini, adding "Kurdish" in October and December [65] [66]
5. Disregarded the consensus at WP:RSN, reverting with no explanation [67]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Edit warring on Kurds, that's a good enough reason for a partial block for that article. Perhaps that will make User:Serchia understand that we are serious about these things, and perhaps it will be an incentive for them to practice talk page discussion. Older diffs are also of concern, but they're too old to be weighed in this incident. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• It is obvious that the edit war was started by users from Middle Eastern nations with a history of oppressing Kurds. I removed the term "Iranian" from the opening paragraph of "Kurds" with the valid point that the term is very controversial, and as other credible encyclopaedias such as Britannica don't mention it, there is no need to mention it here. It is also a term that offends most Kurdish people and they do not agree to be called "Iranian". This is the main point here, and as for the other points you outlined, there is no need to mention here. Serchia (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Serchia It's sourced, but that doesn't seem relevant to you. If it were, you would have started a discussion after being reverted more than once. The WP:3RR has already been violated, so the best course of action for now would be a short-term block on you. Jerium (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I think that Drmies was generous with a three month pageblock on just the Kurds article since this editor has disrupted other articles in the Kurdish topic area. Serchia, consider yourself warned that any further ethnonationalist disruption may well lead to more stringent sanctions. So, be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Discussion of this on the talk page goes back to 2005, and this is just a sampling:
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 2#Regarding recent edits and the Kurds status as 'Iranian' people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 13#We need to qualify the statement that they are an Iranian people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 6#Kurds are ethno-linguistically Iranian people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 12#Iranian classification is linguistic - we kurds are not iranian ,we are medes ! our free group since 540
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 15#Kurds would never call themselves Iranian people
• It hasn't always gone well over the years (Special:Diff/266730161, Special:Diff/253670639) but it looked like we reached the what-do-other-encyclopaedias-say point in 2012. The next step is to try to find expert sources, rather than be the edit warrior who aligns with those over the years who were just making assertions with nothing to back them up but IP addresses and pseudonyms. This has happened over and over in all sorts of topics, with people arguing their own personal views instead of doing the research. This is not the way to approach things.

  Uncle G (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that, for good reasons, contemporary Kurdish leaders do not want to be associated with the modern Islamic Republic of Iran, which was founded in 1979. But the concepts of "Iran" and "Persia" and "Iranians" and "Persians" are much older, and frankly, much broader. Uncle G has dug up diffs going back many years, some of which are very ugly and disruptive. I certainly do not claim to be a subject matter expert, but it seems clear that many scholars classify the Kurds as an Iranian people, broadly defined. That does not mean that they are associated with the mullahs in Tehran in any way today. Whether or not that is an assessment widely shared by the most respected academics in the field, I am not prepared to say. I agree with Uncle G that tallying up what various other encyclopedias say is not the proper way to proceed. Instead, the best way is to study what respected academics have written about the matter. The first "academic journal" article thst I found discussing the Kurd/Iranian connection was issued by a predatory publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, which issues journals of "questionable quality". What is needed is a serious assessment by editors with an established track record of competent evaluation of sources in the broad topic area. In my opinion. the OP, HistoryofIran, is one of very few active editors with that expertise, and we should take that editor's assessments seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm home in like 8-9 hours, I can gather some WP:RS by academics with expertise in the area then. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Whomever has gone about and added "Kurds are an Iranian people" to the first sentence of all the Kurd-related articles, is ethnonational pov pushing. That wasn't there last time I was in the topic area (two years ago or so) and everything I remember reading said that the origin of Kurds is much disputed and debated by scholars. Sounds like another way of saying "there is no Kurdistan/there are no Kurds." Levivich (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Also I just looked at the talk page of Kurds and there are more threads about this than listed above. Looks like a steady stream of people talking about "Iranian/Iranic," I see threads from this year, last year, 2019... this needs an RfC or something. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Content tagged {{dubious}} and sources/quotes at Talk:Kurds#Kurdish people are an Iranian ethnic group?. That's the content dispute part, which will be resolved on the article talk page. I still think that whomever went around and added "are an Iranian ethnic group" to the first sentence of all the articles has engaged in misconduct (specifically, POV-pushing, and also source misrepresentation, because those sources cited don't say "Iranian ethnic group"). Levivich (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was added a few years ago.[68] PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw another one at another article from earlier this year Special:Diff/1131147468; from a quick look, it seems to be one of those things that's been added/removed multiple times, as well as discussed a lot on talk pages (or at least Talk:Kurds), for many years. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At another article in 2022 Special:Diff/1124346370, at another in 2019 Special:Diff/881369287 with the edit summary referencing previous iterations... looks like one of those perennial edit wars. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's good to see that we're now back at the level of Talk:Kurds/Archive 13#We need to qualify the statement that they are an Iranian people when Dougweller and Kurdo777 were involved. A small correction to the above: It's not 2005. It's 2004. Vide Talk:Kurds/Archive 1#Iranian?. There was not much edit warring in the article at the time, although Special:Diff/13200475 is an edit from 2005, notice. This goes back way before 2020. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, Wikipedia. We should rename it Sisyphedia. Levivich (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Frank Borman

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

---

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

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

Update: page has been semi-protected, IP addresses have been blocked as open proxies, and revdels done. Thanks to Materialscientist, Zzuuzz, and Acroterion! — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:216.236.148.41

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

---

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

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

User:71.219.49.187

Continues to make uncited edits to pages, despite multiple warnings from editors this month. User has not responded and continues to make unsourced, disruptive edits. glman (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours and will watch User talk:71.219.49.187 for a while. Post there with an explanation if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting attention to article Eusébio

There's been an editing war in last couple of the days on the article Eusébio that I ask your attention. One user, looks very biased on all matters regarding the sport club S.L. Benfica cherry-picking information and sources that highlights his clubs and diminishes their rivals. He has done this on other articles but this time its getting further. Rpo.castro (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Change title of discussion so as to link to this section, not article itself. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Mass editing to change External links by Judkessler

After they hit my watchlist of Featured articles, I asked new editor Judkessler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) what their criteria was for mass changes to External links. Without a satisfactory answer, I've asked them to slow down, then asked them to stop. They haven't, and are continuing to make the changes, while not listening.

The account was created July 14, but sprung into rapid editing today, raising the question of whether this is ACE2023 edit count driven. Perhaps they will listen to an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Noticed: [69] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

A list of the 17 pages where I deleted some external links is available on my talk page: User talk:Judkessler#Follow-up.

Judkessler (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC).