Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Counter-proposal

Why are we even entertaining this? This is a well-meaning editor who takes away an enormous amount of community time and patience with their edits and with AN sections like this one. Meanwhile, they are editing like this[1][2][3][4][5][6][7], which was already an improvement over [8][9], with the edits before these being more of this. An unlucky run? Well, not really, they did the exact same thing to some 20 other drafts 3 hours earlier, and again to dozens of drafts yesterday evening, and a minor variation to again dozens of drafts yesterday morning[10]. Or the day before[11]They are clearly running some automated tool in unsupervised mode and are making a mess with it again and again and again.

Deny these appeals, stop them from appealing for a year, and give them a restriction against using automated tools. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using automated tools. This is all manual. I am trying to avoid the disruptive effect of too many drafts getting warnings all at once, which renders my talk page unusable. In those cases I was disabling a category I inappropriately added earlier, while also scheduling some articles to get g17 warnings on weekends when I'd be more able to decide whether they were worth keeping.

Doing something quickly does not imply the use of automated tools.

The results speak for themselves. I have been very effective at reducing my draft count. imo I will clearly be at a reasonable amount of drafts in 6 months if not sooner.

• November 4, 2023: 3,522 drafts
• December 12, 2023: 2,252 drafts

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 12:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Fram's counterproposal. The most important resource of the encyclopedia is the time, energy and optimism of constructive editors, and they're all being squandered here, by Immanuelle's editing and by this great big discussion. It's pretty shocking that Immanuelle made the edits Fram gives diffs for today (please click on them if you're going to comment, dear reader!), and even more shocking that Immanuelle responds to Fram without any explanation or excuse for them. I don't consider "This is all manual" to be an explanation. The question is whether declining the request and stopping them from appealing for a year is enough. If that's really all manual — and we are of course expected to AGF that Immanuelle is telling the truth — they need a CIR block, IMO. Bishonen | tålk 14:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

(PS, adding: and by a CIR block I mean an indefinite block.) Bishonen | tålk 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

+1. CIR because otherwise volunteers' time, energy, and goodwill is wasted. Levivich (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've spent so much time on correcting Immanuelle's drafts and articles, including adding edit summaries on what they should do instead, only to never have those comments acted upon. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CIR block for the reasons above. I don’t see evidence that her behaviour wasting the time of other editors who have to fix it will change. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit is a chance to prove competence. 55,000+ edits into this account, we're still having to ask questions like "does Immanuelle understand basic content policies?" and "can Immanuelle accurately summarize sources in their own words?" and "what is Immanuelle even doing right now?". Instead of clear answers, we get a pitch to prove competence in translation by...not translating? Enough is enough. Having already put a lot of time into AN(I) efforts to harness Immanuelle's enthusiasm productively, I now think that Immanuelle's motivations and priorities are simply incompatible with the goals of this project, and well-meaning efforts to fix that discrepancy are both futile and a waste of valuable editor time. So I support CIR indef. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for more or less the same reasons I opposed above. I don't think Immanuelle is ready to edit without restrictions, nor has a case been made for why we need the majority of these 2,000+ drafts. Let them expire unless edited by someone else and impose an AfC quantity restriction to avoid this in the future. Star Mississippi 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Support the proposal to deny these appeals and stop Immanuelle from appealing for a year. (I believe Immaneulle is telling the truth about not using automated tools, and so therefore adding a restriction against automated tools might as well be added since it will have no effect.) Most important I think is the ban on appeals: it shows very poor judgment on Immanuelle's part to have brought this back to AN so soon, when the original drawn-out discussion was clearly a drain on everyone. I can't find it in my heart to support an indef block for such a clearly good-faith editor who is improving -- the junk edits that Fram highlights make logistical sense in Immanuelle's draft-management system, and I have seen Immanuelle making more constructive edits at AfC -- but I think Bishonen is right that we need to take action to make sure the time, energy and optimism of constructive editors is spent wisely. Evaluating Immanuelle's behaviour as an editor is even more costly in time, energy, and optimism than addressing their individual edits: no appeals until it is plausible that something can have lastingly changed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support It was clear in the last thread that Immanuelle should slow down and focus on improvement other quantity, instead we have this thread. I feel editors have been patient enough dealing with all this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: I haven't been involved thus far, but looking at your appeal it looks like restrictions on your drafts are causing you a lot of headaches and interfering with your enjoyment of editing. Can I ask why you don't just spend a while improving existing articles? Reading things like a lot of draft[s are] declined because the article already exists under a different name makes me think you're not putting enough effort into even looking for an existing article before starting a new one. Why focus on creation? Also a reminder that you can move drafts to your userspace to take your time working on them without worrying about deletion. Speaking of which, I see Star Mississippi and others mention that other folks should be the ones to merge content from Immanuelle's drafts. It occurs to me I don't know the typical process for doing that while preserving the history/attribution once the draft is deleted after six months? Is an edit summary saying ~"written by Immanuelle" really sufficient? Attribution aside, I don't love the idea of saying someone else is required to merge their content even when they've been encouraged to do so by a reviewer. Volunteers aren't unfeeling robots -- even though there's no authorship here, we do certainly feel a sense of pride/gratification from having good edits attached to our usernames, as meager a kind of "credit" as that is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites with respect to the merger and attribution, I think that once Draft:Immanuelle's Coverage of Ninjas is merged to Ninjas, the draft would redirect and therefore no longer be subject to G13 which solves that. I think Immanuelle means well in her creations, but there's been a lack of demand for the content. They're encouraged to do so to save their (reviewers,etc.) time, but no inclination it's necessary. Like @Asilvering, I have yet to see one of her drafts where I thought mainspace had a need for the content. Just my .02. Star Mississippi 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The focus on creation appears to be a product of how Immanuelle finds topics to work on: by finding articles in other Wikipedias that have no corresponding article in English, and attempting to create it. I don't think the issue here is "not putting enough effort into looking for an existing article" so much as it is "assuming that every article ought to exist on every Wikipedia". That is, I don't believe any effort is being put into looking for an existing article, but I don't see that as a problem per se. The problem is more that Immanuelle has not demonstrated a strong grasp of notability, or of what defines a reliable source.

Speaking as someone who has reviewed many of Immanuelle's AfC drafts, I think "reviewers are encouraging Immanuelle to merge content into existing articles" is not precisely correct. Yes, one of the declines you can use when you think "this doesn't belong in a separate article and should be dealt with in some other article" is called "mergeto" and does include the canned message The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. But I'm not sure most reviewers really think of that as encouragement to merge so much as an expression of "please don't resubmit this, and why aren't you editing the article that's already in mainspace?!" I know I personally tend to say "please don't merge this directly, but articlename is where this information belongs, not in a separate article" or something similar. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites well the big issues I have with the restrictions really come down to the fact as I see it, they are ambiguous, and the ambiguity puts a lot more issues on me than the restrictions would on face value.

I fear that even citing the same book chapter in a related mainspace article could be construed as self plagiarism violating the rule, since you can't look into my head to see what is going on there.

This is similar to how no machine translation equals no foreign language sources at all.

@Asilvering is right generally I'd say, about the drafts. I am most concerned just that even if the content itself is good, there might be only 3 people who are interested in the particular topic and active editors, so it might take oer six months for such a person to find the drafts.

@LEvalyn explained to me that there was a lot less of a demand for me to go through my drafts as I had thought. I appreciate their attempts to help me on this. They have changed my perspective. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block Discussion

After reviewing as much of this discussion and recent edits as was reasonable, I have indefinitely blocked Immanuelle (talk · contribs) because, as explained above, far too much time has been wasted. Of course this is the action of an individual administrator and any admin happy to unblock can do so. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed this entire discussion but I interact with Immanuelle a lot because I work a lot with draft articles and Immanuelle creates a lot of drafts. I'm surprised that this discussion came to the point where an indefinite block was felt to be the next step. I guess it came out of frustration? Because Immanuelle is a prolific content creator and while many drafts go nowhere, it's hard for me to see the editor as a net negative to the project. I'll come back and review this discussion more thoroughly tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but can't say I agree with this block. Immanuelle's been making a good effort to improve, and I don't see how a block at this point helps the project. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ^user:A smart kitten_meow 12:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was a bit suprised to wake up this morning to find that Immanuelle is now blocked, seemingly out of frustration, which should have never been a reason for a block. The editor is capable of producing good work, Ikagashikome. scope_creep^Talk 08:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have stayed out of this discussion so far (despite being pinged to it, I have not had enough time to participate; yes, Immanuelle has good intentions, and yes, the editing causes strain on the resources of other editors)—but I do not think this is a good example. For one thing, the article discusses a legendary figure as though she were a historical figure. There is no reliable source that will state that Ikagashikome was the empress dowager beginning in 97 BC, because there are no reliable sources in Japan from that period. Thus the article on her purported husband, Emperor Kōgen, notes from the lede that "his actual existence is disputed" and lists dates of his "alleged" reign. Plus he is said to have lived until the age of 115. But Ikagashikome presents legend as fact. Second, Ikagashikome is clearly a translation from another Wikipedia or has material that was copied and pasted without attribution. The article was created in March 2023 but gives source access dates in 2010 and 2019 and 2020. Third, I am not convinced that Immanuelle is aware of the problems in the sources presented for the article. There was a question above about whether Immanuelle can be a competent translator. Competent translation requires not only the ability to translate the words in external sources, but the ability to determine whether the sources being cited are reliable, and I still lack confidence on this point.

For example, one of Immanuelle's primary topics of work (including after explicitly stating that there would be no more translations from Asian languages in the previous ANI discussion) has been related to Japanese Shinto shrines. I recently received a well-meaning talk page message from Immanuelle asking for help on an article on a particular Shinto shrine because "it is currently the highest ranked shrine in the Modern system of ranked Shinto shrines without an article, being an Imperial shrine, 2nd rank." Since the time when I did not reply to that message the article has been created. I do not have any specific problem with the article's creation, but Immanuelle appears to be engaged in an extended effort to systematize the English Wikipedia's articles on Shinto shrines according to a ranked system of Shinto shrines. Why is this a problem? Well, the ranked system of Shinto shrines no longer officially exists. Why does the system no longer exist? Mainly because it was only implemented as a way to implement State Shinto, one of the primary ideological pillars of the Japanese empire and what has often been called "Japanese-style fascism". In other words, there are good reasons not to use this as a benchmark for what shrines should be covered on Wikipedia and how they should be arranged, but I have not had the energy to attempt to alter the pace at which Immanuelle has been going through this, and the subject is a niche area where not many active editors will know the problems involved in this system of organization. I am no expert on Shinto sects or "doctrines", and thus I have never really edited in that area, but to be frank, I doubt that Immanuelle has considered whether statist ideologies should be the basis of our article categorization, and that has not stopped Immanuelle from proceeding. It is perhaps unfair to make these points while Immanuelle is blocked, but it is undoubtedly the case that it is not only the output and editing of machine translation that is an issue here. It is also the level of knowledge of the subject matter being introduced to the encyclopedia. I do not want to argue for or against the CIR block that was currently put in place, but the editing restrictions were certainly needed and a boomerang could have been foreseen here. Dekimasuよ! 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to draw this to Immanuelle's attention recently, apparently without success. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Liz and any others who are surprised by the block, did you click on the diffs offered by Fram above? Immanuelle responded below Fram without saying anything about them, and instead talked about the importance of keeping her own talkpage usable — something she still seems quite focused on, even though nobody but her has mentioned it as the problem here. My own proposal for an indef block was explicitly based on those same diffs and on the strain that dealing with such terrible edits puts on constructive editors, but there was still nothing relevant from Immanuelle. What about you guys, did you look at them at all? Please review them. Bishonen | tålk 13:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Bishonen: This is inaccurate. Immanuelle said immediately below In those cases I was disabling a category I inappropriately added earlier. Turning it into a nonsense redlink category appears to have been their way to remove it from another category. That's a weird thing to do, and not the ideal way to do it, of course, but at the end of the day ... is it really a big deal? It's not in mainspace. Do you not have goofy things you've done outside of mainspace which, collected and judged in isolation, would look odd? I certainly do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, immediately after Fram's post, Rhododendrites? OK, I see it. You reckon that was what she meant? I'm sorry, that post by Immanuelle was a bit of a blur to me, still with the unexpected focus on her own talkpage, and the rather extraordinary talk about "scheduling" articles to get G17 warnings at particular times (I can't find any G17 criterion, but maybe that's me), and I didn't pick up on what she meant by "those cases". I do see it now you mention it. OK, Immanuelle did address Fram's diffs, though not, in my opinion, in a helpful or sensible way. As for me doing goofy things outside mainspace, I have no idea what you mean. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• While I wasn't the blocking admin, I supported it and here's a little more on why in the form of one example in addition to Bish's point above. Right now, she does not have the competency to be a productive editor within the project framework. In her original request, Immanuelle asked for This one causes a lot of problems because a lot of draft declines are done with explicit requests to merge the content into articles, or are declined because the article already exists under a different name. I want some kind of a system in place to allow for the merging from a declined draft, or the lifting of the restriction altogether., @Asilvering: made the point that But I'm not sure most reviewers really think of that as encouragement to merge so much as an expression of "please don't resubmit this, and why aren't you editing the article that's already in mainspace which I wholly agree with and act same when I'm reviewing at AfC. Just because (generic) you want credit for an article, doesn't mean we need a separate article, please edit the information where it primarily exists rather than create redundancy. The material does not literally need to be merged, and if it did - someone else would have done so. While Immanuelle edits in under-trafficked areas, she is not the only editor who can handle these, and the project won't collapse without that information. Rather than understand this or take it under advisement, or ask if she doesn't understand, Immanuelle writes that she fears that even citing the same book chapter in a related mainspace article could be construed as self plagiarism violating the rule,. This is one example of the continued failure to get it despite multiple time-wasting AN* threads this year. Immanuelle wants to edit and is editing in good faith, but cannot or will not make the changes needed to be a productive editor. Indefinite isn't forever is a cliche thrown around here a lot, but I think some time away - reading as folks have suggested on her Talk - and not having to worry about 2K drafts and the AfC backlog will be a re-set. Maybe she can productively edit elsewhere in the interim, I don't know. But coming back and appealing with a manageable article limit is probably the only path to productive editing. Star Mississippi 14:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) I argued against the block, but when it came, I felt a little like the admin was saving me from myself. I spent a few hours yesterday grappling with Draft:Bekko candy. None of the three drafts submitted to AfC (Oct 17, Dec 3, Dec 4 were well-conceived articles with reliable sourcing. I spent ages combing through library databases, google books, etc, seeking high-quality sources and ultimately decided that the best use of the information was two sentences at "hard candy" and one sentence at the article for a particular shrine. Immanuelle had already added the candy to the shrine article, with an overkill of low-quality sources and the unverified claim that many Kotohira Shrines sell the candy, whereas the sourcing only discusses one. I spent quite a while discussing editing with Immanuelle on their talk page ([12],[13]) and even after I pointed them to WP:BACKWARD and WP:NOTDICT they would say things like I feel Ame (飴) as a kind of candy is likely notable. Yes, candy is notable. What reliable sources has Immanuelle seen about ame? None. Immanuelle is earnest, sincere, good faith, and frankly more hardworking than me -- but also, perhaps, not really listening or thinking about the feedback they receive so their work can have appropriate encyclopedic outcomes. I can't shake the feeling that if I had spent all day yesterday editing off and on while focusing on any other topic, it would have had a greater positive impact on the encyclopedia than three sentences about candy. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This, it seems to me, is another problematic example; Draft:Bekko candy contains a sentence describing kamiyo-ame as "a kind of Bekko candy [ja] that is eaten by breaking it apart with a small hammer," cited to an English language source, and the quality of the English sources is one of the issues that was raised with the draft. However, the sentence looks to be a direct translation of the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia page on kamiyo-ame, which instead uses Japanese-language sources for corroboration—something that Immanuelle was probably trying to avoid mentioning in order to appear to be following the letter of the editing restrictions. This results in the awkward English "eaten by breaking it apart", following the Japanese grammatical construction which would really be "broken apart and then eaten" in English. It also ignores the more in-depth description on the actual English page that is cited, which notes that the reason for breaking the candy is to share it with family members who didn't visit the shrine. In the second ANI discussion I noted an isolated example of a red-letter violation of the merging restriction which included merging information from a declined draft and then moving the resulting merged article to Immanuelle's preferred page title. I have not gone back and tried to figure out whether there were more examples of that, but this appears to show a problematic desire to test the boundaries of the editing restrictions, which at the time were described as lenient. And I am not sure how many editors would be able to check Immanuelle's contributions against the Japanese Wikipedia in all cases, but I certainly do not have time to do so; WP:TNT was already being discussed in previous ANI threads. As an aside, the first ANI discussion resulted in the blocking of two sock accounts, so while I continue to agree that Immanuelle is editing in good faith, it may be necessary to monitor associated pages if the indefinite block is left in place. Dekimasuよ! 23:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) I would like to follow Star Mississippi and LEvalyn above by suggesting that Immanuelle has escaped blocks before because only uninvolved administrators may block, and to uninvolved people what is most clear about Immanuelle is their abundant energy and obvious good faith. Why block someone who is so obviously trying so hard to be useful? It's hard to justify - until you become involved. Then the issues are extremely apparent. And your involvement quickly becomes a timesink, as LEvalyn has found most recently. I am saddened by this block. I would not have argued in favour of a block here. But neither can I argue against one. The argument in favour is too clear; I just haven't the heart. My hope is not that this block is reversed, but that it becomes more like a forced wikibreak. Indefinite but not forever, indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) I came here to find out why the user was blocked following their friendly notification at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Noktundo_dispute_help_needed. Having reviewed the above, while I see no compelling reason to lift restrictions, I see even less compelling reason to block them. I'd support an unblock. Fram's revised restriction conditions are fine with me as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) Disagree with block The editor is prolific, yes, sometimes naïve, but asks questions in good faith. I see them as a net benefit. I reviewed a great number of their drafts in the AFC backlog drive and accepted a far greater proportion than I pushed back for further work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) I also disagree with block for the reasons given by others. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I probably wouldn't have blocked Immanuelle at this time, but being aware of their history on this account and others, I'm increasingly convinced that an indefinite block is inevitable. When we talk about editors with CIR issues we often imagine someone who is trying to improve the encyclopedia but struggles to understand policies and guidelines. But looking at bizarre edits like the ones Fram linked above, or the >1 million byte Draft:Immanuelle/Draft Staggering, or really just their editing pattern as a whole, one gets the impression that Immanuelle's goal in editing here is primarily to satisfy some sort of odd internal compulsion. That this process sometimes results in the generation of acceptable content is a side effect. I think LEvalyn's comments about Bekko candy are instructive in this regard. I would like to see Immanuelle abide by their restrictions and become a better editor, but I'm not sure that's possible when their motives are fundamentally misaligned with Wikipedia's goals. Spicy (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block' per LEvalyn and asilverling's comments above and on Immanuelle's talk page (which if you haven't read, you should read), and as examples of problems, the issues with Ikagashikome and Draft:Bekko candy. Levivich (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block even a limitless supply of the highest form of WP:CIVILITY cannot bypass basic WP:CIR issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) Bad block. I'm generally a believer that we should not treat prolific content creators favorably, but that obviously has to be the case when "competence" is the blocking rationale. They've shown efforts to change their behavior, and have successfully published many articles as is; there is no reason to believe that they are a net-negative to the project. Mach61 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Also non-admin comment Good block. An awful lot of good faith and attempted mentoring has gone into Immanuelle and their previous accounts. At some point a block like this was inevitable. However well intentioned at some point to much of editors time has been expended. I wouldn't be opposed to an unblock based on Frams earlier terms if they can show they understand the problem.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) Bad block. This is a shameful abuse of the administrator toolset and a failure to assume good faith. Something asilvering said stuck with me though, through reading through the discussion, where they mentioned that Immanuelle has escaped blocks before because only uninvolved administrators may block. I feel it appropriate in this instance to point out that's the entire point of WP:INVOLVED, in that an administrator (or even an editor) who is involved in a dispute is not likely to be of a clear mind and may not be able to make impartial decisions. It similarly seems that the blocking administrator has issued a block based on frustration (?) with Immanuelle rather than an actual issue that they have impartially assessed. I would further ask @Johnuniq: to explain their action a bit better than what essentially boils down to "their complaints were too tiresome to deal with". EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone knows that Immanuelle is trying hard and acting in good faith. I expect they will return to editing when they are ready to receive advice and act on it. Due to a desire to avoid being overly negative, it's not easy to write a rationale for a case like this—it's essentially an opinion regarding the balance between good intentions, time and resources, and outcomes. However, the rationale is nothing to do with frustration or something being tiresome. There are plenty of people supporting Immanuelle's edits but there are also quite a few either supporting a block or saying they thought one would occur. Apart from the support above, consider the comments at the end of this section of Immanuelle's talk. At any rate, any administrator is free to overturn the block—it does not have to be discussed with me because this WP:AN discussion is enough. In due course, this discussion will close and an unblock might be the outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. As much as I maintain that I don't believe the block is necessary, I am at least satisfied with the explanation provided, and accordingly retract with apologies my word choice of "abuse". EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm generally all for giving good-faith editors the chance to learn, but here I'm not seeing any direct acknowledgement that the edits Fram highlights are a problem, nor am I seeing a clear explanation of why that sort of thing won't happen again. I don't see how any outcome other than a block is reasonable. Indefinite is not infinite; a clear and convincing statement of what Immanuelle would do differently may be good enough for an immediate unblock. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block - Immanuelle has been a tiresome time and energy drain. They need to work on fewer items at once, research whether the translated articles have adequate sources before translating them, and general listen to the advise given by the numerous folks willing to give it. Repeatedly, none of this has been done. All second chances have been used up. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The ongoing discussion on their Talk, specifically this shows a continued lack of understanding of the problem. Regardless of whether there's support for the block (although I personally do), there was clearly no support for lifting of restrictions which seems to be her continued focus. If she's unblocked, she should not be allowed to appeal her restrictions for a minimum amount of time or we'll be right back here for a fourth time within a year. Star Mississippi 16:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Gosh, what a shame: Someone so enthusiastic, so wanting to participate, and, to be honest, with something to offer, also so unable to see the issues with their editing. Good block, remembering that it isn't forever, because of the above and the talk page not-understanding-comments. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block: This lengthy thread itself (and other ANI discussions in the past as well) is an example of the waste of community time and resources we had to try to get Immanuelle to edit constructively. This is a plain and simple case of WP:CIR, IMHO. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 20:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) I hope this doesn't open another can of worms when this thread really ought to conclude, but after this conversation on their Talk, I think Immanuelle should be required to go through the 2nd chance process in order to request an unblock. The concrete challenge posed by the 2nd chance process will, hopefully, make it clear whether Immanuelle has acquired the competence to produce valuable encyclopedic material. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) bad block I don't think users should be blocked indefinitely for submitting a good-faith appeal, even if that appeal is strongly inadvisable. The precipitating discussion here was closed quickly, as it should have been, and therefore wasted no more time than any other good-faith but doomed appeal attempt. The subsequent continuation was a failure on our part part to keep a closed discussion properly closed, and I can't in good faith blame that on her, because that way "wasting editor time" would just become a synonym for mob justice. That being said, she should understand (and demonstrate that she understands in her actions going forwards! whether that be in any future unblock request or just in general) that these editing restrictions are, right now, not a negotiable part of her being here, and following them both in letter and in spirit is the one thing that can keep her here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 20 upper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• This has been carried over from UTRS appeal #81911 pursuant to the discussion there.
• @Yamla: found no recent evidence of sock puppetry, so checkuser consideration has been cleared.
• Talk page access has been restored.
• User was WP:3X banned earlier this year, and had been blocked earlier for one year by @UtherSRG: for unsourced content, and other concerns which user has addressed in this request.

Request carried over below. (Formatting adjusted.)

I'm writing to request the removal of my block placed on me in February 2023. Despite the fact that the block log stated that I had been barred for repeatedly adding unsourced content, there were other reasons for my blocking. I was originally blocked because I included redundant deletion requests, produced original research, tried to game the system, removed talk page notices, failed to properly cite my sources, and included copyright infringement in publications.

I've since been studying copyright, and have devoted numerous hours to honing my skills in avoiding plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing. After using AI for several months, as well as YouTube tutorials, expert assistance, and publications, I now know enough about copyright to be able to paraphrase properly. In an attempt to see if I could create an account and make changes, I made my first sockpuppet account (Kodfounder). I had no knowledge of the sock puppetry policy at the time and naively believed it to be acceptable. After a failed attempt to request an unblock on my main account, I was furious and decided to edit using my sockpuppet. However, there was a catch: the sock account had been automatically blocked. At this point I understood that having multiple accounts while blocked was bad, but I instead issued an unblock request to deceive any administrators that this was an instance of collateral damage. The administrator who was evaluating it and who also happened to be a CheckUser was simply intrigued by this. As a result of the affirmative check, I was indefinitely blocked.

My fury increased as a result of the block on my sockpuppet, so I went ahead and built another sockpuppet (Dancing Dollar). I edited on this account for a few months in an effort to show the community that I could be a useful editor. I then made the decision to indirectly confess to my behavior after learning about the UTRS and standard offer, and as a result, I was banned per WP:3X. I gave up trying to maintain the act and decided it was for the best.

My sockpuppetry behavior was completely unnecessary, and only made things worse. I couldn't control my urge to edit Wikipedia. I feel awful for my sockpuppetry. I never intended for my behavior to be disruptive but failed to acknowledge the sockpuppetry policy. I humbly admit to using sockpuppets, and I have now permanently disclosed those accounts. While I was blocked, I went ahead and personally insulted some of my fellow Wikipedians (SandyGeorgia and UtherSRG), which caused access to my talk page to be suspended. My behavior was wrong, and I shouldn't have done it. My block was also brought on by a lack of understanding and communication (WP:CIR and WP:IDHT). I was incompetent to edit Wikipedia, as can be seen in the Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349#User:20 upper, because I disregarded straightforward directions, gave the impression that I hadn't read everything, and worst of all, I made no attempt to collaborate with the community.

Since then, I've come to understand the value of the community. Since my block, I've improved my communication abilities significantly, and I truly feel competent to edit Wikipedia. I have now been gone from Wikipedia for 6 months without any sock puppetry or block evasion. In that time frame, I've been editing Wikimedia Commons. I've read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines extensively and I'm happy to respond in my own words to any inquiries the community has on policy. If unblocked, I will concentrate on undoing vandalism, general copyediting, new page patrolling, and taking part in community forums like the Village Pump. Even though there are no justifications for my conduct, I am prepared to take action in order to demonstrate to the community that I genuinely care about this project and never intended any harm. I'd like my talk page access to be restored, and this request to be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard. Sorry for the long read.

carried over by-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:20 upper, you say a lot of the right things, but I can't help thinking that we couldn't believe what you said before, so why should we now? I note that you say you "couldn't control [your] urge to edit Wikipedia". Please try to control it: editing Wikipedia should be a pleasant experience, not an urge. And I also note that you say you will take part in new page patrolling. I don't think that someone with your history should be passing judgement on others' work. One last question (which you may choose not to answer for privacy reasons): how old are you? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply carried over-- @Phil Bridger: Regarding your initial query, I have changed my ways. In the past, I've said good things while acting inappropriately. However, I've since realized that socking is wrong, which is why I've chosen to acknowledge my actions and finally abide by the rules. Considering that I haven't socked, complied with the policies & guidelines, and edited Commons while away from Wikipedia, I believe that the block is no longer necessary. How old am I you ask, well, all I can say is that my brain has not fully developed, so yeah. 20 upper (talk) 4:46 pm, Today --carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "brain development lasts until 25" is a myth, for the record. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That just goes to show what I believe: that some teenagers are very mature and some old people are very immature. The difference is that young people almost always change faster, i.e. that the first differential is usually greater. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a myth, brain development still happens into the 20s, it's just that there is no hard boundary, e.g. 25 or 24 or 26. Laurence Steinberg is quoted in the piece you linked saying "There's consensus among neuroscientists that brain development continues into the 20s, but there's far from any consensus about any specific age that defines the boundary between adolescence and adulthood." It should be noted, though, that "brain development" is a relative measure, not an absolute one, so a 20-year-old may not be as mature as they will become, and yet already more mature than some other people will ever be. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support conditionally Based on the ban on 3X, personal attacks made towards others, and their last socking activity being just over the usual 6 months, I'm hesitant to support at all a ban appeal, but their extensive editing history on Commons since is what tilts me over to supporting. However, given the first few problems, I'd only be able to support this on the condition that 20 upper is restricted to one account, and may be blocked without warning for any continuation of unsourced content additions. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support conditionally per EggRoll97 above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support - it deeply concerns me that an editor blocked for copyright violations now "know[s] enough about copyright to be able to paraphrase properly". To me, having spent several months working with AI tools to learn how to "paraphrase properly" strikes me as learning to more covertly copy from copyrighted works, rather than learning how to write properly in their own words. We also know that LLM content generators are capable of crafting completely fabricated references to support their completely fabricated content. It would be an oppose from me, but EggRoll97's assertion that their contributions to Commons have been productive tips me into the WP:LASTCHANCE column. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin please close this discussion? The editor who was reported has since been indeffed; and I cannot NAC the discussion myself because I was mentioned in it (although I did not open the discussion). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I NAC'd it. Nobody (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1AmNobody24: just a note on the closing comment; OP typically refers to the original poster, not the subject of the post (see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations#O). In that discussion the OP was 86.23.109.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), not IPs are people too, it might be a good idea to clarify that the editor was blocked and not the IP editor that started the discussion, just to avoid any confusion. - Aoidh (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh My mistake, got fooled by Convenient Discussions. Will correct now. Thanks for calling it out. Nobody (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

• Spicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated in the community consultations and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Checkuser candidates appointed (December 2023)

Don't want to draw attention to what it is here but there is an account that has edited the pages Hannah, Hannah (name), and Social connection in which the username should be revdeleted and the username should also be suppressed from the whole site due to having a real person's name in it and saying bad stuff about them. Additionally, the username is mentioned at User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 44 where it should be redacted and the person's name exists in past edits of User talk:190.37.228.24 and User talk:83.23.224.24 where it should be revdeleted. 156.205.220.126 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:AbuseLog/36458374; it's an LTA, and it's not my first rodeo with them. – 64andtim ^(talk) 03:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.59.229 (talk) [reply]

@Paul Erik you missed the edit summaries of edits reverting that username on the three in articlespace. 41.248.11.169 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report the user HiltroMilanese about the page to draft. He/She has made my page as draft. Please help me. FI.214 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an administrator issue. They reasonably placed your insufficiently sourced text in draft. If you disagree with this, please first discuss it with the user. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]