User talk:Northern Moonlight/Archives/2025/October

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Re : Sorry to have been so verbose. I agree brevity is important and did my best to limit words per William Zinsser's On Writing Well. Maybe too much coffee? I do wonder how many editors understand the satire in blow-hards is also a game and a kind of invitation to joust with them with your own rhetorical flourishes of put-downs, like Court of Versailles.

Honestly, I don't understand why no one but the accused brought up many of the concerns about the complaint I raised. Those opening diffs were so old and IMHO had nothing to do with the real dispute at the article I mentioned. Did you look carefully at the diffs provided and notice how old they were?

Fortunately for the plaintiff, the accused took the WP:BAIT, and the nasty responses sealed the case. But I still believe the entire AN/I was unnecessary and unjust to the accused and might have been averted with further invitation to collaborate. The die appears to be cast, so I doubt I will say anything further.

I think the accused deserved a good wiki-lawyer to advise against those terrible responses. (Whether the accused would have taken such advice is hard to say!) I have never encountered either editor at any article, so the issues with the accused may indeed be more intractable than I know.

I just didn't see the evidence with the initial diffs that there was a current problem that needed to be addressed. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the diffs are not recent. Their last questionable claim of vandalism dated to two months ago. If the initial diffs did not show it to be a current problem, the comments from Coolcaesar certainly made it one. You can notice a few editors who weren't that convinced by the original complaint as much as by their belligerent responses.

The irony that a lawyer, of all people, just couldn’t stop talking and made things worse for themself is not lost on me. Northern Moonlight 03:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Me either.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hi, listen, both of you. I'm posting here because, I hope, it's a relatively unobtrusive place to have a quiet word. As much as he pissed me off, I'm actually concerned about ... you-know-who. I seriously think he's having some kind of crisis. EEng 04:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. I'm not sure what to do though. Think should I say something? Northern Moonlight 05:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  @EEng: That editor certainly isn't the first to react like this when summarily kicked off Wikipedia, in this case, after 21 years and 34,000 edits and by a much newer editor with only 1,300 edits. I'm sure it came as a huge shock how quickly this editor seemed to go from being respected (or at least tolerated all this time) to unexpectedly having virtually *everyone* turning against them with an abrupt completely unexpected removal from the project. From that editor's perspective (which I am only guessing), the "I'm better than thou" attitude was to some degree tolerated all this time--despite the 125 complaints--and it was probably confusing as to why that same language of bravado and superiority was tolerated before and now suddenly was completely unacceptable? I was not surprised by their confusion, anger, and inability to restrain their responses. They likely felt deeply misunderstood to the point of feeling conspired against. So, yeah, I could see paranoia coming out of that experience of feeling so blindsided by so many editors when the editor was also down in real life.

  I've seen numerous new editors blow their tops like this when they are told their edits aren't right, they can't see it, and they refuse to stand down. The main difference here is the stakes were so much higher.

  I've met a number of self-centered arrogant people in real life who at times say paranoid stuff like that when they feel unjustly treated and then later feel deeply ashamed, which I have no doubt this editor will, which is why the final tirade was deleted. It will be a process and hopefully the editor has close friends or a therapist to console the pain. I doubt anyone from Wikipedia/media can console this person.

  I do think they will wish to come back. If so, I do hope they apologize.

  Have either of you seen the movie Oleanna_(film) or read the play? The character played by William H. Macy is a 1950s style arrogant instructor whose interaction with a student causes a precipitous decent. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [revised 07:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)]

Perhaps, DT, I wasn't clear -- I'm talking about his postings on his own talk page (where I don't see any deletion by him, so I assume you're talking about some other page). Anyway, no, NM, I don't think you should post anything. I think we should just leave him alone now, but keep an eye on his talk page. EEng 06:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Right. It wasn't deleted. I saw the 22k delete and mistakenly thought it was the paranoid stuff that went. I'm used to editors putting angry goodbyes on their user page rather than talk page, sometimes realizing how bad it is, and then deleting it all. Looking again at the talk page, the stuff NM responded to was even worse than the paranoid stuff of the goodbye that I had skimmed through. Indeed troubling.

In fact, if I were an admin, after seeing the part NM responded to, I might have restricted access to the talk page for 3-7 days if that didn't violate policy. Give them time to cool off. Allowing the continued ranting serves no one. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

You see now what brought me here. I'm afraid there's nothing we can actively do, other than to keep an eye on his talk and keep anyone from inadvertently making things worse. EEng 20:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC) P.S. Though it's too late now, for the record I do think that, after the post to which you refer, an admin might have been within policy to cut off talk page access for a while just to keep him from saying more that would embarrass him later (though that wouldn't need to be said, of course).

Thanks for keeping things orderly over at ANI. When I got into this situation a couple months ago I was sure that ranks would close around the more senior editor. Experiencing the truth of no vested contributors means a lot. Uhoj (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help. I’m sorry that you have to read all condescending things they wrote about you. Northern Moonlight 01:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Hi Northern Moonlight. I am an editor who contributes to discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China including to AfDs about Hong Kong actors and entertainers. I noticed that you draftified nine articles created by CLW.Edward (talk · contribs) today:

1. Draft:Pinky Cheung
2. Draft:Johnny Yip
3. Draft:Maggie Leung
4. Draft:Bobo Hui
5. Draft:Giselle Lam
6. Draft:Chan Ka-yee
7. Draft:Cherie Kong
8. Draft:Doris Chow
9. Draft:Lee Kwok Cheung
10. Draft:Fu Hiu-mei
11. Draft:Au Chun-wah

You also draftified four articles last month:

1. Draft:Oscar Tao
2. Draft:Adason Lo
3. Draft:Wallis Cho
4. Draft:Sherman Poon

You did not provide a reason for the draftying. You did not notify CLW.Edward of the draftifying, which Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving articles to draftspace advises doing.

It is likely that most (if not all) of these Hong Kong actors and entertainers, as well as politicans (in the case of Draft:Au Chun-wah: zh:區鎮樺), pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. While the articles can be improved, that can done in mainspace per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. I do not think any of the reasons at Wikipedia:Drafts#Reasons to move an article to draftspace apply. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections, I object to the draftication of these 13 articles. Please self-revert and move these articles back to mainspace. If you still think they should be deleted, please take them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where I would support retention for most (if not all) of them. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

As of today, CLW.Edward received 27 draftify notifications from 8 different editors on their talk page, including from me. They have not responded to any of them. They have in fact not responded to any editor message or warning at all. It's unlikely that any further notification will make an impact at all.

It is likely that most ... pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

I don't disagree, which is why I did not nominate the articles for deletion. Note that WP:DRAFTREASON writes Common reasons... include, but are not limited to (emphasis mine). I draftified them because they are BLP that are not ready for mainspace and suffering from bad sourcing and formatting. The standard for BLP articles is higher and requires us to [b]e very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. On top of your list,

• Draft:Pinky Cheung lists 3 claims of educational attainment and 29 various roles without source, cites two photos of questionable quality (including this one) hosted on a UGC website without context as a source, and uses Chinese punctuations.
• Draft:Maggie Leung cited three Instagram posts, has a claim about a contentious topic (HKNSL) without a source and necessary explanation (what conference?).
• Draft:Bobo Hui's filmography section that does not follow MOS, is only partly translated as a result of being lifted directly from zhwiki, contains syntax error (太　-{后}-), and on top of that has no source anywhere.
• Draft:Doris Chow cites an Oriental Daily article to claim the subject was on the TVB food program "Foodie 2 Shoes". The article only contains a reference to Yes, Sir. Sorry, Sir!.

I can go on.

If you still think they should be deleted

I don't think that was my intention in the first place. I notice you participate in AfD discussions and are very good at finding sources. So instead of having them nominated for AfD and we spend a week arguing about WP:GNG and WP:ENT, I suggest that you can help us to beef up the articles in draftspace. I'd be happy to help reviewing them and have them move back to mainspace when they are ready. Northern Moonlight 18:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that CLW.Edward (talk · contribs) should engage in discussion with editors rather than not communicating. But out of courtesy, they should still be informed about any draftifying of their articles along with reasoning for why the draftifying was done. The move summary should be filled in so that CLW.Edward and other editors like myself are told the reasoning.

Wikipedia:Drafts#Reasons not to move an article to draftspace says, "Editors should generally avoid moving an article to draftspace in the following circumstances:

"1. The article was created more than 90 days ago"

"7. Another editor has objected to or reversed the move"

I object to these moves. Some of the articles you draftified were more than 90 days old such as Draft:Pinky Cheung (11 March 2025), Draft:Johnny Yip (13 May 2025), Draft:Maggie Leung (27 May 2025), Draft:Bobo Hui (1 July 2025), and Draft:Lee Kwok Cheung (16 June 2025). Draft:Maggie Leung was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2025 where I supported retention.

Regarding Draft:Bobo Hui, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The filmography section is a good starting point in being partially translated. Additional translations can be done at a later time. Regarding the lack of sourcing for that section, many actors' articles lack sources for their filmography section. For example, I went to Lilo & Stitch (2025 film)#Cast, the second film in 2025 in film#Highest-grossing films. I revewed the filmography sections for the lead actors: Maia Kealoha#Filmography, Chris Sanders#Filmography, Sydney Agudong#Filmography, Zach Galifianakis#Filmography, and Billy Magnussen#Filmography. They are all either unsourced or have just a few sources. Their articles are not getting draftified for their filmography sections lacking sources.

Regarding Draft:Doris Chow, the source does verify that she was on the TVB food program "Foodie 2 Shoes". The article says 香港酷熱天氣持續，曾經參與《味分高下》的「士多啤梨」周麗欣（Doris）即去沙灘游水消暑, which translated to English says, The scorching weather in Hong Kong continues, and Doris Chow Lai-yan, also known as "Strawberry" from the show Foodie 2 Shoes, went to the beach for a swim to cool off.

You've cited sourcing and formatting issues as reasons for draftifying. These are all problems that can be fixed in mainspace. If there is contentious material that is unsourced or cited to unreliable sources, that material can be deleted so that the article can be left in mainspace. Category:BLP articles lacking sources, which includes BLPs that need more sources, has 117,000 articles. There is no consensus to draftify reliably sourced BLPs that need additional sourcing or better formatting.

I am glad that your intention is not to delete these articles. However, your actions likely will lead to that happening. Many articles moved to draftspace never make it back to mainspace and are deleted under Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions.

If these articles were brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion—and I showed they met Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline—they likely would all be kept under WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP despite having imperfections. That means draftifying without discussion effectively is being "used as a 'backdoor to deletion'" despite that not being your intent.

While I would like to rewrite and significantly expand all of these articles, I do not have the time and under Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required that is not required to restore these articles to mainspace. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections, I again object to the draftifying of these 15 articles and ask you to self-revert. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding WP:IMPERFECT, note that it says [c]ollaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles (emphasis mine). We have a draft namespace and a lower standard there for a reason.

Regarding the lack of sourcing for that section, many actors’ articles lack sources for their filmography section.

WP:OTHERCONTENT.

These are all problems that can be fixed in mainspace.

Yes, but Wikipedia does not have a deadline. BLP articles show up in search engine results, and must be written conservatively. Draftification is not a death sentence to these articles. It is recommended to work on a new article in draft space or in userspace before moving it into mainspace, to avoid it being nominated for deletion in an obviously unfinished state. (WP:ATA)

However, your actions likely will lead to that happening.

I don’t necessarily agree. If you read the logs of CLW.Edward, they have already submitted their drafts for mainspace 5 times. Their drafts are rejected each time by five different editors. This is a clear indication that "their drafts are not ready for mainspace" is not just my own opinion.

I don’t plan to submit the articles to AfD, so I won't comment much on what would happen if someone chooses this route. If you believe G13 harms Wikipedia by deleting contents that you think should be kept, the best course of action would be to initialize a discussion about it. Note that both I and CLW.Edward have contributed to the articles after they are already moved to draftspace.

I believe I have made my point clear. If you like, I can ping the editors who reviewed their drafts for comment. Otherwise you can submit them to AFC yourself and let other editors judge if they are ready for mainspace. Northern Moonlight 00:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for me to submit these articles to AfC. I am a previously uninvolved established editor with no conflict of interest in these subjects. I have judged the topics as notable. I have determined that although the articles have imperfections, they should continue to be improved in mainspace. Any editor who disagrees should submit them to AfD rather than draftifying.

You have declined to self-revert despite my pointing out that five of the drafts were older than 90 days and Draft:Maggie Leung survived an AfD. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections, I object to all 15 draftifications and plan to revert them. Please consider any further draftifications of CLW.Edward's articles to be controversial and nominate at AfD if you believe they do not belong in mainspace.

I want to avoid a move war. When I restore the 15 articles to mainspace, will you revert me? Cunard (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated during this discussion, AfD is irrelevant because they are not being nominated for discussion. I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. I have never even nominated their article for deletion once, because I don't intend to have them deleted. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia guideline that says I should submit imperfect articles to AfD.

I strongly recommend that you seek a third opinion on this topic, since it doesn't seem like we can reach a consensus on this issue. Northern Moonlight 00:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

A third opinion would not change the situation. Per Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections, I don't need consensus to object to a draftification. I mentioned AfD because once a draftification has been objected to, the only way to remove it from mainspace (through deletion or draftification) is through AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to object. You need consensus to move it back. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT which you have cited:

In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article’s talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue. Northern Moonlight 00:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That is an out of context and incorrect reading of the text. I do not need consensus to object and move it back. Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections says in full:

Moving an article to draftspace, like any action, requires consensus. It may initially be carried out as a bold move if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so is uncontroversial. But if another editor—including the creator of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest—objects to the move (for example by moving the page back to mainspace), then it is not uncontroversial. In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue. This means that an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time.

I will go sentence by sentence:

1. Moving an article to draftspace, like any action, requires consensus. It may initially be carried out as a bold move if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so is uncontroversial. – you boldly moved the article to draftspace. This was okay because you thought doing so was uncontroversial.
2. But if another editor—including the creator of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest—objects to the move (for example by moving the page back to mainspace), then it is not uncontroversial. – as an editor who objects to the move to draftspace, I will move the article to mainspace. The move to draftspace is no longer uncontroversial.
3. In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue. – this should be read in conjunction with the previous sentences. I object to the draftification through moving the page back to mainspace. You should refrain from further moves until a consensus has been established at AfD.
4. This means that an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time. – this final sentence reiterates that once I object to the draftification through moving the page back to mainspace, you should not unilaterally move it back to draftspace.

Cunard (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If you prefer to move them back without seeking consensus first, then by all means go ahead. It's unfortunate that you prefer to move back directly and refused my invitation for a third opinion.

nominate at AfD if you believe they do not belong in mainspace.

You should refrain from further moves until a consensus has been established at AfD.

Again, while I'm aware you are very familiar with AFD, I don't understand why you insist so much on using WP:AFD (go read the page and see how many mentions of draft it contains) for draftification when it lists the article talk page as the first preference. That being said, I will consider your request for me to submit them for AfD. Northern Moonlight 01:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I plan to move them back because consensus is not required to revert a unilateral draftification. I stated that is the only option if you would like to reverse my reverting of the draftification. However, my preference is that you do not submit them for AfD because the topics pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Cunard (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

that is the only option if you would like to reverse my reverting of the draftification

In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue.

Yeah okay. Northern Moonlight 13:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. The thread you recently started at Talk:Matcha/Archive 2#RFC on the origin of matcha describes itself as an WP:RFC in the heading, but it doesn't have the {{rfc}} template on it, so uninvolved editors won't be notified to join the discussion. Did you want it to be a full RfC with outside input?

If you did, you'll just need to add the template per step 4 of WP:RFCOPEN. If you meant the heading more informally, it'd be clearer to rename it, for current and future reference: "RFC" suggests that outside editors have been asked for and given their input, but that hasn't yet been happening here. Belbury (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the template. Northern Moonlight 16:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)