Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

User CejeroC disruptively editing

CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [1]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [2]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [3]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm use the Wikipedia Beta app for browsing and found that it is showing me "Stayfree76" from 27 August 2020!! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits continue. [4]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose a WP:CIR block to persuade the user to look at their talk page and actually respond to messages since they do not appear to be aware of this discussion and their talk page in general. It seems to be the only option we have to get them to engage in discussion with the community. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On second thought that might not work either since custom block notices are broken on the mobile app. Does anyone have any other ideas? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah: dump the mobile apps. EEng 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of stopping their disruptive edits, I don't know that any other options are available. I'd certainly prefer an option other than a block, but needing to fix their edits every time they do this is getting old quickly. We can hope that if they couldn't edit via the mobile app then they'd take a look at their PC to try to figure out what was going on. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I no longer feel so alone and inadequate. I have never been able to make use of the phone for editing or even viewing current content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried to view my Talk page using my phone and the Wikipedia app, IIRC, and I could see section headers but no text. I have some tricky coding on my page, but still... DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Padgriffin Are you referring to Wikipedia:Communication is required? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User is reintroducing color_process after Doniago removed it. This is honestly getting frustrating at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! This implies that they either didn't notice that their previous addition had been reverted, or decided to reinsert the parameter regardless, without discussion. Perhaps it should be noted at this juncture that they also don't use edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User is STILL inappropriately adding color_process after numerous attempts at communication and getting them to stop. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Another example of the user adding color_process after repeated warnings. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think, after all this discussion, the only viable option is to block. People can't keep checking/correcting these edits while being unable to communicate with CejeroC. It's a poor solution but it will hopefully get their attention and an inquiry from them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone tried posting to his account on Meta so I did. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

1001st attempt at throwing spaghetti at the wall, Do we have any ability to log an editor out? If so, do we have any ability to alter the "Main Page" they see or any messaging they would get upon logging in? I'm guessing not, but spaghetti meet wall Slywriter (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit mind-blowing to me that he'd be a senior database administrator for WMF but never check his WP-EN Talk page... DonIago (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: What makes you think this case (CejeroC) is connected with JCrespo_(WMF)? Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Crap. At some point I got into the next section here, confused the names. Because there, editors were having difficulty reaching JCrespo_(WMF). I'm really off my game tonight. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I replaced User talk:CejeroC with a simple warning. Their lengthy talk page looked like something that I would ignore if I were a new user so it seemed best to make it clear. I would prefer some uninvolved opinions on whether a block would be appropriate if this continues but I'm prepared to implement a block if needed as the time wasting cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think a block would be appropriate at this point. Maybe around 48h – they seem to be editing almost daily, so that should be enough to get them to notice –, with a block message that tries to direct them to use their talk page. I only just noticed someone said earlier those aren't displayed. Still, not like there are any other options. 22:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC) – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have worked- they're STILL doing the same thing! Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• And AGAIN. That old saying about the definition of insanity seems extremely relevant right now. I would hate to block this user since their edits have been generally constructive but I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relying on WP:IAR, I temporarily replaced Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1940–1949) with a message to CejeroC. They edited that page recently and frequently. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your efforts to get their attention! DonIago (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User has either not noticed or just doesn’t care- they’re still adding color_process. I’m afraid that the only viable option here might just be blocking them in the hope that they’ll check their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

They've figured out how to use the revert option now. Padgriffin (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Correction- they did a manual revert. Point still stands. Padgriffin (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 48 hours as suggested above, given the evidence of continued disruptive editing. If the behavior continues right after the block expires, an indef will be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like they're right back at it :/. Support re-block for longer duration or indef. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've indeffed and left a note that the block can be lifted as soon as they demonstrate that they can engage with other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. Unfortunate that it came to this, but it seems that without a better way to compel editors to review their Talk pages, blocks may be the best (though not great) tool available. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an extremely sad situation, and to be frank, I blame the WMF for it. I started a thread at User talk: Jimbo Wales and I encourage other editors to comment there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that the general situation was finally acknowledged by the WMF on 7 April, and some action seems to be happening[5]. I would suggest waiting a short while to see if something good comes from this (with a clear timeline), and if this turns out to be unsatisfactory, to start an RfC to disable editing from these apps from our side out (through the edit filter probably). Fram (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User disallowing others' edits performed during their vacation

User Yaakov Wa. has been on a wikibreak (per this announcement). Upon return today, editor reverted to the last revision before this break, effectively rolling back all edits by other users during their absence. Following my reversion of this action, user repeated the rollback. I have attempted to discuss this with the editor at Talk:Messiah in Judaism#Suggestion and am unable to intervene further due to 3RR.

For context, this page has since 19 February been the venue for a high volume of tendentious editing by Yaakov Wa., largely without consensus or substantial discussion (notwithstanding Yaakov's attempts to contact other users via email and video conference). Exasperated attempts by Warshy at discussion in more appropriate venues led to one prior ANI report. Attempts by myself and Editor2020 to at least improve the quality of Yaakov's edits have led to the incident I am reporting here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted. Seems to be a bit of a WP:OWN situation going on here. — Czello 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new editor. Ibadibam did mention why it wasn't a great idea, but there hasn't been real discussion of it. Technically, WP:BRD still applies and this is really a content issue, although his reverting twice in 24 hours isn't good. This really needs to be on the article talk page, with an attempt to resolve it there. Hopefully it won't have to have admin intervention, but at this time, it really isn't ripe for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ibadibam, and any other editors,

Firstly, in regards to discussions where communication is paramount, I believe it is preferable to use verbal and visual communication. I am available for approximately 4 more hours from posted time. If any editor wishes to set up zoom meeting, please put message on User_talk:Yaakov_Wa. and this meeting will be open to all editors. Up until verbal/visual communication is achieved, I will do my best to understand and respond via non-verbal communication.

Now, in regards to situation:

I will lay out response in three parts. a)will lay out general background of editing Messiah in Judaism, b) then discuss edits over break. c) will discuss rational for keeping proposed structure until discussion at talk page.

a) In regards to general background, started editing feb 19. Was advised to discuss at talk page. I discussed proposal at talk page feb 21. Was given feedback on this proposal as well as support. and feedback discussed. After feedback was inputted and WP:consensus achieved, began overhaul on feb 23. With lots of discussion about content in edit history.

b) Up until the break, the page had the organization[6] along proposed overhaul, with exception of etymology which was discussed. Ibadibam, and other Editors chose to keep organization mainly along proposed overhaul.

Then, during the announced break, as Ibadibam mentioned above, major changes in organization were done. I found this peculiar because these changes in organization started during week when I announced I would not be editing. There were ample opportunity for editors to request changes in organization before the break.

c) Based on the above, I believe that the article should be temporarily kept according to prior consensus of overhaul (with exception of etymology). I am very open to discussion and feedback. Ibadibam appears competent(I have probably asked at least 10 users to give assistance and feedback to this article). I welcome Ibadibam's future discussions and contributions. I encourage any editors (preferably with hebrew and technical skills) to make proposals and edits to this article. However, as Dennis mentioned, we must go according to WP:BRD, which in this case requires us to temporarily have Messiah in Judaism at prior consensus.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• the response above rather than alleviate concerns only increases them in particular that the editor is not familiar with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. The editor is attempting to over-represent a one-sided accounting of the issue according to a particular religious sect. They also claim a consensus for an overhaul when really, one lightly active editor gave a message of support. Maybe this can be solved at the talk page but if nothing else, they should be warned that they are not to revert edits because they need time to personally review the edits before restoring the ones they find acceptable. This isn't a pending changes queue and they are not the sole arbitrator of what readers can see. Even now, they are expressing opinions on which editors are competent (and what skills sets are preferred to edit the article) and I am concerned that point c is a belief that WP:BRD gets their version restored and other editors will have to negotiate consensus around their preferences. Slywriter (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• BRD isn’t about giving an editor time to review edits before the public is *allowed* to see them. Reverts should be only for when an editor has a reason to disagree with an edit. (Never thought I would have to write that.) That and their tone in the above post seems to suggest they think they are the editor-in-chief for this article. But, given their newness, I suspect it’s more WP:NOCLUE than WP:OWN. Probably of greater concern is what appears to be their POV editing that’s already been referred to. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Slywriter and DeCausa's comments above, and I would like to fill in some other details, if I can. Ibadibam, Editor2020 and myself have been so far the only regular, veteran editors who have edited the page since this completely biased, one-sided religious POV so-called "overhaul" was one-sidedly 'declared,' pretty much out-of-the-blue. I want to be on the record again here, as I have been consistently on the article's talk-page discussions, that the new one-sided declaration above, that a supposed "consensus" for this so-called "overhaul" was ever achieved with me is completely false and misleading. I continued to consistently oppose the "overhaul" up to the user's one-sidedly declared "break," and I am still opposed to it at this moment. I posted several more in-depth arguments against the basic motivation and the completely biased religious POV that this new user brings to the task, based on all the primary sources he is singularly using for the proposed task, and I also declared there that I was still considering going back to the article's last stable version, before this so-called one-sided "overhaul" started. I still have this version specified in the article's talk-page. My suggestion at this point would be to go back to that stable version, and allow the new editor to re-start his attempts at changing certain paragraphs or sections by proposing localized, limited changes on the talk-page first, and have this proposed localized, limited changes discussed and approved. Once every new localized, limited change is proposed, discussed, and approved by all involved editors, then it can be implemented. That is how I had originally suggested the new user goes about his intended task. He gave me a short reply at that point, which I did not bother to reply to, and he took it then one-sidedly to mean I was withdrawing my explicitly stated reservations about the entire "task." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Warshy: Starting over seems like a good idea. I suggest you propose a revert to the stable version on the talk page and see what the other involved editors think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it will be preferable for anyone with questions to join zoom meeting on my talk page. Non-verbal communication is not-very-effective communication.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't how we handle things on Wikipedia. We discuss articles on their talk page, not through a Zoom meeting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember already explaining to Yaakov Wa that relevant talk pages should be used, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be assessed, not only by the article's history, but also by the talk archives. That is also where RFCs take place, etc. Wikipedia editors are free to refuse invitations to off-WP venues and the state of the article should not depend on their presence (or absence) there. Some editors may even consider such invitations suspicious. —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that Yaakov Wa has a habit of posting invites to multiple editors’ talk pages asking them to edit Messiah in Judaism. It’s been claimed on the article talk page that Yaakov Wa is editing to push a Chabad POV, and a cursory look at their edits seems to justify that claim. It’s not clear to me how he’s selecting these editors he contacts (he usually refers to seeing relevant ‘skills’ in their edits elsewhere) but what he said here, and this post to an editor with a Chabad user box, raises a question of an attempt at WP:CANVASSING. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is a branch of Chabad who does not acknowledge the existence of streams of thought different from their own regarding moshiach. NPOV is literally against their religion. if Yaakov Wa is part of that sect, he should probably be topic-banned until he gets a sense of how Wikipedia works and decides whether it's for him. 207.172.174.5 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yaakov Wa., you talk of non-verbal communication being ineffective, but that is what we use at Wikipedia. If it isn't effective for you, then this is the wrong hobby for you. I'm not going to Zoom with you (or anyone), and most other's aren't either. Besides, all discussion about an article are supposed to take place here so everyone can participate. Reverting to your favored version is still edit warring and WILL get you blocked. Read that last line twice, please. Read WP:BRD. Twice. You don't seem to understand how things work here. They don't work according to your preferences, there is an established set of guidelines and policies that you are expected to follow. Reading your replies, I don't have high hopes for your future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal (Yaakov Wa.)

Given the ongoing issues with Yaakov Wa.'s editing evidenced above and in prior ANI discussions, and taking into account this very recent response that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy concerning original research, I think that a topic ban from Jewish theology, broadly construed, for 1 month is appropriate. I also think that they should be formally warned against inviting editors to resolve editing disputes through off-Wikipedia venues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the tone-deaf response, I would agree but would opt for 90 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support But could his return (whether 30 or 90 days) be conditional on satisfying an admin of his understanding of WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV and, well, basically what’s expected in writing full grammatical sentences when adding content? I’m not sure what’s going to change just through a period of absence. (Btw, I wasn’t even sure if he was replying to me (in Rosguill’s diff) or just carrying on with his original post as if my post was invisible. I think the latter. Either way I could see there was no point in saying anything else.) DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for now per mine and Slywriter’s today’s comments below. On condition of finding and their accepting a mentor. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Per this, back to Support. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I have deep concerns about the insistence to take article development off of talk pages. This effectively creates an elite group who edit this one article and anyone who is unable or uncomfortable joining their clicque calls doesn't get to collaborate. WP is a place of written communication- which, by the way- is still verbal communication- it is purely verbal, where spoken communication actually includes more non-verbal with tone of voice, pitch, volume, and facial expressions coloring what is being said. WP is for everyone to contribute to- and in order for that to happen, previous discussions must be accessible to future editors- not a summary of what one person heard- but the actual words used. Anyone who tries to take away this fundamental facet of WP creation- is missing our purpose and what makes us special. And, I believe, is experiencing a serious case of WP:OWN. For this reason- I support a t-ban until the user can learn to collaborate using the appropriate tools and share knowledge and ownership among all editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban. The insistence on Zoom discussions violates various policies and guidelines, including article ownership, and has aspects of not being here to edit collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support wouldn't go so far as to say he's Not Here, he does not understand how Wikipedia works and I think that misunderstanding makes him a net negative on these topics. I don't think 30 days will be enough, but he's a new editor so 90 days might be too much. StarM 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to strong support for TBan if not a site ban based on the below subthread and Talk:Olam_katan where he shows he does not understand or respect how Wikipedia sourcing works. Since a topic ban will not prevent him from editing, I'm not sure it will stop him. StarM 13:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: from their responses, I honestly think that he may not have a good grasp of English and may not understand what we are saying.

h 13:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment looking at their other contributions- I think they don't understand why WP won't accept them as an expert- they are arguing for inclusion of their own analysis on multiple articles- yes it might be a language issue- but its a problem that they seem disinclined to discuss or stop. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• They’ve posted these thoughts on their user page. Taking that with this self-revert and this on the talk page of that article, I don’t think language or NOTHERE or OWN etc is what’s going on. It’s just a bad case of WP:NOCLUE and they are, in good faith, really trying to get the hang of Wikipedia. They’re struggling to and now seem to understand they’re struggling to. Although I supported a TBAN above I think what they need instead is a mentor. Understanding of WP is not inherent and for some people isn’t obvious, intuitive or easily learnt. For some it is. But there’s something very dispiriting about seeing someone genuinely trying to understand WP in that way but being told (by me included) that, in effect, there’s no place for them here. DeCausa (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per Decausa and because editor appears to be a genuinely good-hearted person. They are not here to make trouble; they won't be edit-warring over religious views, like so many nationalistic SPA editors would. There is a real chance that their worldview is ultimately incompatible with the wikipedian community and all I am supporting is kicking the can while giving them more WP:Rope and adding work to other editors but at least others won't be demeaned, insulted or threatened as a consequence of letting him remain an unrestricted editor for now. Slywriter (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sigh. Hope everyone has a great day today. Slywriter (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: while it is indeed very important for editors not to bite newcomers and to assume no clue, it seems to me that the editors who have been dealing with this new user have done this rather admirably in most cases. The problem is much more that the user has been somewhat of a slow learner. While it is also true that they appear to be acting in good faith and show genuine signs of wanting to understand, competence is required, and a lack of this can be equally disruptive. Administrative sanctions on Wikipedia are not punitive, and I think that it may be helpful if the user would edit on other topics for a while, just to get the hang of it. A core problem has been that the user is very knowledgeable, but strictly from the point of view of original, mostly non-secular research. If they would be willing to try their hand on subjects which fall outside of the scope of this research, they may have an easier time getting used to the strict source requirements, and to the secular academic perspective of Wikipedia. A mentor, if such is possible, may also be enormously helpful. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose such punitive sanctions. Two main reasons. First, many of the diffs are just not as damning as people make them out to be, and if folks paused for a few seconds to think about this from the perspective of a newcomer used to collaboration in different environments they might be able to see the diffs in a more favourable light. For example: Zoom is of course not how we do things around here, as established editors will know, but this editor's rationale for why verbal/face-to-face communication may help in dispute resolution is not wrong. For a new editor who isn't aware of how WP does communication, or is unfamiliar with the community's desires for transparency and onwiki discussion (along with the fact that many Wikipedians don't like to communicate outside of text mediums), the proposition seems far more reasonable to make. The ownership/OR concerns are more pertinent, but not only are they relatively low in frequency but it appears the editor is understanding the now clearly raised concerns around that, and for a newbie not familiar with our cultural norms (such as WP:OWN) such an error is slightly more tolerable. (And ironically, I've seen even admins exhibit very similar OWN conduct before and get off without even a warning. Why are experienced editors who are expected to know better held to lower standards, and newer editors who are trying to learn proposed for sanctions?) Some editors have switched to support presumably because the editor contested a PROD? (a PROD which is now also contested by an admin). Have editors forgotten that policy does not require edits to provide a rationale to remove a PROD? Besides, the editor didn't just remove the tag without further comment (which would be all policy requires), they left a comment saying pretty much that 'this is discussed in lots of sources. I don't have sufficient expertise on this complex subject to contribute fully, but I believe it's notable and I'm happy to give pointers to sources'. That conduct is entirely proper. It's irrelevant whether the argument is true or not; take it to AfD, as you would if any established editor challenged the PROD. Not a valid basis to criticise an editor. Second, the editor has shown introspection and is improving.[7][8][9][10] That's not to say there are no problems here, but there is no evidence that self-correction has proven to be impossible and that non-voluntary community intervention (via sanctions) has become necessary. But intent matters, as do assurances, and this entire section is rather saddening. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone switched to support because of a contested PROD. You may have missed the fact that the sources the editor pointed to after explicitly being asked for scholarly secondary sources are all religious primary sources (Tanya and other 18th/19th century Hasidic texts, as well as late medieval and early modern Kabbalistic sources). The fact that this happened after having been explained about WP:NOR numerous times and after the whole thread above (including the topic ban proposal) tends to confirm the tone deafness. I concur that they seem to have good intentions, which indeed renders all of this rather dispiriting, but I for my part believe that we should be much firmer in making sure that content policy is understood and respected. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

At least one comment adjusted their vote explicitly citing that talk page. Again, no editor is required to provide sources to contest a PROD. That's policy. The talk page diff you link isn't a violation of the original research policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that updated comment explicitly cites the lack of understanding with regard to sourcing. Though I see only now that I should have removed the PROD myself given the objection (I too am only ~5 months here), the PROD really is irrelevant: we both agreed that the article needed sourcing, and we were having an open dialogue about that (it would help if you would try not to see it as a battle of any kind, since we didn't either). Showing a lack of understanding on a talk page is indeed not a violation of anything, but it of course accompanies and supports edits in mainspace that are violations (e.g., citing the Tanya mentioned above as a source for an evaluative statement about the subject matter of that source). This combination of (mostly) friendly and open dialogue on the talk page with blatant OR edits in mainspace has also been going on for nearly two months now at Messiah in Judaism, and I guess that for some the interaction at Talk:Olam katan (as well as the minor incident in the collapsed thread below) was the last drop in the bucket. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 06:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (Warning for Apaugasma (OWN violation))

This isn't going to go anywhere and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how enwp works. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear all, I believe this thread has wasted enough time of valuable contributors such as DeCausa and Slywriter who have probably spent hours on this thread. Besides that, it has wasted many hours of my own time as well. I believe it is time to close this thread. Also, should we propose warning for Apaugasma for what appears (to me at least) to be an attempt at owning the topic of Olam katan through deleting competing articles and attempting to topic ban a user involved? Although it is possible that Apagausma does not mean to do it, just the appearance of WP:OWN is rather troubling and should be avoided. Sincerely, Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Support: As proposer.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) @Yaakov Wa.: I give up! I don’t think it’s ever been proved so comprehensively and so quickly that I have appallingly bad judgment. You’ve managed to do that by the above post and this edit (“G-dliness”?!) and what you’ve written at Talk:Olam katan. It’s perfectly reasonable for Apaugasma to suggest AfD for a sourceless article like that which duplicates an already existing article. (What’s a “competing” article?) How can it be OWN? And what on earth makes you think it is appropriate for you to say this thread should be closed as a “waste of time” when the consensus is clearly that you should be topic banned with only myself and Slywrite, somewhat tentatively, opposing. You’ll be lucky if you’re not site banned now. DeCausa (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha

M-Mustapha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been using his rollback without warning users, see their contributions, trying to misrepresent user scripts, see this. I propose removal of rollback rights, as they do have prior warnings for misuse of rollback, upon other types of warnings from other users, and administrators. They may be hat collecting as well, see 1 and 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix, I'm not aware of any requirement that an rollbacker needs to warn the offending editor, although the RedWarn thing was a little strange. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix please provide your diffs regarding the misuse and the other types of warnings, I can provide a valid defence of all my revert actions here. Twinkle is not mobile friendly that's why I don't often warn users as it's a bit tedious to do it manually whenever I'm using my mobile phone to edit, I hope you know that twinkle doesn't work on mobile view. Thank God that's all you have seen from all the work I have been doing in fighting vandalism to keep Wikipedia safe. The Living love ^talk 04:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would generally recommend using not-Minerva when you are working from mobile and need access to advanced tools. Since you're logged in, I might suggest using the desktop domain and either Monobook or Timeless, which both have a mobile-friendly (and fully functional) interface. Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Diff for prior warning for rollback usage, see 1 For other warnings that you have been issued in the past for various things, see 1, 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zppix! But apart from this Slip, I don't think these diffs are related to the use of my rollback in any way. Please make valid accusations and insist on the right. The Living love ^talk 17:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Note, I never claimed they all had to do with rollback, I simply mentioned them to establish a history. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix:! And those were all you could get to establish a history, not bad! History is always clear in good faith. The Living love ^talk 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: as others have said, there's zero requirement to warn people when using WP:Rollback. As the guideline says, due to the lack of a proper edit summary rollback should generally only be used for clear cut vandalism or other cases when the reason is clear, for blocked or banned editors, or when a reason is provided somewhere else (and 2 other cases not relevant for general usage). But I had a look at M-Mustapha's recent use and most of them seem clearly appropriate e.g. 1 was reverting an edit calling someone Nazi man, one was reverting an edit saying someone's little brother was a pain in the ass, and the third was an edit changing someone's name to Ritzcracker. The other 2 weren't so obvious with just the preview but if there is a problem you're the one who needs to provide evidence. Please remember that there's also zero requirement to warn vandals when reverting their vandalism. While I understand it can be frustrating for some since editor's often can't be blocked without a prior warning, for a variety of reasons plenty of editors do not warn. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz & Nil Einne, sorry for the delay, but Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings even states warnings should be issued. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: right, but there is no requirement to do so, and it would be completely inappropriate to sanction someone for not issuing warnings. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, OK, maybe that part of what I said was a bit hasty, therefore i'm striking my proposal statement above, however, something should still happen, as I do believe it is problematic. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I’m kind of lost here @Zppix, asides all else, you implied that @M-Mustapha was engaging in WP:HATC, how so if I may ask? They definitely aren’t so if I may ask why did you say that? If you are going to accuse someone the least you can do is provide diffs to substantiate your claims. If not then you are just making unwarranted baseless accusations. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, I said they could be, and I did provide two links in my opening statement of this thread about that. "may" and "are" very different, I said "may" explicitly because it may not be the intention of the user, but still wanted to bring it up, just to see what others may think about it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes! @Celestina007:, it might be someone is hat collecting. I can see that because I recently requested Rollback access on Commons and mentioned that 'I have experience in fighting vandalism on other Wikimedia projects' not knowing that Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ had already requested to be autopatrolled there, I think that is where he saw me and quickly came here to request my rollback removal with baseless claims that I'm not warning vandals. The Living love ^talk 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, baseless claims that you arent warning vandals? You legit just admitted that you don't warn them because you are on mobile not even a few comments up... Secondly, I didn't even realize you requested any rights on Commons. Please do not cast aspersions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, there is no requirement that the person being reverted must be warned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There should certainly be no action taken against this user, because, as has been pointed out already by more than one person, there is no requirement whatsoever that vandals should be warned when using rollback - indeed the whole point of that tool is that it's a quick, no-questions-asked, revert of vandalism. And, as for the hat-collecting accusation, the original poster here seems to be doing more of that than the target, so, if there is any action taken here, it should be as a boomerang. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Panthera pardus saxicolor

The user @LPFCW: has repeatedly changed the page Panthera pardus tulliana to that of an old synonym, citing several outdated sources [11], and then going on a rant on their talk page (User talk:LPFCW) about how the editors of the page were censoring the information on the article. They have reverted edits more than 4 times in less than a day, and seemingly tried to edit the page in the same way before without an account: [12], [13], [14]. Also has no qualms with edit-warring when warned [15] and has even admitted to it [16]. I have done my best to correct their wrong edits without reverting, as I am currently on a no-revert period. I believe this user's talk page and edit history speaks for itself. I also hope @SilverTiger12: does not get blamed for edit-warring, they are trying their best to revert the user's edit warring. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave you scientific references while I knew you are not looking for that! You are the real warring editors! So, I will be back to you with my IT team! You are purposefully spreading false information and you do not have the right to do that! Change the title of the page otherwise this edit war will be forever!--LPFCW (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)LPFCW

^ I believe that should be enough for you, admins. He even changed the title of this complaint. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If I come back tomorrow and I see tulliana is still instead of Persian leopard, I will hack this page! Now as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: Your threats are meaningless, all this means is that you will get blocked faster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Their edit history [17] reveals that they are only here to edit war surrounding this subspecies. Their suggestion that "this edit war will be forever" unless other editors accept their edits show that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I recommend at least a temporary block, preferably an indef NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And this is why I love ANI. h 13:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Before you come to talk Hemiauchenia I gave several references why these editors purposefully spread wrong information using Wikipedia. You can read it before you say something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: You've threatened to "be back to you with my IT team" and "hack this page" (whatever the hell that means), you clearly don't care about the opinions of other editors, so why should we care about yours? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ddum. I tried to type out a longer paragraph but it was removed due to edit conflicts. Basically, the talk page and edit history of the article show what is happening clearly enough and the problem editor has poor hearing. I already warned them on their talk page. Also, the edit conflicts I have run into while trying to comment hear are really something. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 Your behavior is also obviously warring! That was not a threat! That was a real fact I will be back with IT team and will hack this page unless you correct the title! You should learn you do not have the right to change the historical names! Hemiauchenia I do not really care what you think! You are actually wasting my time! The reason that I am alone now s because here was midnight! But today is another day! For your information I was block all yesterday! I do not care about Wikipedia and you guys at all! I know your behaviors! You think you have all the rights to do anything! By the way, I said the word! If you are referencing to that newsletter should change the scientific name only from saxicolor to tulliana. Why did you change the Persian leopard in the page title?!! Change the title to Persian leopard and leave the tulliana while you are referencing to that newsletter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Your block record is clean. As are all the other accounts and IPs that have been recently edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

LPFCW has now reverted 10 times in a 24 four period, blowing right past the 3RR. Silvertiger12 has also gone way over the 3RR, but I don't think that they were familiar with the concept of the 3RR, so I've let them know on their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Hemiachenia, I admit to knowing what 3RR is, but was busy irl and forgot to keep track of how many times I was reverting him- a few were manual reverts which made counting doubly difficult. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't edit war! There is no point continuing in a situation like that—do you think one more revert is going to change their mind? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:∞RR. Actually, I suppose that could be a redirect to the 3RR exemptions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked LPFCW for a short period due to the extreme edit warring. I had issued a polite warning at User talk:LPFCW#Procedures but then noticed the battle was continuing. Please let me know (perhaps with a ping from talk) if problems persist. If needed, the next block will be indefinite. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Considering the talk of "hacking" and IT teams, I guess we shouldn't be surprised with block evasion [18] Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Call me a wimp but I just semi-protected Panthera pardus tulliana so we don't have to waste more time in the next three days. An indef looks inevitable and if someone wants to do that now, fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  When they are unblocked, they'll just go back to the same thing. I'd recommend indefing them now (but I'm not an admin :-) ). What a silly edit war. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  A candidate for WP:HALLOFLAME, perhaps? Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Extreme edit-warring is right, that article is showing up in Hot Articles as having 91 revisions in the past three days. Also, I know that edit-warring is not right but thought that there were exceptions to 3RR for vandalism and such? And as I said, I was having a hard time keeping track of how many times I reverted him due to being busy IRL. Thanks for the semi-protection, I just hope it goes away and doesn't turn into a more persistent issue. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Added to the WP:HALLOFLAME! :-) -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't WP:NOHACKTHREAT be up there with WP:NLT as automatic block? I assume if nothing else it's intent to violate the Terms of Service. Slywriter (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nah. NLT was originally written to prevent legal disputes from spilling onto the Wiki, and later expanded due to its chilling effect on editors. Threatening to "hack the page" is just nonsense, and basically just indicates the user is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Huasteca

Huasteca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been editing since the first of this year, and in that time has found their way over to COVID related articles with which they have a problem accepting WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE, as well as their continued attempts to either overstate what sources say, or make new information from combinations altogether. Their first talkpage post (here) was filled with accusations of propaganda, and they flat out lied about the sourcing in the article. They later venture into personal attacks territory, and continues even now to refuse to understand that consensus is against them.

To this user's credit, they did attempt to discuss this on a noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war... but after that discussion resulted in no support for their views/goals, they went right back to making large changes to attempt to push the negative information to the forefront. The user then today again provided two sources not compliant with MEDRS and attempted to synthesize information from them that wasn't really present in the original EMA announcement - which they conveniently ignored because if anyone here would like to read that announcement, it does not say that it is confirmed, it says it's still a "possible link" and being listed as a side effect - which is not the same as saying "we have confirmed a causal relationship with the vaccine" - yet Huasteca wants us to say that, and the user wants the information about the blood clots to be plastered front and center for people, when at most one or two sentences would be merited, just as for any other side effect.

All in all, I am unsure whether this user has some motive for this other than building an encyclopedia, but it is clear to me now that allowing this user to continue to edit in the COVID-19 vaccine topic area would be a time sink for other editors, and it is producing virtually no good discussion. As such, I'd like to start this discussion on perhaps applying the COVID-19 general sanctions to apply a topic ban on COVID-19 vaccinations. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update, this response to an uninvolved editor trying to explain things has personal attacks, aspersions, and is overall unhelpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond. It seems User is deeply disturbed by the EMA's announcement today finding a link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis and continued suspensions of Astrazeneca vaccinations. He has been aggressively pushing the view, not only that there is no link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis but that no one has even hypothesized this link. Hard to believe but true. This is his position - he literally refuses to acknowledge the content of reliable sources. [19]. He even refuses to accept that numerous countries have suspended AZ vaccinations - with arguments on the line of "they were just temporary pauses". Funny thing is that I haven't even really engaged in an edit war with this editor - I just took this entire scenario to the relevant noticeboard where he promptly requested I was topic-banned. Perhaps this is the second of the Five stages of grief now that his position is even more untenable than before? God knows. He knows I have disengaged from the topic so I assume it is the product of a mixture of vindictiveness and frustration. Should not be wasting people's time here, though, including mine! Huasteca (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The EMA did not find a link, they found a "possible link", and you would know that if you clicked the link in my original post. I have not pushed any view one way or another - I have fought against presenting a viewpoint as "certain" based on non MEDRS and sources that don't say what you're trying to say, as we are not a crystal ball and it's better to wait than get it wrong in the meantime. This editor has not disengaged from the topic, or if they have done so, it has only come after this noticeboard filing. I'll note that this user has continued making aspersions and personal attacks even here - showing that they cannot edit in this topic area without personalizing things, and I remain convinced that a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines would be beneficial to the project. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, involved with the edits of the page in question, and asked for my opinion by an editor on my talk page, I will give my 2 cents. The issues raised by Huasteca are not entirely without merit, however, the objectionable material here is in how he chose to go about attempting to edit. While editing, he used primarily sources that did not meet the WP:MEDRS standard, and as such his edits were generally reverted. I attempted to explain that this was common, and that even I had had recent edits reverted on similar grounds recently, though I thought them to be passable for several reasons, and that trough discussion with the community we had come to a consensus. Moreover, there were some considerable WP:DUE issues with his writing, with unconfirmed reports being presented front and center, without clarification, in the lede. Some of these edits also left out important information from within his own sources, that was important for a reader to understand the entire situation. The primary issue, however, comes with his reaction to criticism. He has frequently accused other editors of colluding or conspiring to "push POV", and yet takes even very mild criticism levelled strictly against his work (as opposed to him as a person) as a personal attack, lauding phrases such as "a very serious personal attack" and "a torrent of abuse", when not a single insult or threat had been thrown his way, merely constructive criticism over his edits. His assumption that the AstraZeneca vaccine casual link to the few dozen blood clot cases would eventually be confirmed appears to now be proven correct by the EMA, but the issue is not really about that. We don't attempt to predict the future, and accusations of conspiracy, abuse and "British Propaganda" (his words, not mine) quickly derail the discussion instead of moving it forward. In addition, he appears to dismiss the MEDRS standard as some kind of excuse that other editors are using against him, rather than a standard that we should all hold each other by, especially on a topic as important as this. He repeatedly accused other editors of POV pushing, when he quite clearly held and promoted a POV himself. Ultimately, the inclusion of a lot of his content would not even have been a problem, especially now with the EMA's new statement, but the violation of WP:MEDRS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DUE were the primary reasons for the conflict. His decision to immediately take offence, rather than to attempt to discuss the mater impartially prevented the establishment of a stable consensus. Still, it is worth noting that he has expressed support for other vaccines, most notably Pfizer's, and does not appear to maintain a more broad anti-vaccination attitude and has, at least at times, appeared responsive to complaints (even if not in the most constructive way possible). Why this user is such a staunch opponent of this vaccine I do not know, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the discussion he had with us was more focused on facts and edits, and not on taking offense and accusations. I wish him all the best, but find this type of behaviour quite unhelpful. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pure WP:BATTLEGROUND from Huasteca. They seem to be living out a fantasy in which they are a lone hero fighting against evil pharma shills. Unfortunately this means mischaracterizing what sources say (so: "There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots"[20]) and concocting a bizarre story about what other editors are saying (so: "You guys can write AZ is magic and cures Aids and it won't have an impact on public perception"[21]). Probably some WP:ROPE is left to play out, but in a fraught medical topic subject to GS, these kinds of antics are the last thing the Project needs. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn Guys, could you please just leave me alone? You have been proven wrong, yes I know its annoying but its what happens when you take WP:FRINGE views. Other editors are dealing with the article and I'm not involved anymore. Harassing me here is not going to change anything. Stop wasting people's times with your personal attacks, I'm not going to react in kind. Huasteca (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca. There are no personal attacks by Alexbrn. Given your message here I would ask if English isn't your first language as that would explain some of the problems you are having. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather There have indeed been a number of pretty nasty and uncalled for personal attacks by this user against me, as well as by other members of this odd cabal. If you want the diffs here, I will provide. And yes, you are correct, English is not my first language. It's my third language. But I'm still pretty certain I speak and write it better than you do. Thanks for your valuable input to this conversation. Huasteca (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would like some diffs and I so far all I see is you making personal attacks. Calling others an "odd cabal" is an attack. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather This is a personal attack, for example.[22] Saying that me raising concerns about the neutrality of an article is due to "malice or incompetence" is a completely uncalled for personal attack. I also consider you completely randomly questioning my ability to communicate effectively in English because I happen to speak other languages a personal attack. The Trump era is over. I'm not wasting more time on this, I'm sorry. Have a nice day. Huasteca (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca Yes that was a unnecessary attack by Alexbrn. However, that does not make it OK for you to make them as well. By the way asking if English is your first language is not a personal attack. Just a question. Not sure why you would bring up some foreign former president. Trump never had a "era" up here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather It's fine. Sorry for taking it the wrong way then. These guys make me moody and defensive. Regards. Huasteca (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This user seems to have avoided this discussion by claiming they would be leaving this topic area alone, but they've yet again removed referenced text in this edit with an edit summary that's a borderline personal attack, and misleading. I stand by requesting that this user be topic banned from COVID-19 vaccines as they are unable to contribute in this area without becoming overly dramatic, making personal attacks, and slow edit warring to get their preferred outcomes in articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's sad that he now appears to have been completely insincere in his reasoning up to this point. This to me disproves the presumed good faith hypothesis and is reason enough for me to concur with you request. This is malicious behaviour and actively detrimental to the goals of building an open and neutral encyclopaedia. Goodposts (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that the behavior has continued, I would propose a partial block from COVID-19 articles. They can propose changes on the Talk pages, or go edit somewhere else for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I would be okay with this except for the fact that just as much, if not more, disruption has been caused by their derailing of discussions on talkpages for vaccines at least. I also think that they may just need a break from the vaccines and they may be able to contribute meaningfully on general COVID articles (ex: about the virus, pandemic, etc). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines Huasteca is a massive timewaster who is attempting to push contentious and unverified medical information against Wikipedia guidelines, with persistent IDHT problem. The sooner they get the boot the better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines per Hemiauchenia. h 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines: Given the following scummering of Gs/alerts:topic=covid as "sillyness" [23] and then obviously continuing to engage in battles per comments above. In mitigation per someone above has had a couple of points worthy of inclusion; and may have reduced problematic edits since soming to ANI.and may have been riled from some stuff albeit AGF initially unintentionally. In some ways I'd like to conside allowing talk page edit requests for Huasteca but on risk/benefit considerations and the difficultly of making acceptable edit requests its likely better all round that it also include talk pages. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC) I've struck my support for 2 reasons. The first inaction of admins seem to appear that the regard "general sanctions" to be meaningless. The second is that @Berchanhimez's "And this user" immediately after this post can be taken as a dig at myself .... unless one actually goes into the links to see that "This user" probably refers to Huasteca. An admin should probably therefore close this an no action. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And this user Huasteca has continued to cast aspersions and make personal attacks all while continuing to edit the article and its talk page after multiple times claiming they "weren't involved" or they "haven't looked" in days. This disruption is preventing article work because those of us who are actually trying to improve the article are, from all sides, having to waste time on what now appears to be intentional "fudging" of sources and trying to make the most POV text possible that can be supported by a source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Djm-leighpark - I was attempting to reply to my own comment above - but the replylink tool when I clicked it after my name put it down here for some reason. You can verify that in the fact that the edit summary says "replying to Berchanhimez (using reply-link)" and not your name. For complete clarity, "This user" in the above statement refers only to Huasteca. I'll note that Huasteca (I won't use "this user" again for clarity) has now admitted to refusing to assume good faith and has attempted to justify their continued actions because they took it to NPOV/N - where they were pretty clearly in a minority viewpoint on their desired edits at the time, so I'm not sure how that could justify their continuing this at all. I agree that administrators are too scared to touch this area - unfortunately, some people decided to witch-hunt the only administrator who was actually keeping a lid on COVID disruption off of the project, and obviously nobody else has stepped in and become willing to touch it. I don't think that lack of action yet, when only one administrator has even commented and that was early on to try and get Huasteca to step back/improve, means that it should not be actioned - especially as, I've been showing here, disruption has been continuing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines per my arguments above. Goodposts (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass-creating articles based on one unreliable source

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

---

User:Lugnuts has created hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Turkish villages based on one source, Koyumuz. There is no indication at all that this is a reliable site, it looks like one of these typical weather-predicting sites based on some dubious geographical source. This was raised here on ANI in the discussion about the mass-creation by Lugnuts of cricket stubs, and I again raised this today at WP:AN#Another case, this time Turkey. While the villages most likely all exist, the only additional information in it, the population, seems to be dubious. Examples:

• Elmadüzü, Oltu has a 2012 population of 64 on enwiki: the Turkish article gives a population of 302 in 2007, and 406 in 2014.
• Çengelli, Oltu; enwiki claims a population of 154 (2012), Turkish Wikipedia claims 307 in 2007, and 398 in 2014.
• Küçükorucuk, Oltu: enwiki 105 (2012), TRwiki 147 (2007) to 198 (2014)
• Savaşçılar, Narman: enwiki 22 (2012), TRwiki 175 (2007) to 204 (2014)

Now, it may be that TRwiki is wrong and ENwiki is right, but that should be based on some official or clearly reliable sources then, not on a random weather-predicting website. All these articles should either be corrected (a good source provided and the population checked), or moved to draftspace if the former can't be done swiftly. And creation of any new articles like this should stop. Fram (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Fram's m/o is, but he continues to bully and harras my work on here. Looking at the Turkish articles for these places, NONE of them actually source the populations quoted. These places do exist, as the source confirms. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Now, the flip side:

• Kanlıtaş, Refahiye, 65 EN, 65 Tur
• Şahaloğlu, Refahiye, 131 EN, 131 Tur
• Dallıca, Kemaliye, 13 EN, 13 Tur
• Beşikli, Kemah, 63 EN, 63 Tur

And all the Turkish articles have a source for these figures. And surprise, surprise, population figures do change year from year. I wonder why that is. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether the source you use is a reliable one or not. If you can show us that it is, fine, no problem. I guess you have researched this before setting out on a mass-creation spree, so you should have no problem showing us some evidence that it is a reliable source. That it sometimes matches trwiki, and sometimes doesn't, is an indication that there may be a problem with it. It is up to you to disprove this. Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Turkish Wikipedia articles appear to have no sources at all. I don't know why why there should be any attempt to correlate the information with unsourced material on another Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating articles based on unreliable sources is poor practice. When checking these, I noticed that TRwiki (which is also an unreliable source) has different numbers for these villages. This doesn't prove that our numbers are wrong, but is an extra indication that there might be a problem. Now, if a reliable source can be found which matches our numbers, then all that needs to be done is replacing the source in these articles with the reliable one, and use that one from now on. If no such source can be found, then the articles need more drastic action. Fram (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the RS (or otherwise), simply that we should take Turkish Wikipedia with its completely unreferenced material with a pinch of salt. It's in no way an indicator of problems on another Wikipedia when the information there is completely unsourced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Batch delete needed, sanctions should be considered (at least remove Autopatrol) - A search for "Koyumuz" returns 4,452 hits. Scrolling through the first 500 results I see that most of them have the same length (22 words) and none is longer than 60 words. All seem to have been created in a ~16 day period from 11 March 2021 to 27 March 2021. Clicking on ten of them I see that all ten were created by Lugnuts. I agree that Koyumuz does not appear to be a reliable source - there is nothing indicating where its data comes form and it does appear to be some kind of weather mirror site. Moreover these articles are explicitly about neighbourhoods, which are not anyway automatic WP:GEOLAND passes. This is clearly a mass GEOFAIL situation, one that simply cannot be dealt with through PROD/AFD given it involves thousands of articles. There may be some WP:GEOLAND-passing articles in amongst those 4,452 articles and some may be duplicate hits so I think we're going to need some more analysis to get a proper delete list (Hog Farm - maybe another case where we could get an output of the kind being done for Carlos's Iranian articles).

This is particularly disappointing given that I had this discussion with Lugnuts on 19 March 2021 about this exact problem (mass-creation of WP:GEOLAND-failing articles done simply to boost article-creation stats, which is classic WP:NOTHERE behaviour). Lugnuts KNOWS this behaviour is not OK, that these articles are automatic WP:GEOLAND fails as written, but created them en masse (with an algorithm?) even so. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could show how you think this isn't a reliable source, rather than spouting it over and over again, the same with your bad-faith WP:NOTHERE comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1) The burden is on you to show it is reliable, not on me to show it isn't. 2) The website doesn't say where its data comes from, the data clearly isn't created by a small website so the inference is its mirroring something else and/or creating its articles algorithmically - WP:V fail since we don't know what it is mirroring. 3) It appears from the contact form provided on each article that the website accepts user-created content. The accusation of bad faith - well, we talked about this exact issue, didn't we? You're response to another user doing exactly what you've just done was "Wow, what a mess!". And you then went ahead and did the same thing anyway? FOARP (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The articles I looked at pass WP:GEOLAND; the source was published but now seems to be unavailable, at least at its original URL. I checked for updated statistics and the map on the census website labels all places in a district with the population and the name of the district, but not the place name. I couldn't find anything below province level on the database page and I don't know if it includes villages or neighbourhoods but it was used as a source in the Turkish Wikipedia when the populations of the districts were updated. Wherever it is, it isn't under an obvious title; I asked about this at the WikiProject Turkey talk page. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fram: Are there any sources out there (I know nothing about Turkey outside of the "They Might Be Giants" song, it's named after a bird, and it's not in the Middle East, but it's also not in Asia) that could take the place of this one? Like how we use US Census data here, do they have their own form of that? Only reason I ask is I would hate to lose all those articles. If that's the only option, then I have to agree, batch delete...but let's try and explore all reference options first, please. Just in case these articles can be saved. Just sayin'. As for the user, yeah, he needs at least an article creation ban (is that a thing?) since this isn't a one-time issue, but the user has done this prior (ie: Cricket...yet another subject I know nothing about unless we are talking about the bug). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:55 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Second the call for an article creation ban here as well. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean this thread where there was nothing wrong with my work? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comments I would suggest that the reference used from now on and which should replace koyumuz should be nufusune.com which is a reliable reference. I don't think we should delete any of these articles.--Semsûrî (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer on that site: "Sitede yer alan bilgilerin doğruluğunu taahhüt etmiyoruz. Bu site bilgi ve eğlence sitesidir. Burada yer alan bilgiler Resmi amaçla kullanılmaz, delil olarak gösterilemez." which Google translates as "We do not guarantee the accuracy of the information on the site. This site is an information and entertainment site. The information contained herein is not used for official purposes, and cannot be shown as evidence." So perhaps not a reliable source either? Fram (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for your input Semsûrî. What Fram said, plus unofficial neighbourhoods are barred from the automatic presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND, and the overwhelming majority of the 4,452 articles citing koyumuz are 22-word articles reading "X is a neighbourhood in the Y district of Z province, Turkey", apparently created using an algorithm. These appear to be census tracts? Census tracts are also not accepted as proof of legal recognition. At the very least another reference having WP:SIGCOV is needed for each. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    The Turkish gov. website has details of each village/neighbourhood. Happy to replace the existing source with that, and remove the population stat as I go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Can you perhaps then start doing that first, instead of creating new articles? And perhaps stop insulting people on a regular basis? "appease the deletionist"[24] when what you are actually should say is "shit, you're right, I shouldn't have used that source, I'll clean it up now" really isn't an acceptable way to interact with people. Fram (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    A disclaimer doesn't make it unreliable, it just means it is not definitive. It anything without a disclaimer is not reliable we would probably have to say the definitive map is the only reliable source of a public right of way in the UK, (anything else that fails to include a disclaimer would be even less reliable). Peter James (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I would like to comment that I do indeed believe that Koyumuz is an unreliable source. I would prefer if Lugnuts used Nufusune instead. However, these articles all do pass WP:GEOLAND. Originally, all of these neighborhoods were considered villages. However, in 2013, the Turkish government began classifying all villages from 30 provinces as neighborhoods. This means that some provinces have no vilages. Believe it or not, neighborhoods are actually classified at a higher level than villages, so WP:GEOLAND is clearly met. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Scorps. It's clearly semantics about village/neighbourhood, and they're all populated places too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, Nufusune indicates that they aren't a reliable site (as was already said above), so advising to use that one instead isn't really the best advice. Fram (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Fram. I didn't see that. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Every district in Turkey has their own official page like haymana.gov.tr which does list the 2014 population of its villages (in this case administered as neighborhoods since its in Ankara Province)[25] but I can't say if all districts have such a population page. Perhaps, if we could check if the data is identical with Nufusune we could classify that site as reliable? --Semsûrî (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would we use Nusufune if we have the information from a reliable source in the first place? It is a mirror, it displays information taken from elsewhere without editorial oversight or checking. That the source they mirror or have scraped is a reliable site doesn't make Nusufune an acceptable source (although it would be at least better than what we have now, at least Nusufune indicates both the source they used, and the fact that they aren't reliable, which are both commendable). Fram (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is if all official sites for the 973 districts have such data like Haymana does. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to be clear here, because this seems to be getting lost: these articles are overwhelmingly one-sentence stubs apparently written by an algorithm sourced to a single unreliable source about neighbourhoods with no proven legal recognition with (according to the unreliable source used) tiny populations (e.g., Leylekköy, İspir, pop. 44). Lugnuts created hundreds of these each day over a two-week period, right after he was involved in a discussion about another editor doing exactly the same thing. There's no way that Lugnuts has done the work to show a WP:GEOLAND pass for any of these, even if some can be rescued by other editors. FOARP (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Leylekköy is a village in the traditional sense, but is considered a neighborhood administratively in Turkey. As mentioned above, mahalle/neighborhood in Turkey is the only administrative term used in the most populous provinces (see Metropolitan municipalities in Turkey). When a province in Turkey hits a specific population, settlements that are considered köy/village gets upgraded to mahalle/neighborhood status. The only thing Lugnuts has done is creating articles of what we would consider villages but Turkey officially considers neighborhoods. I still believe that none of these articles should be deleted and they DO PASS GEOLAND, but should be referenced better. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I've started work on changing the reference, so down from 4,452 (quoted above) to just 4,396 to go. Some of them using Koyumuz won't be articles I started, as the ref had been used way before I started to use it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all and remove autopatrol at the very least. Batch deletion is an appropriate response to improper mass creation even if some articles might be valid; if someone handed you a phone directory and told you it was a list of notable people, you would toss the whole thing rather than going through one-by-one to check notability.

Lugnuts should be expected to clean up the current mess (which they offered to do above) before mass creating more articles (which is what they're currently doing as we speak). It's a very bad practice, if not a violation of GEOLAND, to go through any sort of database or list and create an article for each place with no further research. One such article created by Lugnuts today is Saksı, Pasinler which consists of "Saksı is a neighbourhood in the Pasinler District of Erzurum Province in Turkey." I don't read Turkish and I'm not familiar with locality designations in Turkey (Is Lugnuts?), but the source is nothing more than a list of 72 neighborhoods within the larger district. What sort of neighborhood, village, etc is this? Where is it exactly? Why should we care about it? Lugnuts is leaving it up to others to figure out so they can focus boosting their own article creation count. This type of behavior by several editors (including an admin) has been a major source of disruption, a huge time sink and we need an overall ban on mass article creation as well as a change to the "officially recognized populated place" criteria at WP:GEOLAND which allows editors to claim notability. –dlthewave ☎ 13:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How is that any different to this moth, for example? By coincidence, it is also from Turkey. Where is it exactly? Why should we care about it? etc, etc Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1) Well that looks like an excellent candidate for deletion, why don't you nominate it for AFD? 2) WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. FOARP (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is an essay - do you have a policy to link to instead? You seem to have an issue with its notability, I'll leave the AfD to you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

All species are notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES though admittedly that article is a Qbugbot level stub. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

OUTCOMES must be used very carefully. It does not say , for example, that all species are notable, but instead that it is very difficult to challenge the species article at AFD because there's a general presumption that all species are likely notable and can be proven that way when push comes to shove. If all species were considered truly notable, we'd have an SNG to cover that, but we don't. --Masem (t) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

When's the last time a species was deleted for being non-notable? If there's a presumption of notability, how do you disprove that definitively? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Even if Lugnuts is creating all these articles by hand, a serious question to ask is if they plan to go back to ever try to improve them beyond the one or two line stub they set them up as. That's the problem with mass article creation is that there's no assurance anyone is going to come along in the future to expand out, and it becomes much more work to clean up after this, even though in such mass-creation actions, the onus is on the editor undertaking the action. Even if the source here was legit (which may not be), the onus really should remain on Lugnuts to make sure this articles are taken to a point beyond the basic stub -- or simply stop making them altogether. --Masem (t) 13:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you link me to the policy that states anyone creating a stub MUST improve/expand it? Once you've found it, I'll get to work on them. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND. If you create articles that fail this standard as-written then expect for them to get deleted. If you create articles failing this standard en masse, in the knowledge that this is problematic (something you've criticised other editors such as Carlosuarrez46 for doing) then expect other editors to point out that you are knowingly engaging in the same kind of disruptive editing and apparently don't care what the effect is. Just how is this different to what DrBlowfeld/Encyclopedius did with their algorithm and got told to stop for? FOARP (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you highlight the exact bit of WP:GEOLAND for me that states a stub MUST be expanded by the article's creator? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I can, again, highlight the part of WP:GEOLAND that all of these articles fail for you, if that helps? As well as WP:V? Since they fail these, you should not be surprised to be having this conversation about deleting them all. If you pile up immense tasks for other editors here on Wiki don't be surprised if people just say WP:TNT is the solution. Additionally, don't be surprised if people point out that you are knowingly engaging in disruptive editing. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You've still not actually pointed to the precise text. Maybe WP:5 is wrong - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." All these places pass WP:GEOLAND and WP:V. The difference between Carlosuarrez46 & "DrBlowfeld" (sic) is that I'm working through all the articles indentified, and fixing the source as I go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any consensus that anyone is obliged to improved past a stub. The issue is the mass creation part of it IMO (as below). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the mass creation facet is the larger part of this. We've all likely created a one-off stub, and no one is biting our heads off for that. It would be different if these mass-created stubs may be one or two fully fleshed out paragraphs, even if based on one source, that show far more potential for a larger article, than the single sentences we're getting now. I doubt we'd have an issue if someone was able to mass-create articles on villages/etc. that has 500+ words, complete infobox, and appropriate sourcing. Would still be stub, but at least that's a useable stub, and few would balk at an article of that size. --Masem (t) 15:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass stub creations can be useful (if they pass Wikipedia:Notability), it's documented in the book The Wikipedia Revolution how one person made thousands of articles for each county in the United States, all as stubs. But it allowed for other editors to more easily start editing/adding info, even years later. I do think mass editing needs to be done responsibly, and with extra care for sources. Shushugah (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with mass creating articles like this is doing so without community consultation (if not consensus) first. "Hey I'd like to create a thousand stubs on villages based on this one source" would get the kind of input about source quality and the information drawn them them beforehand rather than afterwards at ANI (if anyone notices a problem or its pattern at all). I think it's a good thing that Lugnuts said they'd be willing to replace the source in question with another, but wouldn't it be even better if people had a chance to point that out beforehand? Beyond that, as I said in the cricket thread above, and at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to see data-based mass creation require consensus first (along the lines of WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT). I was under the impression it was a well-known best practice to do so, but the previous thread disabused me of that notion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is well known best practice. The problem is when it's mass-creation of stubs about footballers, NFOOTY shows up to defend it. When it's mass-creation of stubs about cricketers, NCRIC shows up to defend it (this was the last thread). When it's places in Turkey... well, perhaps NTURK isn't as active as these other wikiprojects... I think it's dangerous for an editor to confuse "not enough consensus to sanction" with "no problem with the creations". Sooner or later, we're going to end up with an article creation restriction, at which point I fear Lugnuts will quit. This reminds me of other high-volume editors from the past, I fear we're just a thread or two away from the final one. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What Levivich said. Additionally, they are very obviously doing this algorithmically without first having got consensus to do so, which is against WP:MASSCREATION. There is simply no way that anyone is creating so many hundreds of sports/location articles by hand each day - we're talking 400-500 EDIT:about 80 location articles each day alone. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again. I'm not using any bot, algorithm or tools in ANY article creation. 400-500 per day?! Less than 80 per day, at best. Again, you've made many aspersions on my work, and provided ZERO evidence to back up what you say. Feel free to filter on my contributions, and if you find the day that I made 400-500 new articles, I'll eat my hat. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

But you're not typing each one out by hand either. Please don't be coy with us. Your user page boasts that you've created 88,000 new pages. Over 15 years that's still more than 5,800 mainspace pages per year, or 16 per day, every day. I'd bet you haven't even read them all. And if you have, it's proof positive of how short they all are. If you spent a half hour on each of them, that would be 8 hrs per day, 365 days per year, for 15 years, with no days off or even half days. Whatever tool you're using, whether it's a script or a template or whatever it may be, you're not typing out 5,800 articles per year by hand. And if you are, that would be really bizarre. Like that would be a medieval-monk-level of scribing. We can tell by the volume that you're spending no more than minutes on each page creation. You've got to come to appreciate that there are many editors here who do not want you to do this. I know you view this as building an encyclopedia, but in my view, it's spamming the encyclopedia—well intended spam, but spam nonetheless. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts - OK "about 80" then. Can you tell us how you create 80 articles in a single day without using "any bot, algorithm or tools"? I mean for reference, your first article cited to koyumuz on 28 March 2021 was created at 17:25 and the last at 18:35 - 70 minutes in which you created 47 near-identical articles, that's just under 90 seconds an article. FOARP (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Prior discussion would be helpful and also required by WP:MEATBOT. Some editors treat WP:GEOLAND as an entitlement/mandate to create a standalone article about every populated place that appears in a government table or database, when in fact it may be more useful to present them as a list until individual articles are built out. I would strongly support listing every village in Template:Pasinler_District in a section at Pasinler, Erzurum which would result in no loss of information.

It's also critical to vet the source being used. We've seen many instances of editors assuming that every entry in a particular census table or database automatically meets our notability standards for populated places, when in fact they're often made to serve a specific government function such as counting people or delivering the mail that doesn't necessarily reflect distinct settlements. The source used here is a list of Mukhtars (village leaders) within Pasinler District which provides no other information about these places. It appears to be at the better end of the reliability spectrum since they do reflect an official level of government administration, but it's also unclear why we would choose this source which provides so little information about these places and would need to be supplemented by other sources. Whether this mass creation is actually helpful would be a valid question to pose to the community before embarking on such an endeavor. –dlthewave ☎ 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is well known best practice - then I would like to hear from some of the admins who weighed in at the cricket discussion and here as to why this wasn't actionable. My sense is that while it's a best practice, the actual rules aren't clear about manual mass creation. As I see it we have three issues: whether this is a WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT violation (and if it's unclear, how those policies should be changed to be clearer), the reliability of the source (IMO not particularly important here except insofar as it highlights the potentially negative impact of mass editing), and an SNG which allows (if not encourages) this. The SNG discussion is underway [again], the RS issue can be handled at RSN if it's not resolved already, and all that's left is to address MASSCREATE/MEATBOT. Lugnuts is hardly the only person to manually mass create stubs based on data or a single source, and if our rules aren't clear I see no reason to hold Lugnuts alone accountable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - I agree that Lugnuts should not be the only person held to account for this. For this reason we also have an AN discussion ongoing against Carlosuarrez46 for doing exactly the same thing (mass creation of GEOStubs based on dubious sourcing). Lugnuts actually knew about this case and was critical of Carlos. Yet he carried on doing exactly the same thing. I am currently having a conversation with Encyclopedius (ex Dr. Blofeld) to see if we can come up with a solution to the problem of the articles their algorithm created in 2008, but he at least appears co-operative and his mass-creation was stopped years ago. FOARP (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that there are also older creations (from January 2021 or thereabouts) for Turkish villages which use only another source, Yerelnet, e.g. at Karapınar, Gölhisar or at Kınık, İnegöl. Unfortunately, Yerelnet doesn't have any information on these villages at the moment, so these articles as well will need checking. There are more than 2000 articles referencing Yerelnet, but not all of them are creations by Lugnuts. A requirement for any further mass creations to follow the spirit of WP:MASSCREATION (no matter if these are created (semi-)automatically or purely manually but in a way indsitinguishable from automated ones) seems to be the minimum that is necessary here to minimize the chance of future similar problems. Fram (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfC restriction and/or removal of autopatrol mass creation of stubs of doubtful notability is not helpful to the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment from passerby. Lugnuts's burden-shifting reply of "what evidence do you have that Koyumuz isn't reliable" above is not acceptable. If this source really is reliable, the article creator should be able to easily provide (or link to) an affirmative case for why it is reliable, same as any challenged source (especially if it's the sole source!). If Lugnuts genuinely isn't sure whether Koyumuz is reliable or not, then they should go through the AfC process like newbies do so that someone more experienced can check for them, and be willing to accept a potential "no, this isn't good enough" reply. Those are the only two options, so Lugnuts should pick one. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a geninue response to the claim made by that editor. I could say X source isn't reliable for a source they've provided, and get slapped with "you're not WP:AGF!" in reply. The alternative, which I'm now working on, is to replace cites to Koyumuz. I've removed about 150 today alone. I'll work on the rest and have that down to zero. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A) Even when there's true bad-faith hounding by an editor afoot, statements on a noticeboard have a wider audience, so just state the case for why you think the source is fine (potentially with some mild snark in cases of hounding, e.g. "as I wrote in our earlier discussion (link), this source is reliable because...") B) But it sounds like you accept that this source isn't actually good? So why the heck didn't you just say so above, back down, and thank the other editors for pointing this out to you rather than argue with them and imply they were acting just to spite you? This doesn't speak well of any editor's judgment. Do you plan on mass-creating more stubs in the future based off a single source? If you accept that you picked a bad source for these Turkish neighborhoods, do you have some way of assuring the community that you will pick better sources in the future, will run questionable sources past others before going on an article creation spree, and thus don't need a must-go-through-AFC restriction? SnowFire (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• 'Passer-by comment Mass creation of articles is a red flag for me. Cricketers who are otherwise not notable is another example from this editor and the resulting controversy rages on. I do not believe that each and every single village and populated centre created could possibly be notable enough for Wikipedia. Mass creation on the basis of one flimsy source doesn't sit right with me. Is to chase a prize? Is it to gain kudos or cache? Is it to look good? I would consider reviewing if mass creation is really something we should be allowing as a community.. doktorb _words^deeds 23:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • doktorb, "The consensus is that Lugnuts' creation of cricketer stubs is within existing guidelines." Drmies (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There have been recent issues with stubs about plant species, and I had been thinking about starting a discussion at the Village Pump on this general issue when some of the specific incidents have cooled down. There seems to be more appetite for curbing mass creation of notable substubs than I thought. Perhaps the least disruptive way to do so would be to require >1 source for these mass creations. I think what's really objectionable is not that people create many stubs, but unless the single source is very high-quality, mass creation transfers a large number of systematic errors into the encyclopedia. Detecting and removing them requires much more effort than the original article creation. Imposing some level of manual reconciliation between disparate sources could curb the worst of it. Choess (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Further comment - One issue that has come out above is whether or not Lugnuts is creating these articles algorithmically. Lugnuts denies using "any bot, algorithm or tools" in creating them. I present the following data based on this search (as far as I can determine Lugnuts was the only editor creating articles cited to this source on these days) without further comment:

• Between 17:25 and 18:35 on 28 March 2021 Lugnuts created 44 articles in 70 minutes. Time per article = 95.5 seconds.
• Between 18:42 and 19:12 on 27 March 2021 Lugnuts created 19 articles in 30 minutes. Time per article = 94.7 seconds.
• Between 12:32 and 13:48 on 27 March 2021 Lugnuts created 46 articles in 76 minutes. Time per article = 99.1 seconds.
• Between 18:30 and 19:13 on 26 March 2021 Lugnuts created 31 articles in 43 minutes. Time per article = 83.2 seconds.
• Between 13:10 and 14:01 on 26 March 2021 Lugnuts created 38 articles in 51 minutes. Time per article = 80.3 seconds.
  FOARP (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  It could be just copying and pasting manually almost the same text with the substitution of different names/numbers etc. Whereas functionally it is hardly different from semi- and automatic tools, it is not prohibited.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, exactly that - copy & paste. The only variable that changes in the place name. Again, for FOARP's benefit, I'm not using any any bot, algorithm or tools to do this. If I was, then your data analysis would show the 500 per day that you claimed before (amongst several other erroneous claims you've made directly about me). I can do about 400 to 500 edits a day, let alone 500 brand new articles. Thanks for adding the timespans, again this shows human manual creation. I spend about an hour doing a batch, as your evidence shows, then I move onto something else. Again, if this was all magically automated, the timespans would be much longer. For each new article, I also link it to its page on Wikidata, and create redirect/dab pages for the first half of the placename as needed. And I've also been replacing links from the koyumuz site, doing about 200 in the past 24hrs. Obviously I wont be replacing that source if someone else has added it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's possible (though I note that there is relatively little variation in the time taken). But then isn't that basically WP:MEATBOT behaviour? FOARP (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

PS - also can I point out that, in spite of everything they said above about fixing things, Lugnuts is still creating these articles right now based on a bare link to a government website that does not appear to mention the "neighbourhood" they are writing about. I saw this article (and many others) just pop up at the WP:NPP feed, each with the green tick that indicates the user is auto-patrolled so no-one needs to check it. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "Muhtarliklar" tab on that page, but there's no way to link directly to the tab. It's number 61 on that page; the same place as http://www.geonames.org/745238/incecay.html. All villages in Erzurum Province are under "mahalle" ("neighbourhood") instead of "köy" in the census. Peter James (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)While I don't think creating new ones is a particularly good idea while there are still thousands of old ones that need cleaning, in the cases I looked at the neighborhood is mentioned in the linked source, it just isn't obvious: when you go to this, to the right of the map you'll see "Belediyeler (1)". To the right of this, in very pale grey, you can click on "Muhtarliklar (71)", and then a scrollable list of neighnorhoods appears. So this at least verifies their existence from a reliable source. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A link to a government website that tells you the name of the neighbourhood and literally nothing else at all about it. WP:GEOLAND explicitly says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject", and it might as well be talking about this source. FOARP (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't establish notability, but they verify that the places have the presumed notability of WP:GEOLAND. Peter James (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does the source state that these are "Populated, legally recognized places"? The guide specifically says don't use sources like this and gives a reason why ("these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject") that is both valid and definitely applies to this source, which is nothing more than a labelled map. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that simply appearing in a list meets the verifiability burden for WP:GEOLAND. We've had several instances where that assumption caused problems because an editor misunderstood the scope or purpose of the source and created thousands of articles that turned out to be GEOFAILS.

In any case, none of this guarantees a standalone article. WP:PAGEDECIDE explains that some information is better covered as part of a larger article; common sense would suggest that these "X is a village in Y district" articles could be a simple list within the district article until they can be expanded beyond stub stage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note - there are 35,000 EDIT:50,305 (thanks Peter) Mahelle/Köy (neighbourhoods/villages) in Turkey as a whole. Is the proposal really that we have an article for every single one of them that is a one-sentence permastub containing no real information? FOARP (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is really quite a larger issue than ANI. Do we need individual articles for every cricketer, every footballer, every village? Or would they be better covered in a list? I'd lean towards the latter (though I think I might be a bit biased here - I'm sure others wouldn't see the utility of 2020 Wyoming Democratic presidential caucuses). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• comment As someone who has dealt with several rounds of these geo-stubs, I am firmly opposed to any mass creation of them. There is simply too much work involved in verifying them, and too many problems are turned up in the verification. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. As a DABfixer, I find such permastubs almost useless, but would find "List of populated places in X district" articles very helpful. An editor has recently been creating well-sourced stubs about Ancient Greek archeological sites in modern Turkey. They helpfully contain coordinates, but less helpfully say "near the modern village of Y". After looking in vain at the enwiki DAB page and its trwiki equivalent (if any), where few if any of the articles have coordinates, I resort to Google Maps. Very often, none of the nearby villages has an article anywhere, and it can be a 10-20 minute struggle to determine the province let alone the district to create a redlink. Entries can always be split out of lists if there's something worth saying. Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had brought up the mass creation and the apparent unreliability of the source used at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Mass creation of village articles on 24 March. Lugnuts did not reply. Unrelated to that, two months ago I asked them to stop creating placeholder disambiguation talk pages, and I wasn't the only one to do so. That time Lugnuts did respond, but with a bizarre excuse to ignore the existing consensus that such pages shouldn't be created. If I could extrapolate from these two incidents, it appears that Lugnuts is on a mission to create as many pages as humanely possible, and when people point out problems with each endeavour, Lugnuts ignores them until the moment it blows up big at ANI. If that's the case, then this pattern definitely needs to change. Lugnuts, if there's a big inheritance waiting for you on the condition that you create 100,000 articles here, then you should come clean and the community may actually be able to help you get there in a way that doesn't involve drama.
  As for the Turkish village articles, the people with topical expertise who have commented above believe them to be notable. If that's the case, then I believe the best course of action is to locate a water-tight source of data, and then get a bot to build short articles out of that, overwriting any existing content in those microstubs. That way the unreliable sources will be replaced by reliable ones, the articles will likely get expanded with some additional information (I'm hoping for coordinates, postal codes, historic populations, etc.), and the navigational infrastructure build by Lugnuts (redirects, dab entries, wikidata links) will be preserved. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  With the tracking category that was recently added to Template:WikiProject Disambiguation there is now a good reason to create the talk pages with that template. Peter James (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I get what's going on. The talk page post about the tracking category leaves the impression it is part of a test for an unrelated module. How does that affect the (lack of) need for placeholder dab talk pages? – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  Category:Disambiguation pages not detected by Module:Disambiguation. It doesn't detect set index articles, or some redirects such as Template:Roaddis, but it's likely that they will be added eventually. There is Filter 837 but it only tags edits by new users. Peter James (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I wrote above that Lugnuts doesn't seem able to stop unless it all blows up big at ANI, but apparently even it all blowing up big at ANI isn't enough – they created another 60 microstubs just yesterday. It doesn't seem like anything short of a community sanction could help now. If there's any ban from (mass) creation, it shouldn't be restricted to articles, as that will likely only displace the problematic activities into other namespaces. – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala - I've asked this over at the Reviewer talk page but maybe someone here knows the answer: is it allowed/good practice to review your own articles? Every single one of these thousands of Koyumuz-sourced articles was self-reviewed by Lugnuts as OK. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts has the autopatrol right, articles created by users with this right don't need reviewing. (If you intended to ping me above, that didn't work: a ping gets sent if you link a user's page, but not if you link their user talk.) – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Uanfala, and yeah, sorry about the bad ping! I hadn't known that Autopatrolled also came with the right to pop a review on the talk page. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the creation of talk pages with project banners? Everybody's allowed to do that, and in fact, creators are encouraged to do that too. "Reviewing" in this context refers to the activity of WP:NPP, and unless I'm mistaken boils down to marking an article as reviewed in the Page curation log. Creations by autopatrolled editors are exempt from the need for this type of review. – Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Lugnuts mass-creation)

• Further comment. Since somehow Lugnuts is still at this creation of substubs... I think User:Dlthewave had the right idea - redirect these and create village lists in the district-level article ([26] ). If Lugnuts wants to add this data, fantastic, it can be some form of table that includes more than just a name at the already-quite-short district level articles (sure, throw in Lat/Long, population, whatever in the table too). But since Lugnuts reverted Dlthewave instead ([27]), this may somehow have come to the point of requiring actual community sanction + administrator attention, which would be ridiculous since adding information on this is great, just... not in the form of tens of thousands of stubs, but rather content for hundreds of district articles. Of course, the best and easiest solution would be for Lugnuts to simply agree and at least start with expanding the district level articles, but since he seems to be ignoring this conversation... SnowFire (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  The pages were redirected to the town (which is only a small part of the district by area and population) because there is no separate article for the district. Redirect them and they are less likely to be expanded within the list. Also the links should go to the places not to the districts they are in. Peter James (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this: there is no chance that the overwhelming majority of these units (50,000+!) will ever be expanded from the single-sentence micro-stubs that they are being created as. So, either we just say "OK, let her rip" to the creation of 50,000 or so permastubs by WP:MEATBOT copy/pasting (and can you see a consensus for doing so here?), or we actually write proper articles about the ones that are actually notable and write district articles with lists including the ones that aren't. FOARP (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You're really selling Wikipedia short and not taking cognizance of the timeframes involved. Most of them will eventually become full articles. People take pride in where they live and it natural for them to want to expand the article when they see it on Wikipedia. It is a kind of latch, that they see and stuff gets added. I've seen it time and time again, the most obscure places becoming quite well known. The dataset used may be from the government. In the UK for example, geographic data comes from one only outfit, it may be the case in Turkey. scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but the vast majority of these places contain less than 100 people. versacespaceleave a message! 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no geographic information attached to the article. That is a major component that missing for 88000 articles. If a dataset could be sought, it could be added by a bot. Even the Turkish equivalent article doesn't have the coords. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd add that if the lists were created first, then it would be very logical to mass-create the redirects to that list for all the named entries, or expand the appropriate disambiguation pages. These names are still potential search terms, and by at least directing a user to the larger geoland entity that includes them, that's reasonable and still fulfills WP's function as a gazetteer. --Masem (t) 14:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic in the slightest, it is statistical errata. No different than Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_complaint_about_Fram (which isn't actually about admin Fram despite the title) above, yet one gets a block for WP:CIR, while the other here gets defenders. ValarianB (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly different - that was not only about content, and where it was, it was about articles containing information that was not supported by the sources, this is about reliability of sources. Peter James (talk) Peter James (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of autopatrolled, creation restriction, and apparently a block, too; can't believe Lugnuts is still mass creating articles while these threads are open. I can't wrap my head around the idea of someone who can't refrain from mass creation even for a week. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of auto patrolled rights and a topic ban on creating any new articles. I politely suggested to Lugnuts that they cease creating new and questionable stubs whilst this discussion was ongoing - they have ignored me (and others here) and continue to do so. As such this is the only option - well, that or a block. GiantSnowman 14:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I've addressed the original issue, and have begun to replace the unreilable source. I haven't created any more of these today, although everything I have done is clearly within the spirit of the guidelines for populated places, and per point 1 of WP:5P. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I am basically on your side and would oppose sanctions, but I think it would be a helpful show of good faith if you were to cease stub creation while people try to figure out the proper approach here. I think you're within the spirit of the guidelines, but guidelines can change. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't created any of these stubs in the past <24 hrs or so (although I'm sure someone will say I created X location 22hrs and 55 mins ago...). I've assumed a lot of good faith from the OP's concerns, despite the two of us not seeing eye to eye. The original issue being about the reliabilty of the koyumuz source. I updated a whole batch of them earlier today, and I've said I'll work through the rest. And if I'd gone and created 10,000 taxonomy stubs, I'd probably have a talkpage full of barnstars, along with a Knighthood... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If those first replies were assuming good faith, I'ld hate to see you assume bad faith with anyone. Fram (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the article creation log just in the time since this thread opened. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That link shows that Lugnuts has created 12 stubs today alone...the fact they cannot differentiate between "those stubs" and all stubs is concerning. You cannot simply move to begin stubs about Swedish actors when somebody raises concerns about your stubs on Turkish neighbourhoods! GiantSnowman 16:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, volunteer to hand Lugnuts a barnstar for his talk page if he merely creates hundreds of list articles or otherwise expands content at the district level, with the exact same information if it's reliably sourced, rather than tens of thousands of microstubs. SnowFire (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

*Support removal of auto-patrolled rights and some sort of limit on article creation for a time period (ideally it should be voluntarily. This will give them time to properly research their article creations and will save other people's time). Lugnuts has created more than 88,000 articles, many WP:KITTENS (for me they are already enough), but watchlisting them by a single user is simply unmanageable (a nightmare). Because of overwork (possibly burnout), they behave rudely to colleagues which is not good for them as it is evident from their block log. I hope they will come strong after the limit agreed by them and will continue to benefit Wikipedia. Störm (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Strike my vote for safety reasons. I don't know if this triggered Lugnuts' thoughts (whatever that was), but I don't want to be part of this. I hope Lugnuts will accept whatever community decides here and that they will decide to stay here. Störm (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I proposed the loss of auto-patrolled rights at the last ANI thread which I started just last week on cricket articles, but apparently it's fine to mass-create cricket stubs. WP:GEOLAND is interesting, because we do want to catalogue populated places, and is probably part of the project where stubs are most welcome. However, as Mangoe said, we have to be very careful when we create these pages - US place cleanup continues and is very difficult, while article creation takes 90 seconds and is very easy. I strongly support requiring an AfC restriction and a restriction on the number of articles they can create in a day, and specifically the loss of auto-patrolled status as I suggested last week. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Some sort of strict numerical restriction. The mass-creation of Turkish places (and cricketers, and Olympic competitors, etc) would fall under WP:MASSCREATION and there is not approval for this methodically templated creation. Even if these small Turkish villages exist, it is concerning that the source used is such low quality, and thousands of substubs is inconsistent with community desires. The cricket creations continue to violate WP:SPORTCRIT: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." and "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no point to this anymore. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) Support removal of autopatrolled rights and sanctions on article creation. I'll copy-paste my comment in the Lugnuts cricket stubs thread: *Comment. I am 1000% on board with limiting mass creation of poorly-sourced BLP stubs that overwhelmingly fail at AfD (...shouldn't everyone be?). I get that articles don't need to demonstrate notability when they're first moved to mainspace, and that meeting a guideline that presumes GNG is technically fine, but come on -- if an experienced editor continues a behavior that they know is burdening the community and is genuinely considered disruptive by many, shouldn't that warrant some kind of warning? Or at least the editor's agreement to compromise or even acknowledge the problem? And I think it's just a little hypocritical to support equivalent sanctions on JPL (where there isn't even a BLP issue) using essentially identical arguments to the ones here (e.g., dozens of low-effort boilerplate contributions in a short amount of time, poor AfD track record, etc.). While I'd be disinclined to support sanctions in this case (for the same reasons people opposed them for JPL), perhaps it's worth considering something along the lines of the voluntary concessions JPL made in those most recent threads. Please also ping me whenever someone makes the proposal Levivich suggested. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not going to revert the hatting of the discussion, but this should be properly closed so it gets archived. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Break after re-opening

• I've reopened the discussion per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACEXP. It is technically not appropriate for a non-admin to force-close and collapse an entire discussion as "pointless", in which there is a potential developing consensus to revoke a user right or impose another sanction. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Entirely independently of the virtue of reopening, reopening per BADNAC seems...insensitive considering why the close happened. Closing and hatting was the only appropriate move, for anyone, at the time. Creating an incentive system where people (regardless of mops) are encouraged to leave open conversations that have had potentially horrific consequences for the people at the wrong end of them, in defiance of decency to one's fellow man, is much worse than making a close that will eventually be reversed. (We are lucky this close is reversed; it is the best of all possible outcomes.) Vaticidalprophet 04:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC) context: diff with the exact wording I objected to (very big diff, it's the last section), as Swarm softened his wording after my comment Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with your take. I have no intent to drag the closer, but it's now a week later and the close was technically improper and the discussion is in need of a formal closure as to the merits of the community's discussion, and more feedback if necessary. I have softened my wording a bit. However the NAC sections I've referenced are not meant to be some sort of condescension, they're merely the relevant principles as to why the close needs to be replaced with a formal one. My intent was to articulate a technical reasoning for reopening the discussion without prompting a rehashing of the previous closure. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The situation is still the same - Lugnuts continues to create these stubs, albeit at a reduced rate, and in order to try to sway the outcome of an AFD regarding them engaged in WP:CANVASSing of sympathetic editors (see above report for difs) and has been uncivil to the AFD nom EDIT: and to me. Despite what they say, they simply have not learned their lesson which was not only about the bad sourcing they used initially, but about the bad source (a map/table excluded by WP:GEOLAND) they were using as a replacement. Agree that the hatting, given what was known at the time, was the best course of action - this is why no-one challenged it at the time. We were all concerned for Lugnuts well-being. I think, though, that we can now look at what has happened since and see events in a new light. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Still in denial, I see - WP:6MILLION is yet another case of the community dredging up that Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge" to promote a dubious accomplishment. What does that really mean? One news article regurgitating the WMF's press release about this milestone also stated that a realistic sum of all human knowledge compromises 104 million articles. In other words, in twenty-plus years, this community has only accomplished a minute fraction of the total goal. Every time I view my watchlist, I see the reason why. Certain people show that they have tons of time for Wikipedia but are only interested in hiding out in project space, waiting for the next opportunity to pounce on someone for having the temerity to actually contribute encyclopedic content. I remember one discussion with an admin a decade ago about working towards achieving a realistic sum of all human knowledge in a particular topic area, which went nowhere because it was "too ambitious" in his opinion. In other words, in the admin view of things, we'll keep selling six million articles as "the sum of all human knowledge" because the readership will obediently accept whatever shit we shovel. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  RadioKAOS, I'm not sure that this is entirely helpful. This isn't about stopping someone from contributing encyclopedic content, this is about the very real risk that articles created using dubious sources might contain mistakes, or may even be entirely erroneous, and the simple fact that if thousands of articles are created very rapidly we have no capacity to check them for those errors. The case below demonstrates what I'm talking about - it after more than half an hour's investigation, I cannot satisfy myself that the subject of the article exists. I don't know what proportion of these articles would be similar - that's the only one I've looked at in any depth - but there is a problem here that goes beyond people looking to jump on someone.

  That being said, I'm gratified that Lugnuts has acknowledged that there may be an issue below, and I'm looking forward to hearing more on what they think. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  People may disagree on the benefit to the encyclopedia of creating several thousand articles whose content entirely consists of the sentence X is a neighbourhood in Y District of Z Province. However, people shouldn't have disagreements on the need for this content, however minimal, to be accurate. And inaccuracies are almost inevitable when an editor mass-creates content using sources in a language they have no knowledge of. Even a statement as simple as X is a neighbourhood is misleading, as the word "neighbourhood" is only one of several possible translations of the Turkish mahalle, and here it appears that those places are not neighbourhoods but villages or hamlets. – Uanfala (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Couldn't have said it better myself. versacespaceleave a message! 13:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lugnuts An editor openly bragging this much about creating nearly a hundred thousand articles might be making articles for the wrong reason. Wikipedia is not a game where you get a high score. 2001:4898:80E8:7:107:A8F3:D47E:3DD9 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source. That has been recognised by myself, and I'm working through replacing said source. I think the original stats were 4,000+ articles with that source, the number is now just over 3,000. IE I've updated 1,000+ articles since the issue was flagged up. That's it. ONE mistake with a source, which is now being fixed. Everything I create is to the letter/spirit of the relevant notability guidelines/policy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, I'm new to this issue. FOARP has flagged up Yeni, Tavas, which you created on Monday. Now, I don't speak Turkish, but when I click on the source, I see a map labelled Tavas Kaymakamlığı, and a table headed Tavas Belediyesi. Searching for the word 'Yeni' didn't give me any results, and I spent a small amount of time zooming in and out of the map and panning around, looking for the word Yeni anywhere on it, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I'm missing something, can you explain how the source supports the content of the article? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - thanks for this. If you click on the source, there's a link on the right (sort of grey'd out, but clickable) with the heading "Mutarliklar". Yeni is at the foot of that panel. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, ah, OK gotcha. So, I can see that it's listed as 47, which seems to have no coordinates related to it so the map component is putting it at 0°0° off the African coast. I'm assuming that Mutarliklar means village? (Google translate gives me nothing). GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I believe Muhtarliklar is an elongated term for Muhtar, which is head/leader of the local area. The URL has the term "mahalli-idareler" contained within it, which translates as "local administrations", and that is also the title of the third drop-down menu along the top of the page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, can we be sure from this then that there is really a village of this name? Might it not be some other sort of administration? I mean, I spent quite a bit of time looking over that map and couldn't find it (but I did find a lake called Yenidere Baraj Golu, which has got the word Yeni in it - that was the closest I could get). I can see why there might be a concern that we are making assumptions here. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeni just means "new" in Turkish, there are plenty of places / objects containing "yeni" in the name--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried a Google Maps search for Yeni in that area (like this). It is giving me lots of places called Yeni nearby, one of which seems to be a subdivision of Denizli, others seem to be parts of smaller towns and villages, others are shops and so on. None of them seem to be in the Tavas District. Lugnuts, I am really not looking to give you a hard time, but I don't see how that source verifies the existence of the subject, or the information which is in the article about it. I've spent half an hour on this now, and I'm not convinced that the village exists. Can you see why people might be concerned about creations like this, if done on mass? ​GirthSummit _(blether) 09:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I do see your point, and that's why I've stopped creating these places. But leave this one with me, I'll ask for further input about this specific place. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've asked a couple of users for more input, and they were unable to find anything more about this one location. I think it's sod's law that one was chosen! Now I created that in good faith, based on the source from the Turkish gov. site. The .tr article is also pretty weak in this case, unlike the vast majority of places I created. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for looking into this in more detail. I don't doubt for a moment that you created it in good faith, and I think that the speculation as to your motivations for creating thousands of articles are entirely inappropriate: we all edit here for our own purposes. Some people like getting barnstars, some people keep an eye on their number of edits, others compete in the Wikicup. If someone wants to top a particular list, that's entirely their own business - what matters is whether what they're doing is disruptive.

Having said that - it might be a case of sod's law, but I don't think that any article should be written in the way you did here. That source could be used to support an assertion that person X is the administrator of such and such a locale; while we can infer from that that such a locale exists, we can't say whether it's a village, a rural district, a subdivision of a town, or a proposed shopping complex that hasn't been built yet. Creating articles based on an inference with no additional sources seems intrinsically risky to me; errors like this are bound to occur, and the effort involved in verifying each and every one of thousands of articles is excessive. At a minimum, I think you ought to undertake not to create any more articles where the source implies that a subject exists but gives no more information about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GS. Agreed, and I've stopped creating these now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not one mistake though. Before you created 4000+ articles with that bad source, you created a 1000 or so(?) other Turkish villages sourced to equally problematic Yerelnet, as was mentioned already in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And call me old fashioned, but 5,000 bad articles is 5,000 mistakes. This is especially the case when, in all likelihood, someone will have to PROD/AFD/redirect them one-by-one in the face of being asked to satisfy WP:BEFORE on every single one of them. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I had written a small note to Lugnuts after they returned, expressing regret that they seemed to be caught in the middle of a larger dispute over mass stub creation. Their response after I nominated some of the stubs for deletion was "So this is quite obviously bullshit"[28], which leads me to question whether they're capable of distinguishing between a content dispute and a personal attack. This seems to be reinforced by a similar attitude from several other editors who view these nominations as some sort of attack on Lugnuts. I don't recall interacting with any of these editors previously, yet simply nominating articles for deletion was enough to trigger this:

• Rugbyfan22: Canvassing at Wikiproject Cricket - "Hi guys, we've got 10 new AfDs which just appear to be an attack on Lugnuts' articles. The one with the fewest games has played 25 games for example. Please can people take a look at them when they have time. Thanks." [29]; apparently it's inappropriate to send Lugnuts' Cricket stubs to AfD because of consensus at ANI - "The attack on Lugnuts is weird as well given the cricket related ANI closed with the consensus that he was editing within the current guidelines, which have yet to change, so there is nothing wrong with any of the articles at AfD." [30].
• Joseph2302: "These seem like bad faith nominations, especially when coupled with loads of deletions of Turkish places (also created by Lugnuts). Seems like a deletionist who's been reading ANI too much. [31]; "This editing pattern would suggest a vendetta against Lugnuts, and you seem to be jumping on the anti-Lugnuts bandwagon from the stupid ANI threads people keep raising." [32]. When I asked them to strike these personal attacks, the response was a talk page ban because "I don't like your deletionist attitude." [33].
• No Great Shaker: "As Joseph says, there is for some reason an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon on the roll." [34]

I feel like a warning, at the very least, is in order here. There's certainly a lot of opinions on mass-creation and we're not all going to agree on everything, but it really doesn't seem appropriate to accuse editors you disagree with of jumping on an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, there was an ANI previously on Lugnuts' cricket stub creations. That was closed with the view that Lugnuts was not doing any wrong because he was operating within the guidelines, which haven't changed. The 10 cricket articles that wen't to AfD were perfectly within the guidelines for creation, and all of them had played multiple games. No WP:BEFORE search had been properly done on these articles as it was very easy on some of them to find GNG material. Basically Lugnuts did nothing wrong (in terms of his cricket editing) and you just decided that his articles weren't acceptable and should be deleted. Seems like an attack to me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Nomination of those articles was out of order and entirely based on "don't like it". No Great Shaker (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was that he is allowed to mass-create those stub articles, not that they can't be taken to AfD. versacespaceleave a message! 18:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but no proper WP:BEFORE search was done on the articles as sources were found in a simple search for them. There was also suitable redirects for some of them that could have been used but ignored. I find it strange that a user that has never edited on cricket articles before, and not really on sport before, would suddenly list 10 AfDs in a matter of minutes on a subject they're not usually involved in. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was skewed by the fact many of the "opposes" were directly connected to the cricket WikiProject. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

That was likely because it was directly related to cricket and about cricket stubs. There was still a consensus and the view that proposals were to be discussed at NSPORTS, which is what's happening. But the current view is that Lugnuts' cricket articles are fine until the guidelines change, I have no idea whether his village ones are notable and am not knowledgable in that area though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is the exact same issue as cricket - only the topic has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I see it as slightly different, the Turkish villages issue was due to whether the source was reliable wasn't it, whereas the cricket one has been due to a sourcing to a statistical database. The closing of the cricket one led to the opening of the NSPORTS discussion so the closer clearly believed that although Lugnuts actions were fine, he also took into consideration the arguments about his stubs. If there's a change in the guidelines meaning he has to link to a GNG source then fine, but as the guideline has yet to change these AfDs were jumping the gun. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Which AfDs were jumping the gun? Neither the cricket articles nor the geography articles clearly pass notability guidelines on their face. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is so messed up. Are they even allowed to do that? versacespaceleave a message! 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Remarkable given you made this comment at AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer mm...is making thousands upon thousands of permanent stub articles to make it to the top of this list not wretched? versacespaceleave a message! 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: I have no idea why you pinged me specifically, but your remark is pretty clearly WP:UNCIVIL. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Is it wretched or not? And I clarified what I meant by the statement right next to that statement. versacespaceleave a message! 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: ahhh i pinged the wrong person. meant to ping Rugbyfan22. the latter statement is still directed to sporting.. versacespaceleave a message! 21:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. You could have also hidden or removed the comment when you made your apology but you've decided to leave it there at the top of the discussion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: If you felt there was a conduct issue on my part, why did you think it best to post at a Wikiproject instead of, say, ANI? Did it cross your mind that this may be percieved as canvassing? –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I decided as it was the first time you were involved in AfDs like this that at the time it didn't warrant taking any further. I messaged you on your talk page about the quantity of AfDs, and since there haven't been anymore. I then discussed CRICKET AfDs on the CRICKET WikiProject with other cricket editors (who are likely to be interested in them, especially due to the number of AfDs we're getting at the moment). Given they will all be listed on the project anyway in the task box, i'm not sure it's canvassing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment since this was re-opened. I was just a random passerby on ANI and had zero stake in the outcome, and am a random passerby once more. But... "The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source" from Lugnuts - this is not the case, okay? There were multiple concerns raised, of which unreliable source was just one. This is a fundamental matter of content organization afoot here as well. Lugnuts, as I said before, it's great that you want to add this information, but adding it over literally tens of thousands of one-sentence stubs is not the way it should be added. It's impossible to maintain. If somebody vandalizes one of these articles, will you be paying attention to revert it? If you want to add this information, you can keep the exact same content in some sort of List of populated places in XYZ district that creates a section for each one. Wouldn't it be simpler to defuse this whole debate by just doing it that way, as multiple editors have requested above? You've still done your good deed of adding the exact same information to Wikipedia, it will still be inviting for others to expand on, it will be marginally maintainable. I find it baffling that this debate has continued when such an easy, obvious fix exists - "both sides" should be happy. SnowFire (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"If somebody vandalizes one of these articles, will you be paying attention to revert it?" - Yes. Everything I create is on my watchlist. It's a very weak case to say "don't create it, someone might vandalise it!" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not monitor hundreds of list articles instead, though? If you really prefer the tens-of-thousands-of-separate-articles solution, I would like to see a specific case for what individual articles are doing that a list article can't, because I suspect that is fixable. Mentioned it at the AFD, but in the realm where we believe that there's lots of room for expansion, something like User:SnowFire/List of mahalle in Aziziye should work fine - just as inviting for random good-faith contributors to click the "edit section" button rather than the "edit article" button.

Also, to be clear, I'm not worried about childish vandalism that gets zapped by bots anyway, and ignored by any sane human if not automatically caught. I'm worried about subtle, harder to notice false information that requires a real human checking the diff, and ideally knowing the topic. If somebody edits in that a particular town has been plagued by a high crime rate ever since non-Kurds started moving out, we need someone who's going to check the source and see if this is just sectarian garbage, or if it's real. That takes time, and ideally knowing Turkish. SnowFire (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are a lot of people complaining because they don't like Lugnuts or the topics of his article creations. I see only one issue that would justify administrative action: Lugnuts creating articles faster than they can be discussed at AFD. If Lugnuts slows down page creations substantially, ensures multiple non-database references for creations, or gets prior affirmative consensus to pre-empt AFD threads, there shouldn't be any issue. If Lugnuts cannot do any of those, a per-day article creation limit will be needed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  There are a lot of people complaining because they don't like Lugnuts or the topics of his article creations – I can't claim to know people's motivations, but I believe this statement, 力, is clearly incorrect. Some of the participants critical of Lugnuts were active in the discussions that led to the AN case for the Iranian villages, and probably ended up examining Lugnut's recent spate of creations while following this trail. As for me, I haven't had interactions with Lugnuts other than the ones I've mentioned above, and I definitely want to see the topic area developed – above I've expressed support for a bot task to create content on all these places (and more), and that's already a stance that's more inclusionist than most.
  And as SnowFire pointed out above, there were numerous problems with Lugnut's behaviour. Here are five – they were mass-creating stubs on a large scale without consensus (1), in a topic area they have no expertise in (2), using often unreliable (3) sources in a language they don't speak (4), and that they kept at it even after various people had raised issues with that or asked them to stop (5). #2–4 may have been excusable on their own, but their combination with #1 meant the problem was big, and it's because of #5 that the issue couldn't be resolved without coming to ANI. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• There was a point at time where article creation was occurring faster than they could be discussed at AfD, and that point in time was as recent as the day this thread was closed. Lugnuts continues to create articles at a rapid clip, too, albeit not as quickly as they were - today, they've created seven articles, including two cricket stubs sourced only to CricInfo that will probably have to go to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sanity break

Lugnuts has said above "Thanks GS. Agreed, and I've stopped creating these now.". So long as this is a voluntary agreement to stop mass-creating stubs, or at least Geostubs (and it would be good to have clarity as to what exactly is being agreed to) without first getting consensus to create, and it is stuck to, I think most people would be happy with this and we can all just move on. Agreed? FOARP (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be content to take Lugnuts at their word and move on. I'll restate that no one should be creating articles about any subject based on a single source that name checks that subject, but doesn't tell you what it is. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Policy for creating stubs

 Administrator note I left this section open (separate from the close above) as I believe this discussion is badly needed. However it's not a discussion that requires admin attention, and should probably be moved elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Policy for creating stubs

 – Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Citation bot "fixing" non-deprecated parameters

Edits such as this fly in the face of stuff like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_request_for_"Citation_Style_1_parameter_naming_convention"_RfC. Considering a similar task by Monkbot was suspended pending the outcome of that RfC, I strongly suggest someone do something about the bot until this non-consensus task can be deactivated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smith609: Your bot. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

He's abrogated responsibility for CB—he's edited once this year and his last 50 edits go back 13 months—someone else may have taken over the operation. Echoing @Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan:. ——Serial 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question is not cosmetic. It removed |ref=harv, thereby removing a redundant parameter and a tracking category. The RFC close linked above specifically says any editor should feel free to manually or semi-automatically change unhyphenated parameters into their hyphenated forms while they're doing something else on a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The close is clearly challenged so please don't do any action based on that until it is resolved. Removing ref=harv doesn't change anything display wise, and anyway that does not justify changing the hyphenated parameters. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as BAG here, it has long been held that if there is a non-cosmetic edit made to a page, there is zero issue with other cosmetic edits being made at the same time. The RFC does not overturn this precedent. It has also been held that tracking parameters (and thus the removal/fixing of them) is not considered cosmetic. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As a way to test the bot, I ran it on this version of Geotextile, which has the empty unknown parameter |coauthors= and instances of |accessdate=. The bot conservatively refused to make any changes to the article. RandomCanadian, if you find an actual bug in this bot's behavior, there is a place to report it at the bot's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Output from the bot on Geotextile. Note that it recommended a list of changes and then decided not to take action. [19:07:50] Processing page 'Geotextile' — edit—history >Remedial work to prepare citations ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~Renamed "last" -> "last1" ~Renamed "first" -> "first1" ~Unrecognised parameter accessdate ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~Unrecognised parameter accessdate ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) >Consult APIs to expand templates >Checking that DOI 10.1088/1468-6996/16/3/034605 is operational... DOI ok. >Using pubmed API to retrieve publication details: >Found match for pubmed identifier 27877792 >Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from URLs. >Expand individual templates by API calls >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... no results. nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Remedial work to clean up templates >No changes required.

@Primefac: I may be mistaken here, but "accessdate" at the moment doesn't generate tracking parameters (you mean tracking categories?) and doesn't need fixing. "Cosmetic edits" are only allowed if they are considered genfixes, not whatever cosmetic edit one likes (e.g. changing whitespace in headers or in lists to your liking is not allowed in bot edits, even if you make other substantial edits at the same time). I wouldn't be allowed to change "access-date" to "accessdate" if I did an AWB run with something substantial in it (and rightly so), and there is no reason why the reverse would be acceptable either. So I don't see why you defend this edit, it doesn't seem to match the "allowed" parameters. Fram (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot continues doing this[35], even though it shouldn't according to its own documentation: both "accessdate" and "access-date" are in the CS1 whitelist[36]; which should guide the bot. The Github list they use[37] also doesn't seem to make this change. So why does it do this? No idea. If the bot owner isn't available, shutting down the bot until this is corrected may be wanted. Something like this is a purely cosmetic edit (removing one empty parameter plus converting lots of accessdates), which no bot should make. Fram (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I've had pointless changes of |accessdate= to |access-date= and similar turn up in my watchlist. It's a WP:TIMESINK to check them, even without spending time wondering "Why?" This is a WP:NOTBROKEN-like "fix". Narky Blert (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The edits reported by Fram appear to have been caused in error by a recent code change that has been debugged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation bot is still making the replacement even though it isn't in the accepted list of replacements: [38]. Fram (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Neko-chan owns those edits, Fram. ——Serial 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're implying I have some sort of control over what changes the bot does beyond my pointing it at a page or category, I don't. I also was unaware of the dispute over the hyphen until this ping just now --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 14:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is CitationBot, not any individual editor using it[39]. Citationbot needs to be changed or blocked. Fram (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point it's just time to make a clear declaration that unilaterally removing these parameters is disruptive editing. We wouldn't allow someone to mass-change all instances of color to colour without consensus, and as a comparison WP:CITESTYLE says Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. Just like there are expectation not to change English variations or citation style just because you like it better, that should also apply to template parameters when both are optional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a beautiful code contest. Widespread changes of non-deprecated parameters with no clear consensus to do that is disruptive editing and accomplishes nothing productive. Hog Farm _Talk 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User Vilmeenkodi

Vilmeenkodi (talk · contribs) has over several years added content to specific pages related to the Malayalam language - unreferenced, original research material. The user also tries to present unreliable historical primary sources like Keralalpathi as reference sources. The user received multiple warnings and final warnings for creating this type of content (1, 2, 3) which don't seem to bother them at all. I personally don't believe the user is here to create encyclopedic content or that they really understand what an encyclopedia is and it has become tiresome to revert their edits.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The user is right now busy spamming talk pages related to Malayalam with original research content to discuss (?). Talk:Old Malayalam/Talk:Malayalam. 1, 2, 3, 4 ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE promoting weird OR and wacky nonsense (such as the claim that the Nepalese language was introduced in the southern state of Kerala in the 19th century). There's no other way to put it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban. h 13:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page block for user:170.78.161.22

170.78.161.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Also needs a talkpage block. --FF-11 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI is probably not the best place to put this, but the IP has been blocked already so it doesn't really matter now. (Non-administrator comment) h 13:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Shortscircuit at LowTierGod

Shortscircuit (talk · contribs)
LowTierGod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Shortsitcuit registered his account solely to request speedy deletion of an article created, vetted, and published through the WP:Articles for Creation process, then deleting major article content and turning the page into a WP:Battleground after failing. Given the subject's nature as a controversial figure, I've requested page protection. Further, given this user's particular history (seemingly using his IP to sockpuppet) and making one innocuous edit before diving into the battleground, this user is clearly personally invested in the article's deletion and may be the subject himself. A WP:Topic ban may be in order. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

BananaYesterday, whether or not Shortscircuit has a COI or is socking here, those appear to be good edits. The article is supported by numerous sources considered unreliable by WP:VG/RS, like Event Hubs, Niche Gamer, Game Skinny, One Angry Gamer, etc. Much of the content was unsourced as well. Any content about living persons needs to be supported by high-quality reliable sources, and this isn't it. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For me there is a big concern that this editor is calling good faith edits vandalism in his edit summaries. that isn't helping the matter along with his unwillingness to use the talk page to hash things like that out. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

JohnnyFiveHole, I agree that Shortscircuit needs to stop reverting and calling people vandals, and to use the Talk page. But you should consider not restoring WP:BLP violations as well. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The subject of the page LowTierGod is a person with a large troll community. There have been trolls vandalising the page by adding false and malicious statements and claims about the subject. These statements added to the article by trolls have no valid references for backup. Some statements have "references" that actually do not contain what is claimed in the article. I removed these statements. The trolls are reverting the changes and claiming that it was "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortscircuit (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This above statement (which is a copy/paste of the user's recent edit summaries) is what I imagine the above user is referring to (User:JohnnyFiveHole). Removing what you think isn't reliably sourced? Please, do so and talk about it at the talk page. Calling everything you remove an instance of vandalism and those who added it trolls? Absolute nonsense and WP:Bad faith. There have been demonstrable instances of vandalism on the page, which I and others have reverted myself, but tellingly none of them have been reverted by this new account who is deriding others' contributions. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortscircuit, calling editors "trolls" or their edits "vandalism" are both considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, so please stop that. See WP:VANDAL if you have any questions. These appear to be good faith edits, though they do fall short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

we definitely need to rewrite certain parts of the article, especially the part about the cult following. i am working on that now. I do think shortsircuit now just violated 3rr and edit war policy. JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JohnnyFiveHole, User:Woodroar I am willing to hash it out in the talk page of the article. The main thing about these contested edits is that references and sources are nowhere to be found. If you look at the references given for these statements, the references themselves actually do not contain the information that are being added to the article. In other words, there are no actual sources for these edits. I read through all of the provided "references" to check. Not to mention these sources are not very well known or reputable. If you consider the nature of these contested edits, it is quite possible that these edits are made in bad faith. This is also considering that the subject of this article has a large community of internet trolls. I also just want to point out that I was not the one who started using the word "vandalism" first. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

that's definitely not true for everything you've been deleting... i see new sources being added for subject name for example but you kind of keep getting lost in the big picture and reverting new edits that try to add content with reputable source... this is why the general tenor of you edit warring and violating 3rr with your new account is so problematic. i'm not trying to insult you or anything but talking about who said "vandalism" first is kind of childish and i only asked for page protection about vandalism in relation to ip edits calling him "chicken legs" and other things... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some of the edits made by other people (such as Greyjoy - 10:23, 9 April 2021 and also Arjayay - 12:24, 9 April 2021) are good edits. For example Greyjoy actually added a reference for the subject name. Unfortunately, User:BananaYesterday subsequently made his own edits/reverts, specifically, he made the contested edits. Just to be clear, I am not talking about good faith edits like 10:23, 9 April 2021. I am talking about bad faith edits that have no actual (accurate) references. For example, people were adding names like "aka Chicken Legs", fake birth dates, and even another name. These claims/statements had no actual referencing. Just from edits like these, you can see there are certain people trying to add unfounded and negative edits to the page. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you've returned to this page. I never called you a vandal (while you demonstrably have attacked me as such, including on the article's talk page). I did say that I fear you have a WP:Conflict of interest given that you made this account and immediately turned the page into a WP:Battleground, which I was not alone in being startled by. --BananaYesterday (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You did indeed call me a vandal. When you first reverted my edit of the page, in your edit summary you wrote "revert vandalism"... this was the first time either of us mentioned "vandalism" Shortscircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

i would add that for me it makes it hard not to see shortsircuit's edits as coming from a conflict of interest given that he requested speedy deletion twice before calling you a vandal for making the page at all... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

All the editors working on this article must familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons because they are obligated to follow that policy. Do not accuse people of vandalism lightly. That's disruptive. Do not accuse someone of having a conflict of interest based on speculation and without providing solid evidence. It is not COI to support deleting an article and then to work to eliminate BLP violations if the article is kept. Good editors do that all the time. The source for every statement in that article should be checked for reliability and then whether the source actually supports the statement. Every statement that fails that test should be swiftly removed. Restoring contested unreferenced or poorly referenced content to a BLP is a policy violation. I checked one statement and found that the source does not back up the statement. Nowhere close. I noted that at Talk: LowTierGod along with a BLP policy warning. So, all of you interested in that article: please work together to clean it up and do it promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have continued checking this BLP, and it is riddled with unreferenced or poorly referenced assertions, which I have tagged. What a mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree, the page is a mess of fan cruft and poor references, there's something to be salvaged, but it's a mess to clean. And am I the only one amused between a discussion with Shortscircuit and JohnnyFiveHole? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made some deep cuts to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cullen³²⁸ for responding to my Edit Request. Much of the article has been fixed. There are just a couple of other lingering issues about the article, which I have detailed in the article's Talk page (badly sourced assertion for birth name, long term protection for article). Shortscircuit (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have had to block two editors for violating WP:DOX on the article talk page and have requested oversight. More administrator eyes on this article would be helpful. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I won't pretend to try to evaluate the sources for this, as they seem to me, based on what we accept as reliable for most topics, to be completely unreliable but it appears that those who follow this topic area consider them to be reliable. I would remind Shortscircuit that the place to discuss deletion is WP:AFD, and would remind everyone that acceptance at WP:AFC does not protect an article against deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeated breaches of WP:5P4 by VersaceSpace

VersaceSpace joined the site on 1 December 2020 and has made nearly 1,700 edits. On 7 December, he was blocked indefinitely for vandalism after this edit. However, he apologised immediately and was reinstated. His talk page has attracted several other complaints and warnings that he nearly always deleted until he was warned about it recently.

On 3 April, the editor breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with an unwarranted and disrespectful reference to Lugnuts. He was warned about this by Celestina007, to whom he was also rude and disrespectful – see here and here. He joined the ANI about Lugnuts on 8 April but his edit there was one of those suppressed. Only ten minutes later, he made this edit at AFD which casts a scurrilous aspersion on Lugnuts' motives as an editor. He was asked a few hours later to retract but did not respond. Instead, he later repeated the aspersion here (btw, it seems he pinged the wrong person there). His edit at the Shahid Ilyas‎ AFD has also been condemned by both AssociateAffiliate and myself but there has been no response to either of us.

Action needs to be taken against this editor for his disrespectful behaviour and I have brought the case to ANI for that reason, but there is also a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. Could you please let me know if you want me to outline that case here or take it separately to SPI? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I would comment that VersaceSpace appears very confident for such a new user, and very ready to correct others for someone who already has a block log. However, I can't see justification for another block at this moment. I would suggest that a watching brief is adequate. Deb (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker thanks for the ping. I find this user very uncivil, though my condemnation of his comment wasn't exactly civil back!!! I do wonder though given an obvious vendetta against Lugnuts by VersaceSpace and Dlthewave an SPI might be warranted, just given the similairty in their behaviour and general uncivilness? StickyWicket (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: @No Great Shaker: @Deb: hi. Thanks for noticing my confidence, I guess. I don't believe the vandalism should've been brought up because I had not made any good contributions at that point? I want to respond to the sockpuppetry accusations first. Me and that editor have completely different interests. I enjoy editing things related to Doja Cat, and other female rappers and singers, among other topics. I don't know nor care what the other editor likes, but it's certainly not that. I have other things to do, so I'll address the other things later. versacespaceleave a message! 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deb beat me to it, FWIW I have always been able to tell a new editor from a banned/blocked editor evading their block by virtue of their Tone and I too believe the editor to be too bold for a relatively new editor. I do not see the incivility issues to be too egregious as to warranting a block. But if there are suspicion of sock puppetry (which I believe may be at play here) then an WP:SPI should be launched at the appropriate venue. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like an outright admission of sockpuppetry because I haven't said a word anywhere about my suspicions. Doja Cat, however, is certainly part of the evidence. I will go to SPI and thanks for that advice, Celestina. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for logging this NGS. The personal attack against me certainly raised a red-flag, and at best (for them), it's highlighted this to the community. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: what??? looking through the user's edits I see no edits to Doja Cat. I only said what I enjoy editing because that editor does not edit those topics, contrary to me. versacespaceleave a message! 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you go to SPI where you will see that User:Billiekhalidfan and User:Dojazervas are the suspect accounts. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. I've replied there. versacespaceleave a message! 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I'm gonna fully respond now, I planned to do it before but the SPI case distracted me. I want to formally apologize to @Lugnuts: for calling them/their edits wretched, and I'm also sorry for the non-apology that came after that remark. It was lousy. All of my !votes at deletion venues should be based on policy and mine was not. I also have no vendetta against the user, and I only am aware of him because of his constant stub creation, which I still object to.

No Great Shaker says that I received a lot of warnings which I "always almost removed". Until a while ago I would clear my talk page instead of archiving it. Rookie mistake. The only warning I've deleted since then is one by @Celestina007: who also deleted my messages from her talk page. I didn't want them to send messages on my talk page because it was the same vice versa. After they noticed that I deleted the warning, they came back to my talk page and basically tried to "gotcha!" me, saying that "removing warnings from your talk page, means you have acknowledged, and read the message. So the next time you refer to anyone as “wretched” or engage in any egregious personal attack, your next warning would commence from a level 2". I really had no intention to call someone wretched again, so I think this message was unnecessary. Also, I question how them calling my existence here "inconsequential" and calling me inexperienced (which is true, but they said it as an insult) is civil. I don't like how Celestina brought "tone" into this discussion when their tone in edit summaries deleting my messages were things like "get your inexperienced self off my talk page" and "be gone". Is that civil too? I'm not making an accusation, simply asking how that doesn't break the same rules they continue to bring up.

My "asperations on Lugnuts motives", and I quote myself, "I won't make any accusation but I think everyone can kind of see the reason why these exist, and it may not be because the author wants to constructively write about Azizkye". I do believe this and that's why I didn't strike through the !vote. I didn't respond to the request by User:No Great Shaker to strikethrough because FOARP had responded and I was in agreement with their response, so I saw no need to say anything.

Keep in mind, none of these users ever came to my talk page except for Celestina who for some reason assumed right off the bat that I would commence this behavior again. Besides that, nothing because, as User:No Great Shaker suggests, I do not reply. I had dropped the stick. versacespaceleave a message! 20:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace, please do not drag me into your mess which you continually create. What i said was that I am not watching your page because your presence here was inconsequential to me (and still is I might add) but with the emphasis on to me and not in general as you are trying to imply so please quit with the lies. Right here is evidence to substantiate what I just stated. Please once again do not bring me into your mess, some of us are actually trying to focus on protecting the integrity of the collaborative project and abhor drama especially this sought of drama. Celestina007 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I never gave context as to what you meant by what you said, because it's irrelevant, and it's still an insult, no matter how you angle it, and you said yourself that insults were a violation of WP:NPA (something i didn't concur with until you told me so). I'm not dragging you into any issues, you spoke here first (which is a good thing, just clearly not me dragging you into my problems). Be mindful that I didn't create this thread, and I'm left to defend myself, so I'm stuck in a position where I can't win at all if you simply label it as "drama". versacespaceleave a message! 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• As an aside, No Great Shaker just posted this comment on a cricket AfD, which is also a breach of WP:CIVIL. Not sure if an interaction ban will be necessary pending the sockpuppet review (CU came back unlikely.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've answered this "aside" at the AFD page. Apparently, it is a breach of core policy to request that a sysop should investigate hounding and insults within that AFD. What a strange place Wikipedia is, if that should be so. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Who is VerspaceSpace? versacespaceleave a message! 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't drag out this drama by questioning an obvious typo that you perfectly well know was meant to be your name. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If finding a typo funny is perpetuating drama then..yikes. I never refuted that he was talking about me. versacespaceleave a message! 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace, just like @Ferret said, please don’t escalate the drama, you knew all well & good that they were referring to you. I vividly remember telling tell you to “mature up”. Apparently you didn’t listen. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: wait? but you did this exact thing? take a look at the edit summaries here. word for word, bar for bar versacespaceleave a message! 01:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

in fact, i only said this because you did! if you can say this certainly i can too. or do the rules not apply to everyone? versacespaceleave a message! 01:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've struck my comment at the Shahid Ilyas AfD. It's clear this ANI is not going anywhere, and neither is the SPI filed against me (where CheckUser has concluded it's possible/unlikely that I'm connected to the account, I assume that means it's inconclusive). My apology to Lugnuts has not drawn any response from him or the other cricket editors, so at this point I just want to get over it. I shouldn't have to have this stuff lingering over my head if there's been little to no discussion on it for a while now. versacespaceleave a message! 14:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FleurDeOdile

If you look at FleurDeOdile's talk page, it is cluttered with warnings, mostly about edit warring over images. Fleur has already been blocked three times, but refuses to listen to any warnings, blocks, or editors. There have been about ten discussions on WP:AN3RR about this. I think an indefinite or long (longer than 3 months) block is warranted. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I don't think WT:WPTC is the right venue for this. Perhaps you might like to try WP:ANI instead. Chlod (say hi!) 11:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is telling me not to go to "the drama boards", but all right. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate: After each of the three blocks, FleurDeOdile has immediately reverted (in both ways) back to his/her original behavior, and many users are fed up with this. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Convenience link to user: FleurDeOdile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~ i haven't yet looked at their contribs, but i find it easier to do so if there's a link here, so i assume others probably do, too; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to give background IG, I have been personally fed up with this user's behavior involving edit wars related to tropical cyclones. He has been warned numerous times about edit wars, breaking 3RR, etc and gives unconstructive, rude/snarky edit summaries to people (numerous of which were new and inexperienced to some of the policies on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones!) after reverting them which is violating WP:CIVIL. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.

This behavior has also leaked onto Wikimedia Commons simply giving poor feedback and deleting images with reasoning that its "low quality", or that it doesn't look good, which is purely subjective off his opinion. An example would be him requesting deletion of someone's image they probably put effort into here because he simply did not like it. THeres many more examples of this too if you check his Commons and his main account here's contributions. He has shown no change after being blocked and has even gone on personal attacks towards me off-wiki, such as telling me to leave the WikiProject i'm in because I tried to reason with him over an image (not to say that is punishable on this platform). There's probably more others can add, certainly. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the edits themselves ~ they are entirely outside the realm of mine interests or experience. I will say, though, regarding the behaviour, that i have gone through the contributions back to 1 February, about sixty edits or so; of those, thirteen have been reverted, which is perhaps a little high, maybe an indication of edit-warring, but i don't see multiple reverts back and forth on the same article. I also see a couple of rude-ish edit summaries, though nothing i would block over (i mean, were i an admin; obviously, i'm not). I do not see anything like what Hurricaneboy23 mentions, suggesting that the latter leave the project. All in all, FleurDeOdile, i would suggest you tone down your summaries and ensure you're not even occasionally rude, and be sure not to edit war; i don't see any behaviour rising to the level of making an ANI report necessary; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@LindsayH: There is some back-and-forth editing at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season. I would also like to add that @FleurDeOdile: should provide better edit summaries than simply saying an image is "low quality." If there is something wrong with an image, then there should be a comment about that specific problem. Simply continuing to revert without elaborating about what makes an image "low quality" isn't going to help. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In the past 150 edits to 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, FleurDeOdile has edited three times, each of which seems useful and doesn't seem to have been reverted; that's scarcely "back-and-forth". I agree with the need for better edit summaries ~ by all editors: In the same past 150, there are only 30 with a summary. Again, i'm not seeing anything requiring an ANI report; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary of this diff shows that Fleur wasn't even trying to discuss. "Original was better" seems to me like a sign of WP:NOTHERE. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And in this case, if the user FleurDeOdile reverted was a new user, Fleur could have driven them out of Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat, TornadoLGS, and Hurricaneboy23: Just Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. As @LindsayH: has said there is nothing in @FleurDeOdile: recent contributions that mean that they should be blocked from editing wiki and you guys are just trying to cause a bit of drama when there isnt really any to be had! Jason Rees (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jason here. It's kind of annoying that some WPTC members always have a knife pointed at some other member's throat. Perhaps we could... write some more articles? Anything more productive than this. Chlod (say hi!) 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring animals' rights advocate

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

---

• NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cruelty to animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NunhumanAnimalAutonomy is edit warring to include unsourced fringe advocacy material to Cruelty to animals. I've tried engaging on their talk page, and on mine, and on the article talk page, but they insist that their changes must remain on the grounds that In this special case - ethics far outweighs Wikipedia 'guidelines'. I considered reporting to WP:AN3, but given their complete lack of any engagement with the reasons I've given them for reverting, I don't think they are here for the right reasons, but I'm not going to block myself since I have been the one reverting them. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no edit war, User:Girth Summit reverted my contributions without any discussion beforehand, so I undid the revert before responding on his talk page. I have not added any "fringe" advocacy material, all edits are absolutely factual and valid.

Clearly this is a case of conflicting opinions regarding the subject. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You may want to read up on both WP:POV and WP:COI. Girth is correct that to continue in the direction you're going will likely result in a block. — Ched (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@NonhumanAnimalAutonomy: You absolutely did add fringe material, including this bizarre bit of WP:OR. Given that I can see you've reverted on that article 3 times now, and also once on Template:Animal rights sidebar, I'd say this is pretty unambiguous edit warring. — Czello 13:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Believe what you will, it does not alter reality. The article has been reverted for the last time. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Believe what you will, it does not alter reality

Take your own advice. Girth Summit doesn't require YOUR approval to keep the status quo, and you WERE edit-warring, period/full stop. It's YOUR burden -- like EVERY editor's burden -- to get consensus for any major changes AND provide evidence for them. Even YOU admit that your attempt redefine the word "person" runs afoul of reality and that the organization you were promoting is attempting to change that. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The reported editor is clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and should be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The matter is closed. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In what respect? If you mean that you will not be editing the article anymore, fine, but your clear and obvious COI and POV goes substantially further than that. If you mean that somehow you've waved your hand and no one will look for the droids any more, you're sadly mistaken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

...or, they could be referring to the "retired" banner they put on their user talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• This thread can be closed with no action because the user in question has taken retirement. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)j

Retirement isn't really something for 1 day old accounts. The user has been blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE based on RGW and BLP violations requiring REVDEL EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:WritingGold's consistent revision of articles showcasing a pattern of a WP:AGENDA

This user being reported onto the incident board has, at random sequences per their contribution history, made attempts to revise information pertaining to an organization which it appears they may have some connection to. Recently, they have opted to remove well-cited and appropriately cited information pertaining to the history of the United Pentecostal Church International, considering it unsubstantiated; on the other hand, the sources from a Christian newspaper and a local paper appear to show otherwise. Is this an attempt to sweep certain information under the guise of faithful contributing to Wikipedia, as was done prior by other unrelated contributors now blocked for appearing to do the same with the J. Delano Ellis article? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

TheLionHasSeen, don't you think you might have discussed the changes with them somewhere, and any possible affiliation with the subject, before making your way here? These user has all of 17 edits, none of them vandalism or obvious spam - coming straight here seems premature to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sudipto Surjo - template disruption, unilateral page moves and disregard for collaboration

Sudipto Surjo (talk · contribs) is an editor with a high edit rate, yet has been predominantly disruptive over the past several weeks. With a penchant for editing media franchise articles, Sudipto Surjo has moved hundreds of popular articles, without engaging in any prior (or post) discussion. That doesn't even address the out-of-scope addition of templates to incomprehensibly vague associations. I mean, who could forget John Wilkes Booth's stunning presence in National Treasure 2? Likewise, they have made irrational edits to templates, with the biography-oriented ones including acting credits and the media franchise ones including their creators/directors/stars in the headers - then, after they're reverted, he waits to change them back. This editor has been warned about their behavior to an egregious extent, with some cases of two or more final warnings listed by different editors in immediate sequence. However, Sudipto Surjo has opted to respond by deleting the warnings, acting coy - and even editing the warnings to make other editors appear unreasonable or foolish. I have linked up some specific incidents, but if you take a peek at their contributions, you will see literally several thousand of these uncollaborative edits, one after another, after another. Sudipto Surjo was previously blocked by Rosguill in October 2020 for this behavior, but appears to be regressing once more. There can only be so many dismissed final warnings before this needs to be firmly addressed. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no question that this conduct merits at least a temporary block. Deb (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

While I wait for some insight from the subject, I instead see some interesting edits being made to Seth Brundle, Template:Jeff Goldblum and The Fly (film series), before my very eyes. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Multiple warnings either ignored or engaged disruptively (re-writing someone's comment with entirely new prose, even!). Likely competence issues that will need to be corrected. El_C 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I also 95% certain that Sudipto Surjo is yet another sockpuppet of User:Aledownload. See Interaction Analyzer with one of the latest socks. I need to get round to either filing an SPI or just blocking for the clear quacking. Canterbury Tail talk 12:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In my view, Interaction Analyzer data has to be super-obvious to be in any way helpful. But otherwise, a 95 percent certainty would be enough for me to indeff over. El_C 14:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerning conduct of 87.71.163.21

87.71.163.21 (talk · contribs) actions are very concerning. This diff clearly show that they are threatening other users, while their edit summaries here are full of concerning remarks. The nature of their edits as well are disruptive. SunDawn (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A boilerplate extended block of the IP range is in order. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

He's back with a new IP: [40] EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

66.181.168.82 (talk · contribs) also shown similar behavior. SunDawn (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

81.29.28.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well, blocked. They change IPs faster than I clean up their shit and protect the pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• 121.177.37.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) one more EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I believe all known IPs have been blocked and all known pages have been protected, waiting for the new ones.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, this is Nate Speed. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.

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

---

Last month Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked then unblocked after making personal attacks against a user and admin active on controversial gender-related topics. Their unblock seemed to rest on the assumption that they would focus on association football articles and refrain from personal attacks specifically. However, they recently made a very non-AGF comment toward the same user at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. When I learned of the previous block, I notified the blocking admin on St. H. T. D. C. & A.'s talk page. St. H. T. D. C. & A. then started blanking talk page comments [41][42] and making a series of bizarre user talk page moves seemingly to try to cover their tracks (e.g.: [43]) Bringing this to ANI because St. H. T. D. C. & A. has since resumed their attacks against their origninal target. Note that they were notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area already. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a candidate for indeffing as NOTHERE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Very disrespectful of you to make the assumption I did the page blanks to cover my tracks. I actually did the first one by mistake (meant to be a test edit) so I tried to redirect it back but I missed the last period at the end of my name so I fooled around with it a little. More evidence that I'm not trying to hid it is that I can provide you the conversation right now.

Potential violation of unblock conditions

@Floquenbeam: I see you unblocked this user on the condition that they refrain from attacking a specific user regarding gender issues. In their unblock request they stressed that they just wanted to edit football articles. Recently they made a very non-AGF comment toward the same user at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. Would this justify re-blocking? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Well I just wanted to talk about the sources, I wasn't calling anyone bad or anything. And if you see my contributions. Like literally 99.9% of my contributions are football articles. I'm fulfilling my promises and also, am planning on creating a new football article 2022 in association football so I think I'm doing fine. Mohammad (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Hey! That was my thousandth edit! Awesome! Mohammad (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Also didn't I do that del thing you taught me how to do? I don't get why this is still an issue. I followed your directions, and by my contributions, I am doing a lot of good work and help with a lot of articles! Mohammad (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you had previously been blocked for making personal attacks, which puts your comments in a much different light. Being a productive editor overall doesn't give anyone a license to make snarky comments about other editors. You were already notified about discretionary sanctions in this topic area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Did you forget about what we were talking about before. That I was talking about the source and not the person? What happened to that? Mohammad (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: There is no way they will ban me over this. I haven't even done anything. 1. I said before that I am interesting in editing football articles in Wiki. And if you even bothered checking my edits, that's what I've been doing. 2. I refrain from attacking people regarding gender issues. I have never attacked anyone after the unblock. What you are sourcing is absolutely ridiculous and BAFFLES ME because we had a discussion like just an hour ago that I wasn't attacking the person, and that I was directing that at the source. 3. That is one of the only non-football related edit I've done and it was on the talk page not the article even. 4. I know it says "you" but as our discussion before we both know I was talking to the source. I would've edited it but it's against the rules. You told me to just put the delete (or slash) mark on it. Which I did. So I don't know why you are still bringing this up. 5. Previously (how I was blocked) I was seriously attacking someone (literally going on their talk page) and saying bad things. This is nowhere near that. 6. As you can see from my user page. I created a deleted article, an article, and looking to create another. I'm not here to hate and this is a mostly-sport Wiki account. That's the stuff I'm interested in. If I see an issue or a typo in a different article, I will bring it up or fix it. If I say I'm focused on football articles means I can't conversate with someone about a different article. 7. That was the only other non-sport article I have ever edited (from what I remember) since the unblock (unless it was a typo). There is absolutely no reason I should be blocked. I would've said more reasons but I forgot what I was going to say. Mohammad (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You may want to review the First Rule of Holes. We'll see what the blocking admin has to say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @Sangdeboeuf: Only reason I'm explaining like this is that I thought our previous conversation was resolved so I deleted it. I delete all resolved conversations on my talk page. It was resolved until a few hours later you out of nowhere tried to ban me. Mohammad (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given everything said here, you should seriously consider striking your most recent comment. You should also apologize to GorillaWarfare immediately for the personal attack. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: For what? Saying "I know what you're doing here"? How is this a personal attack? In which planet? Mohammad (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC).

− − I will provide my reasoning below. Just had to get this out there.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: WHAT? Have you seen the articles I have created and the thousands of contributions have? Mohammad (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your utterly bizarre and clearly-intentional page moves of your user talk pages make it clear that you are here to troll, not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.:, please change your signature as it will cause confusion with User:Mohammad, per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Padgriffin (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Padgriffin: WAIT BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING! CAN I NOT PROVIDE MY REASONING? AND DEFENSE? Mohammad (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Padgriffin:

MY REASONING

1. I did not personally attack anybody. The closest thing closest to a personal attack is "I know what you are doing" (not like stalker type)

2. My warning was to not personally attack anyone my warning was NOT to not edit the articles stated.

3. I am a legit contributor. I have Extended-Confirmation Rights. I have over 1,000 not-reverted legit edits. I create and edit mostly sport (association football) articles. I am not a troll account.

4. What really annoys me about @Sangdeboeuf: is that we had this discussion a few hours ago (about the "personal attack"). We had both clearly agreed that I was directing that the source had an issue with the movement NOT @GorillaWarfare:. I would've edited it but as @Sangdeboeuf: told me, I was to put it in a slash.

5. The extra pages was originally a test, then I tried to redirect it back but I forgot the "." at the end of my name. Since there were so many constant mistakes, I decided to poke fun with it. I admit I shouldn't have done that, but it was my talk page and really didn't affect anything (plus I put it back).

6. I am a legit editor and @Stevie fae Scotland: @Sakiv: and a lot of others can agree I am not a vandalize only or troll account and that I'm a legit editor.

7. My promise for this warning is that I will never edit or contribute to the MGTOW article ever again. I also promise to re-read what I'm typing before I click enter to make sure it's appropriate.

Thanks for reading and I hope we can come to an understanding. Mohammad (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Padgriffin: Signature is changed now. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given your history with GorillaWarfare, It's clear that "That explains everything. I see what you're doing. I'm not stupid" was meant to accuse them of wrongdoing without evidence.

Your block was lifted on the specific condition that you would not "continue to attack another editor for the crime of being a woman who dares to disagree with you".

I was skeptical at the time that "it seems you have an issue with men wanting to go their own way" was about the "sources" and not the user you were replying to. I am even more skeptical since I learned you had been blocked for personal attacks against the very same editor. I certainly never "agreed" with your explanation.

The comment blanking I referred to was at the article talk page [44][45], not your user talk page. You already knew this was "against the rules", as you put it. Maybe you just panicked and wanted the issue to go away; regardless, blanking others' comments is disruptive.

Alerting other users to come to your defense is disruptive WP:CANVASSING and is unlikely to change the outcome in your favor. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Also this comment removal fits into the pattern of harassment against a specific editor. Intentional or not, such a pattern should not be allowed to continue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Proposing a TBAN of the user on articles concerning MGTOW and other Feminism/menosphere-related topics. As the user has repeatedly attacked both editors and authors of sources in addition to expressing misogynistic and anti-feminism views, a TBAN may be in order. Padgriffin (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Padgriffin: So does that mean I'm banned or banned to just feminist articles? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: You would be banned from editing those articles. Padgriffin (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN. I can see no productive edits to that page and plenty of disruption. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Frankly I'm stunned that the block was lifted at all following this all-caps homophobic slur. I would support another indef block on top of the TBAN. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. Padgriffin (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Was just going to voice support for a topic-ban as they seem genuinely interested in football, but what does it say to our female editors if we just shunt users like this to a topic area where they feel comfortable? Shouldn't Ms. GorillaWarfare and others be comfortable when editing and not have to coexist with a user like this? This isn't about "safe spaces" or any of that silliness. Disagreements will always exist, arguments will exist, as will occasional incivility. But the edit diffs presented above are abuse. 100% abuse. Absent a sincere, genuine acknowledgement that they were and continue to be in the wrong to call out someone for their gender or sexuality when discussing a topic, and consensus from all that that is acceptable, I would therefore support an indefinite block. Zaathras (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I initially supported a TBAN due to the user not having exactly violated the terms of his unblocking, I've combed through his comments and would also Support an indefinite block- people like this shouldn't be in this community, even if some of their edits were constructive. Padgriffin (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam was incredibly generous to unblock the editor after the original attack on GW, they promised not to repeat the behaviour and they haven't been able to leave it alone. No second chances, sorry. Support indef. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've indefinitely Tbanned Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. from the topic area of gender and sexuality, broadly construed, as an AE discretionary sanction. I saw that as the bare minimum needed to prevent disruption in the topic area; I don't intend that to prejudice this discussion, and if there is consensus for a site ban or indef block that should also be imposed. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion for harassment as a normal admin action. A discussion aimed at escalating this to a site ban can continue, of course. Ditto for an unblock, I guess. El_C 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Stupid question, El C, but their talk page history is extremely short for the content that's on it. Have there been some page move shenanigans? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes — El_C 17:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's bizarre: they also messed around with Ponyo's archives too. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• What Black Kite said; support indef. I was astounded they were let off of their indef the first time around--as I noted at the time, making an apologetic unblock request a mere 10 minutes after this edit did not fill me with confidence that an unblock would be possible without future disruption. Here we are again, and if the sheer volume of page-move nonsense I had to sift through to actually find those diffs is any indication, it's only getting worse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block/community ban. The condescending/intimidating behaviour towards female editors is completely unacceptable, and the fact they refused to adhere to the terms of their unblock conditions is all the more reason to get him out of here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm disappointed it's come to this. The site block is appropriate given the editor's actions. Without excusing his behaviour, should the community have cause to look at it again, I'd like to mention two things. First, he's young. Having recently seen a note from an oversighter to another young editor about why they'd removed the age from the editor's page, I emailed oversight to ask them to do the same for Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. Second, regarding his use of the word 'queer' in referring to GorillaWarfare (I'm assuming that's what Sangdeboeuf referred to as an 'all-caps homophobic slur'), it's likely that SHTDCAA looked at GorillaWarfare's user page, which has User:UBX/queer. Maybe in a year or two he'll be ready to come back and edit within policies and guidelines. I tried to help him, but there's only so much one can do. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  The "all-caps homophobic slur" was this: the user clearly expressing rage that we would dare allow a queer woman to exist here. No, there's no excuse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It makes sense that St. H.T.D.C. & A. would be young. On the bright side, that gives them more time to mature, maybe returning when they can contribute without disruption. Yes, I was referring to the use of "queer" – even though some folks apply it to themselves, it can still be a slur, especially when used as a noun in all caps. I was considering the impact on an unfamiliar reader coming across that remark and seeing that the user who made it was allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I think that would only harm the project. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Good point about the chance of an unfamiliar reader encountering that. Perhaps I'm being too soft on him because of his age. I don't think his behaviour's in any way acceptable. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  The very fact that they all-capped queer and feminist as if they were a bad thing a bit like how back in the 80s school kids would say "that is so gay" about things being crappy is more than enough to raise eyebrows with regards to their leanings. Zaathras said it best. WP should not be saying to editors "you only get to do this once." --Blackmane (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing less than siteban - don't let the door hit your homophobic, misogynistic ass on the way out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban - does not appear to have the collaborative qualities needed to edit here. — Ched (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site ban This where the old adage of "talk about the edits, not the editor" comes into play. This user has not understood that. I get that it can be hard to get everyone to agree on some of the Western values that are enshrined here, and I a wholly an advocate for building a global encyclopedia with a global community, but to go after someone for being merely a feminist (women right's = men's rights, oh how terrifying!) and being "a queer" (the use of that word as a noun and not as an adjective is telling) is absoltuely unacceptable. Attempts to guide this user away from this type of combativeness have failed. We should not waste any more of our time. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban per Indy beetle.--Jorm (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban Harassment is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban The more I dig through their comments, the more disgusted I get. The user has STILL not apologized for their actions on those talk pages, which shows me that they should not be allowed to participate in this community. Padgriffin (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban they have clear issues with misogyny, and none of their interactions with women have been in any way appropriate for this inclusive encyclopedia. Maybe in a few years if they grow up then they could appeal this unblock, but right now this is not the sort of editor we want on this inclusive encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, even if they are deeply remorseful for their actions, that doesn't demonstrate that they won't do it again. It took them about 2 weeks from getting unblocked to getting blocked again, and there's nothing that suggests to me that that wouldn't just happen again if unblocked anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Suspended Siteban I propose an alternate remedy: A suspended community/site ban , which any administrator could impose if behavioral problems persisted after an unblock , in order to give the user one last chance without requiring another ANI thread. The user could appeal to have it vacated in its entirety 12 months from the date of its enactment. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• They were already unblocked and promptly violated their unblock restrictions, which is why we're back here. We're under no obligation to continue extending clemency to someone who has proven they will not adhere to its requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban per the WP:No Nazis doctrine. We banned an MGTOW-affiliated user not long ago. @Padgriffin: It's actually spelled manosphere. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

can't say I'm a real big fan of that ... ok, I guess we call it an essay. I'm not really sure it accomplishes what it was intended to. — Ched (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban - Only way to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User ‎Sam Jamadar2020

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

---

User:‎Sam Jamadar2020 has been editing several articles stating 'denigrating Hindu Beliefs'. I have issued warnings and advising if they wish to make these changes they need to be sourced but they have been ignored and the edits have continued. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Unsourced edits and personal attacks by User:JND AMD

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

---

This user is repeatedly making unsourced edits to several Indian Railways related articles or they are sourcing blogs like irfca.org. There are sufficient warnings, but they are not listening to them. Instead, they are resorting to personal attacks using foul language in Hindi. The first personal attack was on their own talk page here for which they were warned here. Despite the warning on PA, they have again done the same on my talk page here. I request admins to take a look into this user's edits and their behaviour and rev dev the both the PA linked above. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by SPA at People of the Book

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

---

• Medeni-56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above editor seems interested solely in adding one contentious paragraph to the article in question; despite objections on the talk page and despite conflicting sources being presented there. This is now a slow pace but enduring edit war, and has also extended to other articles. I'm not sure if more formal sanctions are required, but I'd suggest the editor in question refrain from this topic and try something less contentious first. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this report William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Talk about bludgeoning and refusing to get the point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

China requested move

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

---

Another requested move that could use some uninvolved admins keeping an eye on it given the past problematic editor behaviour in the topic. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks headed for a SNOW closure. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've obliged, there's no reason to attract disruption when the SNOW close can be done by anybody. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli and Timrollpickering: That escalated quickly :) (not that there's anything to worry about, me thinks). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: oh god Elli (talk | contribs) 12:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

One-purpose IP 82.173.133.70

• 82.173.133.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One-purpose IP has been entertaining the community now for days crosswiki (see here) with his deletion requests and the same and recurring arguments over and over again against a certain music publisher. It's finally time to block this toxic behavior! Uwe Martens (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The only deletion request was for a now speedily-deleted article Tobias Broeker, which was self-written by a non-notable person. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Vague legal threat from 2600:6C40:5F00:72FC:B833:CFE0:A269:448A

Admin action required: Per Wikipedia:No legal threats suggesting posting here for admin action at [46]. Suggest also refusal of edit request with possible consider also of revision deletion. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User notified. Better to talk with him at first. Uwe Martens (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uwe Martens: Thanks for dealing. Should have signed here and reported to user also so not on best form this morning and its good someone else is dealing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Your post was just signed incomplete, so don't worry too much... ;-) Uwe Martens (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IP user 136.49.166.71 persistently editing against talkpage consensus

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

---

IP user 136.49.166.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues disruptively editing the Cris Cyborg article, after an attempt to resolve the issue was made on the article's talkpage and a consesus was reached. Said user is now editing the page against the talkpage consensus and reverting other editors that try to correct his edits. He was warned on his talkpage multiple times.

The discussion on the article talk page, in which consensus was reached - here

Disruptive edits and reverts by 136.49.166.71 after consesus was reached - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Further unsuccessful attempts at resolution - 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6

Personal attacks by 136.49.166.71 (in edit summaries & on his discussion page) - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Diana056 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Diana also refuses to admit, that with sources, information and more, that She reverted my page, because She didn't like what was posted. She also neglected to mention, that when we were both informed of being "blocked" that only I was the one blocked for 3 days, which She remained editing, when She was the one reverting and undoing edits more than I was. Which I informed them showed Bias, because they both agreed on the matter, not truly giving the post the chance it had at a true resolution. Also the agreement was that both pages would be changed to "one of the" greatest, not THE greatest. I agreed to leave the Amanda Nunes page alone, and have not touched it since reaching the consensus, that I did not agree with, however I abided by the rules and did not tough the Nunes page. I did however go back to the Cyborg page since what was stated was incorrect. I was informed that both pages would be changed to "one of the greatest" not only one. Since it stated that Nunes was "arguably" the Greatest, and that Cyborg was "arguably" the greatest. the main argument was that for Nunes (to diana) that "arguably" doesn't count because She likes Nunes more and wants her listed as the GOAT (wasn't what was said), what was actually stated was that She has been called that quite a bit lately. My argument for Cyborg was that for over a decade She had been called the Women's MMA GOAT, and Her losing ONE fight does not take away her legacy. She went undefeated for over 13 years, and had done quite a bit, things that no other female mma fighter has even touched. And also won championships in 4 different Major MMA organizations.

This was the deal. "@Cassiopeia:, hmmm, That's one of the most well-put... logical responses I've seen in quite some time.. Especially regarding this. I digress about the Jones situation, since it was proven he did not intentionally cheat, and He proved his innocence with each time. As far as this goes. You did state "Since there are recent sources indicate Nunes is the current female GOAT and there are still sources stating Cyborg is..." I think the fairest way to go about this, would be to change both pages to "one of the greatest female mixed martial artists." Since as you stated, there's articles that state both are the Female GOAT. Recency bias or not, I believe that would be fair with this topic, personally. Since as you stated, there's no Unanimous GOAT as of right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.166.71 (talk) 14:43, February 28, 2021 (UTC) @2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 and 136.49.166.71: Thank you for understanding and participation on the discussion. And all of us have agreed to state Cyborg as "one of the female GOAT" instead of "the female GOAT". The normal process for discussion to be closed without further discussion is 7 days; however, since we have reached a unanimous agreeable decision, "one of the female GOAT" statement would be change but let keep this discussion open for next 24 hours for user 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 is in different time zone than user 136.49.166.71, and might not be online to check this message. Once again thank you all involved parties participate in this discussion. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)"

Since the deal is now null and void, the GOAT conversation opened back up, but on the Nunes side of things, Diana made the exact same argument, I provided sources (which she attempted to discredit, then She would provide sources from those same SITES she discredited....) Now I added information to the Cyborg page, I opened a new tab in her page called "Other MMA Achievements" And placed that Cyborg had the longest win streak in Women's mma history (Which was now passed by Zhang Weili), I also placed that Cyborg was undefeated for over 13 years. I also provided sources for all that. I also edited the main page and placed that "Cyborg is also referred to as the scariest and most feared female mma fighter of all time" I provided my sources for that as well. I then also placed "Cyborg was undefeated for over 13 years and 20 straight fights before her shocking KO loss to Nunes" I also provided sources to that, with the betting odds, and the MMA sites "upset of the year" Which Diana and Cass both continued to undo my posts on all of these, from the Achievements, to the Accomplishments, To the most feared woman, to the win streak, to the betting odds, etc... My posts were constructive, and without bias. However those 2 are biased and I wasn't going to play their game anymore. So I gave up on editing. Diana follows pages and just undoes and changes what SHE doesn't like, regardless of what is presented, if there's evidence to show something, She is going to remove that evidence, so She can change the entire post. She did it with Cyborgs page before, She did it with the Nunes page, when I showed her She is not known by everyone as the Female GOAT. It's been back and forth with her, but She follows whatever I post, clicks on it and attempts to find a way to undo my post, failing horribly, then getting upset that I won't just allow her to change what She chooses. It's honestly a waste of time and it's annoying. Also look into her "persistency in editing, if I somehow get blocked or anything, She should most definitely be reprimanded. but at least I provide sources, and site my sources, She goes based off personal opinion. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@136.49.166.71: I don't want to detract from this discussion by bringing up the Nunes article, because the subject of this dispute is Cyborg's article, but just to quickly explain why on Nunes' article it can state 'widely regarded as the greatest' and on Cyborg's it can't: For Nunes, there are multiple sources which call her 'the GOAT' in her article; for Cyborg, there are only sources which call her 'one of the GOATs' and none that call her 'the GOAT' (and to this day, none such sources have been provided). Hence, the wording 'one of the greatest' is more appropriate in in Cyborg's case according to the sources, as was agreed upon in the discussion. The issue about being called 'the goat' was also discussed on Amanda's page, and it was agreed that in her article it can state that because it's supported by sources, unlike in the Cyborg article. You were part of both of the discussions and this was explained to you multiple times. Also note that 'widely regarded' doesn't mean the same thing as 'unanimously regarded', this was also discussed. Regardless, however, even if you still disagree you have to respect the consesus which was reached. The edits you engaged in was unconstructive, against talkpage consensus and persistent. Diana056 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Diana you don't need to detract, you're stating "multiple sources call her goat." When I have multiple sources that call Cyborg the goat, you just overlook it, because of your bias. You're telling me you haven't found an article that calls Cyborg arguably the goat? And Arguably is not "one of" in your definition, because you completely stated it in my sources that it's ok for it to state 'arguably' so here, since you won't look (and that's pretty much it, you just won't look) And you wanted it to be recent. https://www.dazn.com/en-US/news/mma/julia-budd-vs-cris-cyborg-live-results-updates-highlights-from-bellator-238/153q7ittgaa21sb19thbp4v64 https://mymmanews.com/bellator-249-main-event-breakdown-cris-cyborg-vs-arlene-blencowe/ https://cagesidepress.com/2020/01/25/bellator-238-can-budd-spoil-the-beginning-of-cyborgs-next-chapter/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/mma-news-bellator-president-claims-cris-cyborg-is-the-greatest-female-fighter-of-all-time https://thebodylockmma.com/ufc/cris-cyborg-is-the-body-locks-2020-female-fighter-of-the-year/ All of that. is within the last 6 months, with 3 being within the last MONTH,. She is either called "arguably" the greatest, or "The greatest." You just didn't want to look. So no it isn't. And I provided those sources several times, as I stated before, you chose to overlook them. Now you're going to say "Well because they say arguably...." But however if I state the same thing for Nunes, you're going to say it's ok for Nunes. And no the deal was both pages would be changed. Since that deal was not kept. I added more sources to Cyborg's page and changed it. Simple as that. As long as sources are provided, that is all that matters, and I did that. Your bias is the only issue with communication with you. Honestly it's aggravating. Plus on the Cyborg page, we reached the consensus without you, because you added nothing of substance to the conversation except bickering and crying.

These were legit her words to me "Yes, in the discussion above we already went over the fact that I provided 6 recent sources that call Nunes the greatest female MMA fighter. The reaction of 136.49.166.71 to that was that they also provided number of recent sources that call Nunes "arguably" the greatest, which doesn't necessarily dispute the original wording of that sentence ("the" greatest), but according to them, it should be changed to arguably the greatest because in a similiar dispute about the same statement in Cris Cyborg's article it was agreed upon that it should be changed to one of/arguably the greatest." But however when I placed it with Cyborg She responds with "There's no reason there whatsoever to reformulate the sentence in the article which calls her the greatest. In Cyborg's case, all of the recent sources call her "one of the greatest" or "arguably the greatest", hence why calling her the greatest in her article is not appropriate nor accurate"

She believes that with Nunes it should be overlooked (bias) but with Cyborg it should be used (unfair). She is never consistent. She wants what she wants. She doesn't have neutral editing. She is only editing based off what she personally feels. Not sources (which she erased as per the writing I just quoted from her) And several times she would undo my edits. And this is why I did not like to communicate with her. Her bias is just completely there. She claimed she couldn't find articles to support my claim, so when I tagged them, She would say that the articles were biased (I'm so serious, she really did, look at the Nunes edits, She claimed MMAjunkie, MMAFighting, Bjpenn, etc... were biased) So when she removed my sources, She then USED THE SAME SITES to Site her claim, but it's not bias, as long as it agrees with her narrative. THAT is my problem, is her biased nature, and it is completely against Wiki policy, and her edits SHOW she is biased with editing. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't read any of this for obvious reasons, but is there any particular reason why this obvious content dispute is cluttering up the admin noticeboard? Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Although, actually yeah - that's not acceptable. IP blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @Black Kite: The reason is that I reported persistent disruptive edits against talkpage consensus, which as far as I know should be reported here. As I explained above in my report, and supported with diffs of said behavior. The personal attacks were added only as for more complete documentation of editor's behavior, but were not what I was reporting. Why the other editor is responding with lengthy posts arguing about content I obviously have no way of knowing, but I would really appreciate it if you could read my original report (it's not long). Diana056 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Chatarpatar2020 against Kashmorwiki

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

---

• Chatarpatar2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Legal threat stated more than once in this thread. Gonna call the cops to settle an editing dispute. I NLT blocked. Alerted to DS/IPA. Posting here in case more is needed. Looks WP:NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The user is still threatening me legally even after they have been blocked. See [47]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Following the breadcrumb trail says this is fairly obviously a paid editor, and almost certainly a returning editor (thus a sock) and might be worth an SPI. I've moved one of their articles to draftspace as it fails NFILM but they have a lot of creations. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Now they have started threatening Deepfriedokra. See [48]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reblocked with TPA and email turned off. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have moved some of their creations, which have been not reviewed so far into draftspace. Only some seems problematic. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Content removal at Raja Prithu and Kamarupa

Two IP addresses 2409:4063:4d8d:e41e:5c81:cab9:afe:7ccd (talk · contribs) and 103.92.41.152 (talk · contribs) (probably socks) are removing content in Raja Prithu ([49], [50], [51], [52]) and Kamarupa ([53], [54]). The users repeat similar claims in subject headings. Chaipau (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's undoubtedly the same person, but there are also reasons why someone might end up editing from multiple IP addresses, possibly without even knowing what an IP address is. I've put the old protection back in place for a month. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: Thank you Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:107.10.140.224

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

---

User:107.10.140.224 has been blocked several times for removing content from Stand and Deliver. The most recent block has just expired and he has returned to make the same edits again. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month. El_C 13:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, doubt he will learn so I'll see you back here in a month!!!!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Conduct issues at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films

• Ichika Kasuga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ichika Kasuga has been displaying what I consider to be WP:CONDUCT issues primarily relating to WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train. I am fairly certain that they have also committed a WP:LOGOUT violation (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichika Kasuga for evidence thereof), which is to say that I think the conduct of the IP in question should also be taken into account. There are also WP:CANVASS concerns regarding an edit where they asked that another editor join the discussion specifically to help them.

Examples (though really, reading the entire discussion gives a much better impression of the overall conduct – it's mostly about a consistent pattern of behaviour):

• Ichika Kasuga:
  • Again, I am telling you to use your sandbox for practising your edits.[55] – WP:OWN
  • Conclusion
    Unless and until Box Office Mojo or The Numbers corrected and add the missing grosses of various territories till then we will use this method of sourcing grosses[56] – WP:OWN
  • Conclusion- Let Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross for missing territories then I switched the reference. till then I would continue with this method of sourcing[57] – WP:OWN, note conspicuous use of first-person singular pronoun
  • You are such an insane person[58] – blatant WP:NPA violation
  • If you keep inducing me that my edits are Original Research, then I would feel that you are either not happy about the success of the film or just trolling me.[59] – WP:AGF
  • Consensus
    Until Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross of the film and added the missing territories then I will switch the reference. Till then, we all be use fxtop.com as source[60] – WP:OWN, note conspicuous use of first-person singular pronoun
• IP:
  • the way you are behaving looks no way different from monkey. Never mind my language but that is the only truth about you.[61] – blatant WP:NPA violation

Since there are conduct issues that may be actionable independent of any WP:SOCK behaviour, I'm posting here and to WP:SPI separately. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How can asking someone's help be wrong? I do not know what is wrong here. If a random user called him monkey then how can I get related? いちか かすが (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ichika has been given a week off for bad-faith logged-out editing. I have no objection to someone extending that to an indef if deemed appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation accounts

Cards84666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), along with a few other accounts as admitted here. Cards84664 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Also block Davidng914 as well, thanks. pandakekok9 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User :120.29.71.93

• 120.29.71.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Request IP block of edit privileges (WP:NOTHERE). A myriad of unsourced/unsubstantiated edits done to musician BLPs blindly adding/claiming sales without including any reference. See list of edits. Itssheenabautista (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IP number change vandalism

96.231.48.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Appears to be a static IP: user's contributions since last August consist entirely of unsourced changes to musical artists' sales figures, other than a handful of verifiably incorrect edits at 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash. I've reverted a few and warned (their talk page is full of warnings but mine is the first for this month), but I haven't time today to review all of their edits to restore the correct information, hence posting here for community attention. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 months. I see that my Chipmunk Army has some competition (Nuts!). El_C 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Freespirit571

• Freespirit571 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account targeting political biographies. Please do the needful. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Uncle G Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Given the unambiguous vandalism of this user, AIV may have been more appropriate. Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 18:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Tol, but this gets quicker attention. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with how this works... Guy (help! - typo?) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Ah, no problem! I don't have too much activity here at ANI; as it's often for more long-term issues I would have thought AIV would be quicker. Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note in case of an unblock request, while most of the vandalism is just obvious nonsense, this [62] was a serious BLP vio. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Revdeleted. El_C 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Rapid escalation

• Frank6292010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi! I had reason to have a word with User:Frank6292010, who is using automated tools [63] [64] to undo non-vandal edits and leaving misleading edit summaries. His response has been to continue [65] [66] and leave me a {{uw-unsourced3}} warning [67] threatening to have me blocked. It's all a bit odd. Can anybody tap him with a clue-stick? ◦ Trey Maturin 15:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I should note that these edits were not made with RedWarn (notice the absence of the "RedWarn" tag). Judging by their user page there have been a several issues with other edits since February. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I had a helper before Mvcg66b3r, who help me edit when I joined and use RedWarn on TV station's and networks. Frank6292010 ((talk)) 16:07, April 12 2021 (UTC)

Frank6292010, are you referring to yourself or Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) using RedWarn? If you are referring to yourself, as far as I can tell, this isn't true. You have not used RedWarn ever on this account. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 18:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Frank6292010: Do you consider Placeholder for future article (RW 16.1) as a helpful edit summary (especially when reverting someone's edit)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is this user doing? They added another discussion to this thread. Padgriffin (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#User:Frank6292010 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#User:Frank6292010, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Ownership problem at articles about TV stations again. The threat to call the police in the last ANI discussion has taken this beyond mere disruption. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether they're trolling us or if this is a textbook WP:COMPETENCE issue. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've just looked through Special:Contributions/Frank6292010. The article-space edits are the usual unsupported changing of facts and figures that weren't supported before, that one sees all too regularly in certain classes of articles from lots of people. But any project or user talk page edits go rapidly off the rails, as they just did to this very page. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This user was here a week or to ago in a spat with the indeffed Theshavia29912 (talk · contribs) who has a couple of globally-blocked sockpuppets. While I don't think they're part of the sock farm, they're two sides of the same coin, and almost got indeffed at their previous ANI appearance. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Edit warring at As Told by Ginger appears to be two other people. Have you got two incidents confused, by any chance? Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I did, they were in a spat with Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) - similar subject areas, and the same sort of behavior. Unfortunately, they all tend to look the same after a while. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have some sympathy with Neutralhomer in the January discussion, but it's difficult to see what can actually be done when all attempts to converse meander off into an incomprehensible series of actions. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Nazi Germany

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

---

A while back there was a discussion on Talk:Nazi Germany about what should be put in the "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields in the article's infobox, especially concerning Poland. This eventually lead to an RfC, which lead to a consensus as to what to include in those fields.

Now comes a brand new editor, User:Txbiassss, whose account was created two days ago, and has 15 edits, all of them to Talk:Nazi Germany, and all arguing about the "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields. The editor has been pointed to the RfC, and has been told that there is currently a consensus, and that the way to overturn that consensus is to star another RfC, as unnecessary as that would be, but the editor simply want to argue. In the middle of that discussion, a even newer editor, Talk:Hoksalik, dropped by to post a comment -- their one and only edit to Wikipedia -- supporting Txbiassss. [68]

Several of the editors who frequent Talk:Nazi Germany are of the opinion that Txbiassss (and their apparent sock Hoksalik) are not legitimate editors, but are disrupting the page with what appears to be trolling. Such disruption could be controlled by topic banning these editors from Nazi Germany, broadly construed, but they don't seem to be here to contribute to building the encyclopedia, and should probably be indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Other regular contributors at Talk:Nazi Germany may wish to comment on this: @Diannaa, Slatersteven, RandomCanadian, Levivich, Kierzek, K.e.coffman, Snowfire, and R-41: Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixing @SnowFire:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's Kengir evading their block or somebody else (I have not taken the time to investigate whether this is worthy of taking to SPI); the RfC is clear enough evidence that there was consensus for the present version; and a new one would be patently disruptive. WP:IDHT comes to mind; and the "two" "new" editors should be politely pointed towards it. That or they're NOTHERE socks and then we just quietly apply RBI to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that KIENGIR recently posted a comment on hu.wiki which appeared to be a solicitation for another editor proxying for them (which was not accepted by the other editor),(this exchange. (machine translation link) it seems as if KIENGIR socking is a possibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated question. When I click on Hoksalik's profile, I can't see "user contributions" on the left as normal. Anyone know why? I figured it out. Beyond My Ken just to let you know you dropped the ANI notice onto a non-existent article talk page rather than a user talk page. I've fixed that for you now — Czello 17:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea if they are shocking, block evading, or trolling (I suspect it's POV pushing, some nationalist agenda or other). What I do know is they are clearly (and adamantly) refusing to accept consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken the time to look at this. Neither of the two accounts seems to have a total mastery of English (further details not provided per BEANS) so that would fit, if marginally, with our prime suspect. The arguments bear some similarity. The more suspicious element is of course already highlighted above. I'll take it to SPI; it's likely that if the two accounts are not our suspect that they are at least related to each other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99— Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So 3 accounts related to each other but I presume neither Kiengir nor the older master... NOTHERE would be in order in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged, so I came over here. I have stayed out of the recent postings on the talk page for the GA rated article Nazi Germany as I did not believe it was necessary to take part; consensus on the matter was reached and frankly, I did not want to feed the apparent troll. BMK's posting above is a fair chronology of the talk page events discussed. Kierzek (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So apparently unrelated to either suspected master but confirmed to each other per the SPI (according to Oshwah's inquiry). That still leaves space for a NOTHERE block (both on grounds of general behaviour [trolling] and of socking). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:0utspoken exp0sd

• 0utspoken exp0sd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vegaphobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New user replacing sourced content @Vegaphobia with unsourced content and attempted to blank the lead several times, see filter log. Multiple template warnings sent, and a personal warning by me:[69] about possibly getting blocked. The user then threaten to make another account if blocked:[70]. Jerm (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User made a personal attack against me:[71]. Jerm (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jerm, all cleared up, I think. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thank you. Jerm (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

About user Jingiby

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

---

There is a person by the name of Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that all he does is edit Macedonian pages and makes them Pro Bulgarian. How can a publication allow this if it wants to be creditable. Then he reports you when you change it to real facts because it's true and then block us ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk • contribs)

See WP:TRUTH. Also, please notify the other editor. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an ANI notice to Jingiby. Jerm (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yordan_Piperkata&diff=902709275&oldid=902708954 These edits from this user are one sided

On the other hand the Macedonian Wikipedia does not agree with this user edits for his disrupting editing. https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2

I think that all articles that this user wrote on the English Wikipedia should have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Macedonian wikipedia does not mention about BG

I accuse Jigby of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia

We can also see that Jigby was also given blocks on the Macedonian Wikipedia https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0:%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA?type=block&user=&page=Jingiby&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=

Hi everybody. Exept this IP has called me a troll I suppose it is using multiple accounts, as this one: User:77.29.107.157. Quite a few accusations of a single-edit editor. Suffice it to say that the mentioned topics are systematically attacked by a set of various accounts located in North Macedonia and Australia, where the largest Macedonian diaspora resides. Such edits are usually oppenly destructive and there are no attempts to have a meaningful discussion on talk, or to provide credible academic sources in support of their view. I suppose this account is in contact with the group, which declared me its enemy last year. And another time I have drew the attention of the administrators here for such accusation, periodically trying to discredit me and related probably to this group called WIKIPEDIA WARRIORS: THE NEW FRONT LINES IN THE BATTLE FOR MACEDONIA. As for the Macedonian Wikipedia, there even the page about North Macedonia bears the old name of the country, and its constitutional current name has been declared a mockery. The page is fully protected to avoid actualization. So much for its objectivity. Jingiby (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jingby there is no objectivity in your wikipedia edits also you have been blocked on the Macedonian Wikipedia once and unblocked because you called other editors with bad name and pushing your Bulgarian propaganda there Ithink this user's writing articles it is a propagandist he is just pushing Bulgarian Propaganda on Wikipedia and ask that you sanction him. On that video also there is a photo of him answering to someone that on BG wikipedia transfers content to English Wikipedia and that transfering content to the MK Wikipedia is not going well that at that time he is blocked and his edits reverted i think that is clearly a signal that he is pushing an agenda here on Wikipedia and that he should be sanctioned. It is not true that I am using mutiple accounts he is lying about that this is a personal attack what he accusess me of also he wrongfully blocked users that tried to report him to the admins of Wikipedia for his disruptive editing and reverting back his view of a certain Articles on North Macedonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dikaiosyni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dank_macedonian_lord

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.125.168.200

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Macedonia1913&diff=prev&oldid=965791960

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.245.33.152

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.221.16.240

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.50.7.170 Also it is not his function to say whether a country name change is good or bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am afraid I have to disagree completely with the IP in that Jingiby's wikipedia edits have "no objectivity". Jingiby does not need any special introductions here; a well-respected editor in the difficult Balkan topic area, whose Contributions log speaks for itself in that he worked tirelessly in maintaining WP:NPOV in the contentious topic area which is famed for being target of IPs and nationalist editors whose goal is to promote all kinds of political propaganda. In my opinion, this filling lacks credibility and one can easily tell that from the way the IP has written it and responded to Jingiby's comment. The ANI should either ignore these IPs fillings and/or use scrutiny against them for what it appears they are filling reports just to harass and discourage editors such as Jingiby, whose views do not consort to theirs, from "getting in the way" of their disruptive effort in promoting certain Macedonian nationalism political propaganda which have no place in Wikipedia. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

• • Scrutiny of the IPs editing may well be in order here. As for Jingiby having been blocked elsewere in the past, that is none of our concern here. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

    We have crossed while I was closing, but I will keep it for a while like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I fully agree with SilentResident, Mjroots and Ymblanter; someone's been trying to waste our time here. Apcbg (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, anti-Iranian and anti-Semitism behaviour by AlHathal99

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

---

AlHathal99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edits my userpage with the edit summary Loser who steals other people’s history

Know that stealing someone's history is not an easy task. Also, know that the Arabian peninsula's coastline is larger than Persia's, so it is the Arabian gulf/coast. Alexander simply didn't see the other side.

I'm assuming this is meant as some kind of racist insult towards Jews, Shias and Persians; Shias/Persians = Jews of Europe

WP:OR personal theories which makes him think his edits are justified, with the classic message of 'Don’t change history please' [72]

Changed Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf at Arab states of the Persian Gulf twice [73] [74]

Decreased the Shia presence in several areas, and changed 'Persian Gulf' to 'Arabian Gulf' [75]

Changed Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf at Kabsa [76]

Disruptively removes an entire infobox [77]

EDIT: Attempted to remove this thread twice; [78] [79]

I could go on, but this is basically what type of edits he does, clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Its bad, I some of his edits and he should not be allowed on here. DXLB Muzikant (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice grammer me, i mean to say that i reverted some of his edits DXLB Muzikant (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

He just edited my userpage once more, lol [80] --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours in response to the disruption to this page and HistoryofIran's user page, but have no objection to further discussion and action related to the original disruptive editing allegations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Recommend permablock This is the sort of NOTHEREness HoI gets a lot of. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: This is indeed quite NOTHERE. You are free, welcome and recommended to adjust the length of the block already set by Rosguill... :) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've actually set the block duration not to expire. I think the nature of the fabrications and provocations call for some serious assurances before editing should resume by this account. El_C 21:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/74.51.144.75 and WP:VERIFY

• 74.51.144.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is back making changes without appropriate sources. [81][82][83]. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month. Déjà vu! El_C 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User 174.89.129.51 repeated made false accusations against me and other users

The user 174.89.129.51 repeatedly made false accusations against me and other Wikipedia users in the past based on their contribution history.

My encounter with this user started when I reverted an edit on FreshCo because they made an edit which was unconstructive and their edit summary was misleading, so I left a warning message on their talk page. After that, they accused me of edit warring/disruptive editing on my talk page and the FreshCo talk page when I did not do any of that. They left rude comments on what I should do and threatened to report me, despite doing nothing wrong. I warned them of harassment and offered kind suggestions on Wikipedia policies that they should read because they appear to have little understanding of the policies, and now they are accusing me of harassment, which makes no sense.

This user has previously harassed another user on April 2, 2021 and left rude comments on their talk page too. Edipio ^💬 21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Something has to give. El_C 21:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Flagrant personal attack from dynamic IP editor

Yesterday, I reverted this puzzling edit because piping links in a "See also" section to something other than the actual title is unproductive. Today, the editor who made that edit returned from a different IP and reverted it with an edit summary characterizing my revert as a "jihad." This is quite possibly the most incendiary thing I have ever been on the receiving end of on Wikipedia and at minimum the edit summary should be revdel'd. --Sable232 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Revdel'd. El_C 21:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bruno Rene Vargas draftwarring

• Bruno Rene Vargas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've had previous issues with the editor, issues I felt we had put behind us. But today, I saw a draft I had made, Draft:TAR (film) was randomly moved to userspace by the editor and took the space for themselves. They cited "It seems unfair to me that someone like you who months ago reproached my way of creating drafts now does the same and does not suffer what I suffered at the time with Draft: Cocaine Bear. I proceed to send your draft to your personal workshop because I consider that my draft was created with a better format and information, just as you did with User:Bruno Rene Vargas/Cocaine Bear (film)". So this initially made me think I accidentally created a duplicate draft of one they had made, but this isn't the case. Bruno is essentially upset with me I had created content in that namespace before them. So I reverted this action, restoring my edits to the draftspace and telling them that they had not previously made a version of the page so their actions were unjust and taking credit away from myself for my edits. However, Bruno again moved my work to a new userspace location. They are at this point blatantly trying to discredit my work based off old beef I thought we had squashed. Rusted AutoParts 21:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Again, being honest with you is not the first time that it happens to me that I am creating an article and then when I go to publish it I find things like this, this or this. I would not care if it were not the fact that it was you who did it, but taking into account the fact that you reproach my actions but you continue to do the same thing that you criticize so much. In all the examples, including the two that you created today, the same thing happened to me, because after your claim I decided to create drafts that at least had a reference and specified that they are movies. The problem is that when I want to create them I find that you already created it in a lazy way and without even a reference, sometimes you even go to the extreme of creating redirects instead of drafts as such. Speaking of this particular article even though I hadn't created it before you, I was working on it and when I wanted to publish it I couldn't because you had created it again without any reference. This article was only the straw that broke the camel's back since for several weeks I have been putting up with your lazy way of creating drafts and that is why I proceeded to move your draft and make space for mine. It should be clarified that when you moved my draft it did not matter to you that I was the first to create the draft, you only gave importance to who created it with more information. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't give you invitation to just shove my work out of the way. You just never understood my umbridge with you from the get go (being the time between making the page and then adding content), thus conflating our editing practices and now you've been chomping at the bit to get one back at me. This ain't it, and a total affront to cooperative editing. Rusted AutoParts 22:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As for Cocaine Bear, it was because @Anthony Appleyard: had already explained why your requests to merge the two drafts couldn't be done. THe issue should've stopped there, but you were really desperate to be the one to make the page so you kept trying greasy tactics to seize it back. I moved yours to Userspace to put an end to it. That is not comparable to this scenario, where you're literally discrediting my work and hijacking the draftspace because I beat you to the punch. You did not have a duplicate TAR draft to make a case for yourself. That is not a valid excuse to make so many needless userspace articles just so you can be awarded credit. When you see the draft was already made, you edit and add to it, not shove it around. Rusted AutoParts 22:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And why didn't you say that when Vistadan made this page movement instead of just adding it to my draft created many hours before? So if another user does it there is no problem but if I do it you consider it a "greasy practice". The only thing that can be seen is that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy on your part. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I saw an admin make a definitive decision about the situation. Whether I’m acting hypocritical or not is not relevant to the fact you stole a draftspace I created content in just off the basis you didn’t like I created it prior to you finishing your edit. There is no excuses for that conduct, and your persistence to do it after I reverted you shows it was just a means to spite me. Rusted AutoParts 22:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly Bruno Rene Vargas, was it so difficult to just add what you did to the already-existent draft? Isn't it easier to do that rather than start fighting over something as petty as who first created a draft that's currently 3,074 bytes long? —El Millo (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Of course it is, in fact very often I do it, the problem is when a user like Rusted AutoParts creates drafts following the same method as the critic. Hopefully all this will serve as a lesson and that the next time he creates he will do it with at least one reference and not only with empty templates or redirects.

It doesn't seem to be because of the scarcity of information on the subject rather than "laziness" on RAP's part. Citing diffs such as these three ([84], [85]. [86]) is also disingenuous, given that RAP almost immediately filled them to this, this, and this, in the span of no more than 10 minutes or so from that first edit. Granted, those are still quite bare-bone, but they're not as rudimentary as you tried to make it appear. —El Millo (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus, editing practices and past problems with one another aside, how is it justifiable for an editor to just cast away a draft to take the location? Bruno tends to take a situation and twist it to be about something else to avoid the topic at hand. Rusted AutoParts 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That same question I asked myself when Vistadan did the same with my draft and whether you want to accept it or not, you were part of it without anyone ever calling you. Obviously, creation practices must be taken into account since they are the cause of all this conflict. If you had not created those articles without any reference, this conflict would not have arisen, so it is quite silly of you to say that I tend to twist the debates when I only bring up the causes of said action. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You're literally doing that right now. The complaint is: you hijacked an already existing draftspace to prove a misguided point. You're now talking about "but Cocaine Bear". One doesn't need an invitation to provide input or intervene in a conflict. I found myself starting to check your edit history to double check if you'd already made an article or not so that I wouldn't create duplicates. I saw the dispute. That's it. Vistadan may or may not have edited inappropriately, but once the admin explained the scenario it should've stopped there. This should answer the quetions about that irrelevant situation, other than a poor comparison you're trying to make where my moving your draft due to a dispute is comparable to you moving my draft to make room for your draft that didn't exist yet. Please stick to the point. You were out of line shoving my edits out twice. Rusted AutoParts 23:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish to point out this is the exact behaviour I had warned of in their request for Page Mover status. Rusted AutoParts 11:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This unnecessary intervention of yours adds to the long list of occasions in which you, without being even remotely involved, have appeared to give your opinion and even intervene with the sole purpose of harassing me. You reached a point where any conflict that I had with another user appeared and you took the opportunity to criticize me, that's why I had to warn you that if you did it one more time I would report you according to WP: IBAN, something in which that you are very familiar with. That is why a few minutes later when you realized that I had a better chance of winning that dispute and you were sanctioned again, you decided to give a truce, so that everything is on good terms. And so it was until again you started creating articles from redirects and things like that, being you who criticized my lazy way of creating articles, now you do it and worse because I at least put a reference when creating my drafts, you on many occasions directly only create redirects. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are being incredibly disingenuous about multiple things. I wanted the truce because I had clearly inflamed things to a needlessly hostile point. It wasn’t some opportunistic motion, it was “this doesn’t need to be such a bitter thing so I should cool it down”. And you’re still obsessing over the edit practice thing. Like Facu-el pointed out the drafts I made were fleshed out within minutes of its creation. I keep telling you what my issue with your practice was but at this point I think you’re just refusing to get my point. Either way, this still. does not. Address the core reason we are at ANI right now: you objectively moved my draft out of the way because you were upset I made it first. It is a very scummy move. Rusted AutoParts 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

More dirty is your move, request that I create the articles with more information (which I currently do) so that you have time to create it in a lazy way through a redirect or an empty template. And you always excuse yourself that you keep expanding it after a few minutes, which doesn't justify the lazy way you create them. I challenge you to find a single draft that I have created in the last two months that at least doesn't have a reference and I specified that it is a movie at the time of creation. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

”More dirty is your move, request that I create the articles with more information (which I currently do)” holy god I can’t even count how many times I’ve told you the issue was the time between creation and expansion on your end. I told you this on your damn talk page yesterday! I don’t know if the goal is to just frustrate and WP:FILIBUSTER a different point than the issue raised, but I’m going to keep reiterating it so it’s not forgotten through your constant whataboutism on incorrect points: you shoved someone else’s work out of the location so you could have it. It’s improper and considering you did it twice, disgustingly uncivil. I said prior it’s frustrating to run into edit conflicts trying to create pages before but I would never shove the editors work out of the way to be pointed. I’m disappointed you couldn’t offer me that same courtesy. Rusted AutoParts 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Your problem is that you take it very personal, that I know at no time have I overstepped you and you are already about to fall into insults by leaving comments like the previous one. In this link you confess that you intend to create a "rival article" every time you find a draft created by me, as if it were a competition. Again this reinforces my speech that you only came to harass me by bringing up problems that I had in another Wikipedia. Minutes later your next edit is this, where it clearly shows how you can't control your emotions and you go out and write unnecessary insults like this. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy god, more whataboutism. I literally told you shortly after that exchange that it was from frustration, and not a genuine retaliatory measure I would take. The Captain Marvel edit summary, which literally had no point here, was in regards to a frustratingly persistent edit vandal. The third one I was literally punished and blocked for. It’s ancient history that you’re using as an excuse to not address the point. You allege I take it personal when in the first exchange we had you immediately got intensely confrontational, pulling this same whataboutism tactic. Stop it and stick to the issue. Rusted AutoParts 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Both of you stop. This sniping back and forth is not helpful. Wait on other people to look into this and offer advice, remember WP:NPA is a rule. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard to see what all this is about, or why anyone should care. As El Millo asked earlier “just add what you did to the already-existent draft..Isn't it easier to do that rather than start fighting over something as petty as who first created a draft”. I couldn’t see an answer to that. Why does it matter who created the draft page? “An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft”. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is Bruno taking the already existing draft and moving it elsewhere so they could be attributed credit. It wouldn’t be so problematic to me if this wasn’t so clear the motive behind it. He did not create another version at an earlier time, it’s not filming, it’s not in violation of any draftspace rules. Bruno simply did it because they perceive me as hypocritical and wanted to make a swipe. If anything this shows the editor should not have page move privileges as they’re misusing them. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So, @Bruno Rene Vargas:, without getting into why you did that, what’s stopping you saying you won’t do that again? DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're right @DeCausa:, I promise not to do it anymore but please @Rusted AutoParts: stop creating drafts without any reference or redirecting them. And please also stop tracking my contributions because this is clearly a sign that you constantly look at my edit history or how do you explain the fact of editing minutes after me a draft that was more than 6 months abandoned? Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I fail to understand why you wouldn’t just add content to the draft that already exists. Why do you need Parasite deleted when if you wish to contribute stuff you could just do exactly that? If you’re making requests, then I’m making it a deal, if I stop making my drafts like that, you will return my version of TAR back to where it was as there was legitimately no reason for it to be relocated. Rusted AutoParts 21:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

At least now you are acknowledging that the way you create them is not correct. But I am not going to give up a draft that I have worked on and expanded substantially. I have already lost a draft thanks to your intervention months ago so I will not allow him to do it again. For my part, I have already said that I will not do that type of movement again, and if you do not want to stop creating them the way you currently do, that is your problem, I do not come here to negotiate anything just to ask you to put in a little more effort when starting a draft. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So my work should be lost just because you made retroactive edits to your version when it pointed out how small it was? I shouldn’t have to lose my version just because you feel wronged in a previous disagreement I have countless times explained to you why that was done. You can’t just them engage in tit for tat warfare, make demands then not meet middle ground. So then I have 0 incentive to do what you wish because you’re unwilling to revert your wrongdoing. I guess there’s no deal then. Rusted AutoParts 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the only one who keeps talking about "deals" is you, I never negotiated anything with anyone, I simply said that I will not do this type of movement again. You prefer to continue creating drafts in a lazy way with the excuse that you do not want to lose this draft, it is paradoxical that you have repeated ad nauseam the fact that I am a person who always wants to be the first author and it is you who continues to prolong this thread where you can only see "a war of invalids" and whether you want to recognize it or not, both parties have been arguing over nonsense instead of investing that time in continuing to expand this great project. And let it be clear that unlike you if I wanted to collaborate with you many times leaving links to Variety Insight of drafts that you created but I suppose that none of that mattered to you. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I proposed a deal because you're asking me to do something I feel should be met with a compromise. And I absolutely made attempts at collaboration with you, I made additions toward the Draft:Untitled Steven Spielberg film. I didn't kick up a fuss about not getting to create it first, I helped flesh it out. You fundamentally wronged me here. It's not an argument over who is first, it's an argument over you literally throwing my already existing version out of the way for no reason outside of pure spite. I have spoken "ad nauseum" about this because you just refuse to get the point. THis was not about either of our edit practices, nor was it about Cocaine Bear, or an immature edit I made *9* years ago. You used page moving in a malicious way and expect me to agree to your request while not respecting mine. I want to put this to bed but you won't allow it because the only way I'm to be satisfied this is a dead issue for us is if your wrongdoing to me is undone. Rusted AutoParts 22:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you put the past behind you and agree a compromise approach going forward. If you don’t, I’m guessing, there will be a loss patience with this bickering and imposition of some sort of editing restrictions/interaction ban that neither of you will like. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The funny thing is, like I put up above I was under the impression this issue was put to rest. Rusted AutoParts 22:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is preposterous. Bruno Rene Vargas reverted relevant, reliable sourced information to the Draft:Parasite (TV series) because, apparently to him, Rusted AutoParts is coming to add content just in order to bother [him] again. This goes along with the clearly disingenuous way in which this user has been using diffs against RAP, like the aforementioned Captain Marvel diff against a relentless and self-admitted vandal, and the one from 2012, which was nine years ago and for which RAP already paid the price. —El Millo (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, seeing as @Rusted AutoParts: no has intention of changing, I have no choice but to support the block proposal that @DeCausa: mentioned above, for my part I think that would be the best for both of us, an editorial block regarding the creation of drafts and that has a minimum duration of 6 months. I prefer that only two of us are harmed instead of continuing to waste time and patience with other users. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are being so disingenuous. You are claiming I have no intention of changing when I am literally trying to reach a compromise with you. Would you abide from a request made by someone who is actively wronging you and not willing to meet middle ground to resolve the problem? If anything the course of action is interaction ban if you're that dedicated to not reaching a compromise. Rusted AutoParts 22:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How about addressing the comment? You reverted a good edit saying that it was made to spite you. —El Millo (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo:, the truth is that your interventions here are quite unnecessary, or did Rusted AutoParts ask you to come and help him here, or are you his lawyer and I'm not aware of it? It seems quite unfair to me that a reversion of me seems absurd and you are not able to recognize that it is very obvious that Rusted AutoParts is continuously looking at my edit history. The problem is not that he add information, the problem is that he do it only 20 minutes after my edit when he had more than 6 months to extend the draft if that had been his intention. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And here comes the WP:BADFAITH. I did not summon Facu, they responded on their own volition. This is ANI, this issue was brought here specifically for 3rd party input as just edit warring over the space is just pathetic and not something I wish or want to do. Is it not more likely I am seeing when you make responses here so I can respond? I saw you putting a perfectly alright draft up for deletion off the basis that a sock made it when I felt the draft could have just been given the updates you seem willing to submit. I am fairly certain you were told before not all of Starzoner's drafts need to be rubbished. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you remember it, it is due to the fact that again on that occasion you entered without anyone having called you, just one more sample of your constant vigilance towards my contributions and my talk page. Precisely because I saw that Starzoner was practically the only main author, I proposed its deletion and that is allowed, what is not allowed is to delete a draft in which several users have added enough information, which is what you did in order to avoid deletion and so annoy me. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

People do not need invitation or direct invovlement to get involved in an issuer or discussion. Also, My purpose in life is to not come in and give you hassle, so knock it off with the blatant incivility and paranoia. We're clearly not going to say anything to one another that breaks this cycle of bickering, so let's agree o

I'm admittedly surprised to see this kind of quarrel arise between two editors I respect. I know it is frustrating to work on establishing a draft, only for what could be perceived as a "low effort" alternative swoop in and take up its space first. However, we do not own any of the pages here and concerning ourselves over being the original creator can be disruptive - as it has become here. I suggest you both simply consider what is best for Wikipedia and abandon all precious thought over who creates what. Any shoddy draft can be edited and built upon, as I have looked to do, ironically with the latest example being Draft:Rothko (film), created by Bruno Rene Vargas. You guys know better. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 07:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by recently created account

• Jserranoq87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Cynicism (or flair, call it how you want) naturally leads me to believe they might be a block evading sock trying to game a semi-protection or eventually an ECP. See also the boatload of accounts (most without an edit) beginning with "Jserrano" + number or "Jserranoq" + number... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 02:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks! Wasn't AIV for obvious vandalism and ANI for NOTHERE or at least slightly more complex stuff? Anyway, bureaucracy aside, Special:Contributions/74.104.130.117 certainly needs a block ASAP so if you could oblige... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Already done. Right, I overlooked the iterations, which is why I retracted that (AIV) one minute later. Of course, a vandalism-only account will find it difficult to get autoconfirmed! But maybe that's what the iterations are for...? Who knows. Or cares. El_C 02:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Assistance_requested - Well... Clearly I was naive. sigh... - jc37 02:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing on articles related to India

I previously reported this at WP:AIV and was told to bring it here. Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in POV pushing on multiple articles related to India. The first few were to add religious bias to Ganges ([87] [88] [89]). The user was warned about disruptive editing, sourcing, and NPOV. The user then went on to edit war or make edits against consensus on Narendra Modi (possibly a WP:ARBIPA issue), including removing cited material reflecting negatively on Modi ([90] [91] [92] [93]). The user has also refused to engage in discussion, saying the multiple warnings on the talk page "irritate" and "vandalise", and made snide, curt replies to a welcome notice of all things ([94]) and to talk page warnings ([95], [96]). So in summary we have a borderline edit warring violation, a potential WP:ARBIPA problem, failure to adhere to WP:NPOV, and a user who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this place,I have stopped engaging in editing over here cause I know maximum editors are biased towards the left. They are removing content which is sourced but no action is taken against them on Narendra Modi page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk • contribs)

Warned. Peter, as I note on your talk page, if you do decide to stay, you'll need to slow down considerably, in a number of ways. Again, good luck. El_C 11:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, El C has already given sage advice on the user's talk. The most problematic conduct in this report is the edit warring and removal of content. Intent matters though, and a good-faith rationale for removing this content (which is where the crux of the issue seems to lie) can be made. For non-public figures the content would be questionable per WP:BLPCRIME and so the argument of 'unproven allegations' is plausible on the surface, but Modi is a public figure, and so the content is fine. As the editor is a newer participant to the project, reasonably they're not expected to be familiar with these editing norms and nuances. Luckily, the editor's rationale does not appear to be that the sources are biased (a difficult argument to make against, say, Reuters), which would be far more indicative of non-neutral editing. However, to Peter, I might suggest that controversial topic areas that one feels strongly about isn't a good place to learn to edit in. If I were you, I'd probably edit in an area I feel less strongly about; Wikipedia has a lot of articles on less controversial India-related topics, and you may enjoy editing about those, or a different topic entirely. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User not making constructive edits and has already been warned

This user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1702:760:1680:FC8C:3771:9114:55B7 has been making some unconstructive edits to pages about animated tv series and has already been warned multiple times. Not sure if all their edits were unconstructive but I came here just to let you guys know and you guys can make the final decision. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 months. Third recent block for this range. El_C 15:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I just saw them while looking at recent changes and they said something about Lin-Manuel Miranda creating the theme song for The Magic School Bus while providing no sources. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Incivil comments made by User:Memz.exe on my talk page

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

---

In this message by the user, the user blatantly made a personal attack. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Final warned, was very close to a NOTHere block based on their overall shenanigans and would not object if someone else goes there directly. StarM 13:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on their talk page, which includes them putting in their own block and unblock messages, plus the fact that they've been here 3 weeks and haven't even attempted to make any kind of a proper edit, they're just here to play and mess around. I say we just show them the door and lock it behind them. Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest anyone making a comment such as the one Ahmetlii received should be blocked automatically. Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Yup. Not going to waste time with this user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Inaccurate decision on drafts!

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

---

Moved from WP:AN

 – Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for more than 2 years. My articles are never promotional in any way, few days back all my work was targeted to be marked as advertisement by User:QueerEcofeminist. I have no issue with that, it is that administrator User:OhNoitsJamie deleted all my work with no proper checking and when I requested him to restore my work (which for sure was not promotional eg. - Draft:Youth Against Rape), he denied by saying I've wasted lot of his time? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia administrators to rule every user. I don't have any kind of fight with User:OhNoitsJamie. I just believe this mistake should be corrected and the warning given to me should also be removed. Thanks and regards -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are free to remove the warning yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Although, of course, be aware that removing the warning does not invalidate its contents and that you still ought to take it under consideration.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well... Youth Against Rape was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Against Rape. You then created a one-line stub about it (a fund-raising cycle ride for an organization that doesn't have an article either). If it wasn't promotional, it was certainly non-notable. However, I am far more interested in your creation of Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, a draft about an obviously non-notable person. This article was originally created in mainspace by now globally-locked user User:Viralvilla and then tiresomely re-created (after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Palhade) no less than four times by also-now-locked accounts which turned out to be his sockpuppets. Why did you decide to write that, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping for @Pratyush.shrivastava, OhNoitsJamie, and QueerEcofeminist: that I have moved this from AN. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd made similar observations as User:Black Kite. In my experience, resurrecting articles about clearly non-notable people and subjects created by blocked editors is often an indication of WP:PAID editing. The articles in question stubs that were hardly worth restoring, hence my comment about time-wasting; not just my time, but the time of everyone involved with rejecting the numerous articles deemed to be non-notable that were created by this editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I would have blocked this editor straight away if they had been new, but they have been editing for 3 years, hence bringing it here. Black Kite (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really though, between registering their account in late 2018 and August of last year they made all of 25 edits. And as far as I can see they never did directly address the fact that they were CU blocked for some really lame socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I thought the username was familiar. For context: this user has been blocked for socking recently. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, I hadn't noticed that. I think therefore given the obvious evidence as regarding Vaibhav Palhade, an SPI would be a waste of time and an indef is the next point. Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

I would like to officially complain about the editor Guy Macon.

• Talk:Motorola 68000
• User_talk:Guy_Macon#Hostile_admin_warning.
• User_talk:Vapourmile#Enough.
• User_talk:Vapourmile#WP:BRD

I would like to make a formal complaint about editor Guy Macon whose hostile actions I regard as /argumentum ad baculum/.

I had removed a large section of the talk page on the 68000 entry at a time when I was not aware it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. My reasons were that the section was long and unproductive.

After the full comments section was subsequently archived, Guy was the first to remark on the talk page, immediately rekindling the same unproductive argument.

After a short exchange, including making technical corrections some of Guy’s comments, he directed this threat at me:

"Vapourmile, I am close to my limit putting up with your behaviour. Knock it off and start treating other editors with respect and civility or there will be consequences. --Guy Macon"

I accept some of my response was cynical. This is explained by the fact I had been previously threatened with account restrictions for removing a section of the previous talk page only to find the entire page had been archived and replaced with only Guy’s comments on that same topic. That aside, the accusation of not treating others with civility appears to refer merely to the fact I returned to add technical annotations to his edit.

That same argument has since become the mainstay of the same talk page and have I simply stepped out of it days ago, or so I thought until this morning when new threats from Guy appeared on my talk page where after days of silence suddenly this new threat from Guy appeared:

"Given edits such as this:[5] (reverted here[6]) I would suggest a topic ban from computer architecture, broadly construed. I do not believe that Vapourmile is capable of editing collaboratively in this area, and that they should spend their time on topics where they do not have such strong emotions"

I contest that it definitely not I who is having difficulty keeping my emotions in check, as this new assault arrived some days after my most recent change to that page, and a new response has since appeared after my last change which I have simply ignored and allowed to carry on in my absence.

The comment I had made on which Guy has decided to offer an opinion this morning is seven months old, and on a different Wikipedia talk page to the one where the dispute arose, so I can only assume either Guy came to Wikipedia after days had passed simply to look through my edit history to pick out actions to complain about to try to get my account restricted, or Guy, as I expect, patrols Wikipedia pages for reasons of contest rather than information. I have been asked not to assume bad faith but it is a little bit difficult to see it any other way when somebody actively corrals attention and works to try to have my account suspended for simply correcting them on what is an encyclopaedia talk page.

With this in mind, from my point of view, it certainly does not appear to me that I am the one having difficulty controlling my feelings, it seems today he has taken it upon himself to literally try to hunt me down. I would ask Guy to try to approach disagreements wearing a cooler head and especially ask him to tread far more carefully on those technological entities in which his personal pride is clearly invested. Please ask Guy Macon to desist in his persistent uninvited unnecessary hostility. Vapourmile (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a lot of text without a discernable point. Can you please summarize what exactly the issue is and provide diffs? TAXIDICAE💰 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. boomerang (verb); (of a plan or action) recoil on the originator. i.e. "misleading consumers about quality will eventually boomerang on a car-maker" Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Given I woke up this morning to yet another personal threat from Guy, it is a little bit of a stretch of the imagination to think this comment appears to be directed at me. He has been the libel engine so far, and is not until now that I have replied to it. Vapourmile (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

But thanks for using the phrase "Argumentum ad baculum," which looks so much more polite and eloquent than the Anglo-Saxon alternatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Argumentum ad baculum" is the correct choice of term for what is occurring. I am being threatened for not accepting other editors' inaccurate comments ipse dixit. Vapourmile (talk)

• And this [97]. Bishonen is not a troll, she is the alter ego of a kaiju. Please keep this straight. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not call them a troll. I referred to the comment they made, not the person, the churlish accusation I was confusing a Wikipedia editor for the French president. The distinction is important: My response was directed at the comment made and not the person who made it. Vapourmile (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The comment was, I believe, made because you kept referring to Guy Macon as Guy Macron. So wasn't a trolling comment, but a rather polite hint that you're getting another editor's name wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 17:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I accept that was what they meant, my point is, they could have simply said that. I have since altered the spelling to ensure it is correct. Vapourmile (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a less grumpy approach is needed, so you don't have to resort to such rhetorical hair-splitting? Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Yet you're happy to call her "churlish." Please respect the law of holes. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not call *her* churlish. I referred to the comment, not the person. The comment I am confusing a Wikipedia editor with the French president IS churlish.

I would like to complain about Guy too. He isn't strong enough on telling it straight, he is far too polite, and he knows far too well how wikipedia works. Please do something, Admins. Thanks. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

For what exactly? For defending myself? Vapourmile (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you addressing me? I was complaining abou Guy. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Point of order - Vapourmile, you are required to alert Guy Macon about this report using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~, as the instructions say on this page when you edit it. Please do so now. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to do that but did not do so immediately so as to honour Guy's request he made, adding to my talk page this morning a request not to add to his talk page. The requests are in contradiction so can't possibly do both. I hope that is understood. I will however make the addition to his page at your request and in accordance with guidelines. Vapourmile (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Since somebody else has notified Guy Macon, I have elected to honour his request not to add to his talk page and assume it will be sufficient for somebody else to have done the job. Vapourmile (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I thank whomever it was who added the illustrative links above. Since many of them lead to various threats which appear detached from any details of why I was their recipient I hereby ask for clarity on what rules I am alleged to have broken, accompanied by links or verbatim quotes, to the exact offending behaviour, thank you. Vapourmile (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile Few things. First, you cannot demand people do all the leg work for you, when you yourself haven't bothered to provide a single diff of the behavior you object to. Second, please indent when responding and sign your comments. Last, please, for the love of all our sanity be more concise in responding to people. Pasting walls of text will only cause people to ignore you and quite frankly, it will just piss other editors off. TAXIDICAE💰 17:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not demanded anything. I have asked for something: There seems to be some eagerness in supplying links to the various threats made, as if with the tacit assumption that if I am to have received threats of bans, account restrictions, or otherwise, then I *must* deserve it. All I have done is request what anybody who is being held to accuont is entitled to, which is evidence. It is my contention that the various threats are unwarranted. Meanwhile I have indented and signed most of my comments. The editor who added teh links appears not to have signed those, why didn't you say something to them? My contention of most of this incoming flak is unwarranted. I am simply asking for an explanation. Since I have been threatened with account restrictions, I think that is reasonable, don't you? You and I may see this differently. I have merely corrected technical errors, and not even mostly on the pages themselves but merely in the talk sections, to which hostility quickly arose. I don't think the threats have anything behind them except vendetta. I haven't seen much reason to believe I have done anything to warrant these sorts of threats. I am simply asking for whatever I have allegedly done to be made visible where it can be examined. I see nothing unreasonable about that request as my complaint is that the attacks and threats they constitute are unwarranted. Vapourmile (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You're asking editors to provide "verbatim" quotes from you but you yourself have not provided a single diff or a concise summary of what your complaint is. And to top it all off, you've now responded yet again with a wall of text and nothing of substance. I'd suggest you withdraw this because right now it's a massive time sink and it's disruptive. TAXIDICAE💰 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that like it's labour intensive. I have been the one in receipt of the incoming threats which is why I am here, and so far nobody seems able to explain why, which is what I came here to ask for. A "verbatim" is nothing more than a ctrl+c / ctrl + v away. I'm just challenging the assumption that those threats I have received are attached to any wrongdoing I have done. I am not the one threatening people with account restrictions for editing Wikipedia pages without explanation. You claim my comments aren't helpful and yet all I can find in yours is "Nobody has to provide a reason for account restrictions. If somebody says you've broken rules then you have. Just take our word for it". YOU have been specific in this exchange and I thank you for it, but nobody has in any of the exchanges which brought me to this, and the explanation is what I came here to ask for. Vapourmile (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile, Yes, finding diffs actually is somewhat labor intensive. So: follow WP:DIFF and please provide some links to the alleged problem edits. If you are unwilling to do so, I will be forced to close this thread for lack of evidence. The onus is on the reporter of an issue to show there is an issue, which must be supported with clearly linked evidence. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the place I started contains two verbatim quotes, which I'd say was evidence, and a description of the turn of events. Some of which can be verified by the links supplied above, so I am somewhat suspicious of the accusation of "no evidence" given that it's actually there, especially given that there is also "no evidence" of my alleged previous wrongdoing and nobody seems to want to start placing burdens of proof on the people sending me account restriction threats demanding those threats are warranted, you yourself are excusing the people who have sent those threats, accusing me of being demanding, but then demanding /I/ provide evidence of the counter case. You have the evidence of the restrictions-threats made against me which I am saying are not warranted by wrongdoing on my part. I shall have a look later, but there already are quotes and links in this post so as yet you may also like to countenance your request for evidence from me with the fact nobody making threats against me has been able to state what the wrongdoing is. I obviously can't prove I *didn't* do something I've been accused of so it sounds like burden of proof shifting to me. Vapourmile (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Vapourmile objects to this, this, viewing it as a threat. Vapourmile, to be clear, Guy Macon is merely suggesting a topic ban from that specific narrow topic, not an account ban. And generally speaking editors are allowed to make such suggestions (though if they're completely meritless they risk a WP:BOOMERANG); it's not automatically considered a threat. Given Vapourmile's pretty aggressive comments it appears to be at least a defensible suggestion ([98][99][100], basically similar to the ones in this thread.) Compounding the issue is that it appears that Vapourmile believes, or believed that, Guy Macon and @Guy Harris: are the same person; at a glance it looks like they reacted much more harshly to Guy Macon's initial comments than they would have otherwise because of that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aquillion for a concise and DIFF filled summary of the matter. Vapourmile, this is the standard sort of summary at ANI. Short, well linked, and to the point.

On the merits, this is a nothing-burger. Who knew computer processors could inspire such passion. Vapourmile, you were fairly abrasive, and Guy (who is not an admin) suggested that if you kept up your attitude you might find yourself topic banned from computers. Not from all of Wikipedia. Just a very small portion of its 6 million articles. If you cannot edit without inflamed passion about a topic, you are probably best off not editing in that area. So: I suggest you re-evaluate your approach to the topic. I suggest you use formal dispute resolution or hold an WP:RFC to resolve the content issue if it is truly at an impasse. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I knew. — I mentioned this the last time this was on this noticeboard. People have been arguing about the "bitness" of these processors for 40 years. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I do wonder how someone can have 29 edits to ANI, and only 40 edits to mainspace. That's a remarkably low productivity ratio (even lower than most arbs). I would recommend focussing more on creating an encyclopedia, and less on creating drama. – bradv🍁 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And after having been here for 13 years. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You think it's odd? Well from my very first response on the 68000 talk page I said myself just how odd it is that after 13 years of Wikipedia use and some page edits, suddenly I am receiving threats of account bans. How strange it is. Yet it seems like I still will not find an explanation here, even have asked for it directly through what I thought was the grievance process. You are not alone in finding it strange, I assure you. Vapourmile (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right- with the way you have conducted yourself on this thread- I'm surprised it took 13 years for threats of account bans to be applied to you. I'm surprised it wasn't much much earlier. Seriously- listen to what you are being advised- either withdraw this, or make a concise, DIFF heavy list of what, exactly, Guy has done wrong. Cause right now-there is a boomerang heading straight for you kangaroo. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Funny how Vapourmile is suddenly able to spell my name.[101]

Vapourmile appears to have a problem with the Commodore Amiga computer and the microprocessor (the Motorola 68000 series) it uses. Like many people who engage in wars over such things as Mac vs. PC, Windows VS Linux, Vim vs Emacs, Ford vs. Chevy, etc. Vapourmile's behavior is belligerant, insulting, and displays a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. some examples:

Extended content

Edit warring, deleting other editor's comments: [102][103][104][105][106][107] "I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT. You really need to look at yourself and YOUR motives... YOU don't give a damn what the truth is. YOU just want people believe whatever you want them to. YOU are dong this for competitive reasons. Inventing whatever rules you want so you can win. I am doing this *to protect the truth*. Something which clearly you will to anything to prevent from prevailing.... including causing far more damage to the 68000 page than I did. What is the point when an encyclopaedia has got obviously corrupt editors?"[108] "it's nt only obvious most of the defenders of the 68000 don't care about the accuracy of public knowledge"[109] "I am the single person attempting to bring facts back to some of the Wikipedia pages which are obviously being patrolled by evangelists such as yourself whose actions are no more than going in to bat for your home team. It was not I but you who kickstarted the argument on the 68000 page after the page wage archived. I have resisted returning to the talk page despite the addition of yet more counterfactual amateur opinion racketeering. Your own personal biases are making a mockery of Wikipedia. YOU are the one who should have your account restricted as this is clearly nothing more than a hostile attack on somebody you regard as an enemy. Emotion? Keep your own in check. It's people like you are the problem. The 6800 and Amiga Wikipedia pages are littered with evangelical fan-fiction which should be redacted for the sake of restoring accuracy and impartiality."[110] "It is a delusion to convince yourself you can simply pick and choose as you feel and come away with whatever outcome you like the sound of. If you want to have the final world then stop writing things which are not true. This is an encyclopaedia, aiming for credibility, not your teenage bedroom. "[111] (Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry) "The copy immediately above is just straw-clutching nonsense. Guy Harris pretending not to be?"[112] (Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry)" if I was a gambling man I'd bet this was Guy Harris, piping up with the save drivel again, not signing so as to conceal his identity."[113] (replying to IP 194.187.155.245) "It's you again Guy, isn't it? Because once again the topic in the 68000 and once again you want to talk almost exclusively about Duesenbergs and other irrelevances. You *want* the 68000 to be 32bit but it isn't. Grow up and accept it."[114] (Replying to Zac67 saying "Vapourmile, the accusation of sockpuppeteering is a serious allegation. I'd urge you to reconsider your statements.") " 'the accusation of sockpuppeteering is a serious allegation'. Show me the Wikipedia guideline which says this. Meanwhile, here are just a few reminders of the Wikipedia policies on sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry. This is not an accusation. Just useful information on what the policy guides actually do say. WP:SOCK WP:EWLO WP:CRONY WP:NEUTRAL WP:BOOMERANG"[115] "You want to talk about things that are irrelevant or wrong or both, that's Guy's MO."[116] "Whatever, the main problem on that page is Guy Harris. The trouble with this subject is it is being contested by people who fundamentally don't know what they're talking about. Also: I didn't kickstart the argument again on the 68000 page, as can clearly be seen. Since then somebody fitting the behavioural description of Guy Harris has also appeared there talking about old minicomputers again which have absolutely no relevance to the topic and are just fogging the subject, again. Why don't you go off and add some snarky remarks to those peeople's talk pages? Better than that, instruct them *not* to continue adding more unhelpful text to talk pages when they clearly don't understand the subject, it achieves nothing but fogging the site with irrelevant banter making those talk pages unhelpful, unreadable and useless "[117] (Replying to me saying "Vapourmile, I am close to my limit putting up with your behavior. Knock it off and start treating other editors with respect and civility or there will be consequences.") "Consequences? What are you going to do? Stop me adding corrections so that the only people allowed to comment are those who so fundamentally don't understand the subject that they don't even understand when their comments are not even about the subject?"[118] "Excuse me but there would be far less to say if the discussion wasn't being dogged by falsehood... If people were not littering Wikipedia pages with falsehood there would be nothing to reply to."[119] "The sort of writing above is typical of Amiga enthusiasts who graffiti Wikipedia with eulogies of their favourite platform. Amiga enthusiasts are frankly a plague on graphics articles on Wikipedia."[120] "This page has been created as a historical myth-buster to combat the perception of desktop graphics systems leading up to and surrounding the launch of the Commodore Amiga desktop computer. As an computer graphics enthusiast I am fed up with reading misleading or factually incorrect articles written by competitive Commodore Amiga enthusiasts claiming..." [121] "Given that the 'Other' column gives up so much to Amiga related OSs, I think it would be better to make a separate column for Amiga things. Personally though I would prefer it if they were simply removed and put on their own page where they can be ignored by everybody except those in the Amiga-enthusiast audience who are likely to be the only people interested in reading about it. Amiga spam is a galling feature of the Wikipedia computing pages."[122] "People viewing Wikipedia pages have to be careful about fan and evangelist edits, especially in regards to entries regarding the Commodore Amiga whose fans have a beef with the rest of the computer industry about the failure of the platform which has endured in online flame wars for decades. I recommend apparent fan and enthusiast edits, such as those found in this computing page and others, are removed."[123] (In the edit summary) "Another example of the Amiga/68000 evangelising which pollutes Wikipedia."[124] "The arguments made favouring the 32bit moniker have, since its inception found in Motorola's own marketing material, constituted nothing but an ad-hoc redefinition of how to classify CPUs purely to suit the specific architectural design of the 68000 alone. People should not feel free to redefine the scoring system of the game to be about some arbitrary specifics of their home team performance just so their home team wins."[125] "I am quite happy you've decided not to "engage". In fact, I hesitate to say this, but I think most of the discussion I've had with you should simply be deleted because nothing productive has come out of it and you don't seem to have the right knowledge to answer the question, or even the right idea how to."[126] "Sadly in regards to the 68000 and Amiga platforms both are Wikipedia poison for attracting inaccurate evangelising. Wikipedia is shot-through with people who apparently still want to work in 68000/Amiga sales. I would in fact like there to be a more pointed effort from independent editors to correct or remove cheerleading, inaccuracy, and misleading product comparisons introduced far too often by their respective fan-base. The propensity for technical inaccuracy, dishonesty and irrelevance makes them the least desirable fan base of any platform."[127] "You additions to the talk section are boring, superfluous and irrelevant. "[128] "Those arguments are all posited by people who fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Marketing people, and other 68000 fans and evangelists. 2. People who just don't really understand how micro architectures are definitively rated"[129]

NOTE: I have never used an Amiga or any other 68000-based computer. My personal computers have been COSMAC ELF (1802) -> C128 (8502/Z80) -> Pentium -> ARM.

My recommendation: a topic ban from the Amiga computer and the 68000 series of microprocessors, a one-way interaction ban with Guy Harris, and a warning that further personal attacks and incivility will result in an indefinite block with the usual option of appealing after six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So tell Vapourmile, still a newbie after 13 years that they are making newbie errors, including types noted above. Suggest a bunch of mellow editing in other articles to get started. Guy seemed a bit pointy for that situation, including that yes, that was a bit of a threat. Suggest mellowing out a bit.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, when reviewing this editor's contribution, this rings quite hollow to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not consider removing other editors's comments, false accusations of sockpuppetry, filing bogus ANI reports, and writing "I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT." or "You[sic] additions to the talk section are boring, superfluous and irrelevant." to be newbie mistakes. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support (at a minimum) Guy Macon's recommendation. Likely just kicking the can down the road a bit - but wp:rope and all that. — Ched (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan at a minimum per Guy Macon Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 21:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• begrudgingly support the tban, but would prefer an outright indef block as they don't really appear to be here to do much in the way of actual editing considering more than half of their total edits are to drama boards. TAXIDICAE💰 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Guy Macon: For the sake of clarity, how old is your bedroom? I'm not a fan of newbuilds myself. nagualdesign 22:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support the three parts of Guy Macon's recommendation, per what Ched said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  Per Cullen just below me, I agree that the scope of the TBAN should be broad, computers and computing, rather than just some specific types. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from computers and computing, broadly construed. I pity any poor editor named "Guy" unfortunate enough to run across Vapourmile. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support broad TB per Cullen above, or Amiga TB if that's what there is a consensus for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TB per nom. Padgriffin (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible WP:NOTHERE

User:Bog oinb hasn't made many constructive edits (only seemingly constructive edit is a draft). I think they might qualify for a block under WP:NOTHERE but I might be wrong. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That draft was an attack page as well reading it over. Likely just a bored school kid, blocked however as WP:NOTHERE for that very reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Sarah.Xenos - WP:CIR issues

• Sarah.Xenos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sarah.Xenos has been editing Wikipedia since early September 2020 (7 months) and is still making basic errors despite multiple requests on her talk page. She does make some very valid contributions but, after 7 months here, competency is still a big issue. For example, just today she made edits to Tanilba Bay, New South Wales that introduced more errors on top of previous errors made by her that I have subsequently fixed.[130] By far her biggest issue seems to be complying with WP:REFPUNCT. There have been 5 warnings on her talk page regarding this. I have been trying to keep up with the errors but lifestyle changes in recent months, and especially now that I have been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, mean that I'll have less and less time to do so. This editor requires either mentorship or some sterner action from admins as she doesn't seem to be responding to gentle warnings on her talk page. I invite editors to review Shay Dockling, an article that she has written only a few minutes ago, which demonstrates the WP:REFPUNCT problem as well as others. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is a glaring competency issue with regards to the user's written English skills and adherence to our WP:MOS. The Shay Dockling is chock-full of sentence fragments, punctuation mistakes and oddities. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Although Shay Dockling definitely needs copyediting and it is obvious that the editor in question is not a native English speaker, I had no problem understanding the prose despite the problems. Isn't this type of article the very reason why we have enthusiastic copyeditors? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that it's obvious that she's not a native English speaker. Australia is an English speaking country, she lives only 10 km (6.2 mi) from me, volunteers at Newcastle University (17.5 km (10.9 mi) away!) and her edits are all about the local area and Australians. It seems to me that she's just a person with exceptionally poor writing skills. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert

A user, @Coin945, made 72 (!) AfD nominations in the space of approximately three hours with no delete rationale apparently as an attempt to clear out the "unsourced since 2007" category, including a number of blatantly notable topics like City attorney and Anal sphincterotomy. Multiple people (a solid cross-section of AfD regulars with complex and varied opinions on deletionism/inclusionism and implementation of deletion policy) strongly suggested on his talk page that he withdraw these nominations, due to their disruption to the AfD process, and they received multiple procedural speedy keep !votes. Coin945 appears to be mostly inactive aside from this, and so reasonably may not have seen the encouragement to withdraw, but such nominations could have been speedily kept under WP:SKCRIT#1 regardless.

After strong consensus developed amongst other AfD regulars that these nominations were inappropriate, @Johnpacklambert made delete !votes on all or virtually all of the nominations (cross-section: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City attorney, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls (video game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal sphincterotomy) while casting aspersions on the motives of editors who desired the nominations procedurally kept on Coin945's talk page by describing them as "showing utter contempt for Wikipedia and what it is meant to be". These !votes make SKCRIT invalid, requiring that the disruptive nominations above and beyond what AfD's contributor pool can handle either be IAR closed or run for a full week. In addition to accusing editors who want the noms withdrawn of contempt and essentially NOTHERE, he then went on to repeatedly accuse editors desiring withdrawal of a Jim Crow-style grandfather clause (2, 3) including telling other editors to "go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong", which received some righteously angry criticism from @Hyperion35.

This is not acceptable behaviour, and an editor with JPL's tenure and experience at AfD should be decidedly aware of that by now. There is a limit to what the process can handle, and there is a rather low limit to how many times it's acceptable to compare people who want to avoid said process-bludgeoning to Jim Crow racists. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside the nomination discussion, I agree with the comments made above. While I appreciate @Johnpacklambert: for supporting my deletion rationale, I think it highly inappropriate to make the ad hominem attacks on our fine AFD volunteers for doing their job. I would like to apologise for any harm that was caused by comments made below my deletion nominations. Let's keep these AFD discussions rooted in evidence and facts. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Seems like a good number of these could have been boldly redirected instead of having so many AFD nominations at once, at least IMO. The spam-ish mass-delete votes are as unhelpful as the spam-ish mass-keep votes. Truly, both sides should stop treating AFDs like a procedural battleground. This is an encyclopedia not a weird parliamentary procedure MMORPG. And finally idk what JPL was thinking with those ad hominems; way out of line. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'll second what the others have said, JPL's comments were over the top and a major breach of WP:CIVIL. The mass nomination of articles to AFD by Coin is a problem as well - Even if many of them would end up being deleted regardless, the fact that Coin nominated one further article to AFD after the barrage of messages on their talk page, coupled with the refusal to withdraw them, is irritating and shows a lack of regard for the opinions of those other editors. That being said, unless people have evidence that this has been a recurring problem, I don't think much more than a warning is in order. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think Coin needs to be sanctioned -- I didn't make him the topic of this thread, after all. Anything stronger than "the ones no one or only JPL wanted to delete are speedy kept, please don't do that again" is IMO punitive. It's understandable that an editor with apparently low activity in recent years might make a trout-y mistake in good faith (certainly we've had some high-profile cases of it lately), and I cut people some slack for not being immediately responsive to a bunch of strangers descending on their talk page with unflattering comments. Vaticidalprophet 06:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Some of these articles should be deleted, others I'm not sure. Regardless, both sides did a poor job with the AfDs. The nominator failed to explain why the topic wasn't notable. You can't just say its been unsourced for 15 years (although that's usually a good indication of lack of notability), you got to go a step further and say that you don't believe the sources exist (if that is in fact true). And the "procedural keep" argument is just as obnoxious, at least evaluate the article, either it has potential to meet the notability guidelines or it doesn't, you can't just say too many articles were nominated (as if there's an actual limit. I would say that JPL's comments were inappropriate, though not racist. He actually was accusing others of acting like a racist. The comparison doesn't really make sense.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert's high-volume, bot-like participation in the deletion process, combined with a refusal to discuss concerns civilly, has already resulted in a topic ban from nominating more than one AfD per day; his !voting, however, is similarly disruptive (and for largely the same reasons).

Here is one example: on February 3, in a 7 min 53 sec interval between 08:59:55 and 09:07:48 he edited 12 AfDs. All of these edits were to !vote delete, except for one Redirect. He spent the following amount of time between each edit: 40, 55, 32, 70, 28, 32, 22, 73, 29, 36, 56 seconds. Similarly, on January 19th, 1065 seconds elapsed between Mystic songs of Sylhet and Willard Keith: 28 AfDs, with an average of 38 seconds spent on each.

While it's possible that these edits were all composed separately in separate browser windows, queued up over the course of a longer period, and then submitted at the same time (with 20-70 second long breaks between each one for some reason), I think the more parsimonious explanation is that this is simply how long he took to write each !vote out.

To explain why these numbers are so concerning to me, let's look at an example from today: his !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top (technical analysis) "This is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a dictionary." This edit was made at 12:54:30: his previous edit (to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonti diagram) was at 12:53:53, and his next edit (to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower array) was at 12:55:08. That's thirty-seven seconds for a !vote. Let's break it down: this !vote is 11 words long, let's say the associated ~~~~ is one word, that leaves us with 12 words. Some quick research suggests that the average typing speed is 32.5 wpm for transcription, and 19.0 wpm for composition, giving us between 22 and 37 seconds just to type out the !vote. Assuming two to three seconds for both page loads (clicking on the AfD's edit link to open up the posting box, and then clicking/alt-shift-S'ing to save the edit), we get an estimate of 26 to 43 seconds just to edit the page and type out the !vote. This leaves between eleven and zero seconds which could have been used for the entire process of evaluating the article; as a point of comparison, the "Find sources" toolbar at the top of the AfD page has eleven links in it.

It may be pointed out that his AfD ratio is high, and most of his Delete !votes are on articles that get deleted. I don't think this matters here: since a large majority of AfDs close as Delete, !voting D on totally random articles would gives "correct" results in a large majority of discussions, so a "good ratio" does not in itself indicate attention and care is being used in reviewing articles (indeed, 98% of his last 200 !votes were to Delete and 2% were to Merge). More importantly, however, even if he was only !voting on articles certain to be deleted, it's hard for me to understand how an 11-second skim of an article constitutes productive contribution to a discussion. AfD is intended for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies; this involves putting at least some effort into determining whether the individual article meets criteria or not. However, despite being warned and sanctioned for similar behavior in the past, Johnpacklambert has continued to burden the process with extremely large volumes of !votes that prevent such discussion from occurring. It's not that the arguments he makes are solid, or even that they're persuasive: it's just that, in the several minutes of research required to assess an article, find sources and type out a counterargument to one spurious !vote, another twenty will have been made in other AfDs. At that point, why bother?

It would be obviously disruptive for someone to counter this by !voting in thousands of AfDs with "Keep per WP:BEFORE" at a rate of two per minute: JPL doing this to delete articles is, arguably, more disruptive (articles kept due to spurious !votes can be easily re-nominated for deletion, whereas articles deleted due to spurious !votes are quite difficult to access and re-assess, and there is often little evidence that they even existed outside of redlinks). I'd recommend that his AfD topic ban either be extended to the entire process, or expanded to prevent rapid-fire !voting. jp×g 07:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm really not a fan of the backhanded insinuations of racism. JPL could have picked another example of a grandfather clause that wasn't bound up in ugly race politics. I've protested when other AfD participants have used the venue to imply other people are racists for voting the "wrong" way (and gotten nowhere because prefacing such an attack with the word "keep" is an exemption from the civility rules that apply to the rest of us), and I think it is just as unacceptable for someone voting delete. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Harrassed by ElKevbo

ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has harassed me and threatened me with harm. He's been warned on four occasions and continually deletes my edits without cause or evidence with an honest reason. Is trolling me and claims he is "collaborating" but is simply deleting my any content I create, even when it is sourced from a third-party. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)