Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

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)

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[5] 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)

• 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)

User:Herostratus and Nathan Larson (politician)

Herostratus seems to have a bee in their bonnet about Nathan Larson (politician). Months ago, when Larson was arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl, I started a discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard about whether this should be added to the article. (I did not consider Larson a public figure and believed the arrest should be left out.) Herostratus redacted my question and put the article up for deletion with a wall of text rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (politician). When Herostratus refused to stop redacting my BLPN comments, I ended up starting an ANI discussion. The consensus was that the redactions were contrary to our BLP policy. Since then, Herostratus has tried to have the article renamed despite a similar proposal failing a couple of months ago.

Today Herostratus redacted the word "pedophile" from the artcile's talk page ([6], [7]). His argument seems to be that despite multiple reliable sources used in the article referring to Larson as a "pedophile" based on Larson's own statements, the talk page is a different place and WP:BLP prevents us from using the word pedophile without sourcing. At least I think that's what he is saying. Herostratus needs to be blocked from this article, including the talk page, and be told to stop redacting other people's comments. Mo Billings (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of worried when I read I absolutely and in all seriousness think that Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article) really is the best title. on a talk page. That said, there's clearly enough sourcing [8] [9] that discussing on the talk page whether he should be described as a pedophile is not a BLP issue. (as it involves an ongoing trial, it's not at all clear that the article should say that, but the meta-discussion on the talk page is certainly fine). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mo Billings: I don't understand how you could think that a guy who has put himself up to the public numerous times as a candidate for various offices could not be a "public figure"? That boat sailed a long time ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Defendant here. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Nathan Larson, I have a bee in my bonnet about WP:BLP. I've been the breath of hell on BLP stuff for private citizens (Nathan Larson is quite obscure) since the B____ P______ incident in I think 2004 before there was a WP:BLP. It's not a question of banning me from from Nathan Larson article, I've done this elsewhere and intend to continue, so you'll want a much broader topic ban (site ban, whatever) if you want me to stop.

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). I consider "oh the source is on another page somewhere" to be a poor source. We don't ref even anodyne facts in an article to a source in another article, we copy them over. Also note that there's no exemption for "unless a lot of people hate the guy" which in Nathan Larson's case appears to be in play.

Complainant's text above, which is now far removed from the refs (which need to be vetted anyway) and is liable to float around the internet on its own (I know it's not indexed, but anyone can copy and paste it or point to it) is egregious WP:BLP violation. This page is in the class "any Wikipedia page" and the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original) and then it talks about the need for proximate inline refs. I'll leave it an exercise for the reader to decide if complainan text looks like a dare-you-to-stop-me thing to make a point.

The complainant seems to be really determined to assert his and other editors' right to say extremely inflammatory things about obscure citizens based on refs that exist somewhere else in the Wikipedia. If the complainant's text above is allowed to stand, that pushes the de facto norms in a certain direction. I don't think its a path we want to go down. I'm pretty sure that the Foundation takes a keen interest in this subject, so we had better police ourselves lest we be policed.

I also think that rather than an ANI thread this'd better be taken up a much higher level, like a CENT RfC to modify WP:BLP.

I'd actually prefer that instead of sanctioning me, complainant himself was advised not do this sort of stuff. And I mean it's not necessary. It's easy enough to use vague language on stuff like this. It's not a question of "We really need to talk about such-and-so, should we put it in the article?" The thread complainant is exercised about (Talk:Nathan Larson (politician)#The short description) does not require the word "pedophile" to be used. I changed to [redacted] and complainant changed it back. Complainant just wants to say it, I guess. Whether that has to with complainant just really not liking the guy or he aims to do this wherever he goes, I don't know, but neither one is a good look I don't think. Anyway it's all in y'alls court and do what you think best. Sorry about this. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus You were told before that your redactions were against policy. You are going to be told again. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's policy on living people - you are enforcing your own views on what we should be doing. Those are not the same thing. I really don't want to be having this discussion and having to defend myself against your accusations that I hate Nathan Larson or that I am trying to push some agenda. You need to stop. Mo Billings (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: At the time, I was not aware that failed political candidates who have never held office are considered to be politicians. I am now. Mo Billings (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• This frankly strikes me as a difference of opinion on an editorial matter. I would suggest WP:DR of some form or a post at WP:BLPN rather than the sort of result expected from ANI.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a difference of opinion about policy and conduct based on that policy. It is not a content dispute. Herostratus did this redacting act before with the arrest (which made it very difficult to talk about the issue) and he's doing it again with the word pedophile on teh article talk page. Add to that his walls of text on the talk page and his attempts to move the or delete the page. This isn't an easy article - there's no reason to make it more problematic. Mo Billings (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. So here's a couple solutions that might be in play, I think:

1. A clarification at WP:BLP. I have opened a request for one at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposal (not a formal RfC) re need for citations outside article space. As per my usual practice, I mostly described the case in favor of plaintiff's position, so hopefully no objection there. It's my guess that plaintiff's position will be widely popular, and problem solved. I'll abide by that -- have to. But if it goes against plaintiff, he'll abide by it. On this basis you consider closing this thread here, I guess.
2. Or, you could topic ban me from editing or talking about stuff related to WP:BLP. Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. Maybe plaintiff is right -- you decide. I'm not requesting a topic ban. I don't want it (even tho it'd be a relief -- you think I enjoy doing this, and being an unpopular scold to boot? I hate it.) You decide.
3. Or something else, or punt, whatever, your call. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Your interpretation of WP:BLP is contrary to common application of it. The policy does not need to be changed - your interpretation of it needs to be changed. Mo Billings (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mo Billings, OK I hear you. That's a content dispute. ANI is behavioral issues. You brought one, and you have a reasonable point (I don't agree, and I think you're maybe kind of making drama on purpose and could take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction here, but maybe I'm wrong). Maybe you'll get request (right now, I'm not seeing a lot of activity here, so I dunno). But anyway all this is pushing us over to the BLP talk page where I think the real action is going to be. We should have gone there first, but I didn't think of it either, so this whole thread has served a purpose, and that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Please stop saying things like "take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction". I'm perfectly chill, I'm not standing on my right to do anything except abide by policy without interference from you, and I am not "pushing the envelope" by objecting to your out-of-policy redactions to otherwise reasonable discussions. I understand that you object to people applying the word pedophile to someone who reliable sources literally call a pedophile in their headlines, but that "unhealthy direction" seems to be your issue, not mine or anyone else's. Please stop ascribing unpleasant motivations to my editing and focus on the actual issue. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think both Mo Billings and Herostratus are overlooking something. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal charge. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles: "Articles on medical conditions sometimes include lists of notable cases of the disease. For the person to be included in such a list there must be significant coverage of them having the condition, not simply a mention in passing or them self disclosing on social media."

• We can't call him a pedophile in Wikipedia's voice, unless he has been diagnosed as such by a competent authority.
• Pedophilia is not a synonym for child rape: "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children." Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Dimadick I don't know why you think it is helpful to drop a bunch of references here about "child rape", which is not what we are discussing. No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children. As far as calling Larson a pedophile, I think there is a common, non-medical use of the term "pedophile" to mean someone with a sexual interest in children. That usage does not rely on a clinical diagnosis. Headlines such as "Congressional Candidate In Virginia Admits He's A Pedophile". "Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress". "Alleged pedophile, white supremacist arrested in kidnapping of 12-yr-old girl", "Virginia congressional candidate Nathan Larson admits he's a pedophile", "Pedophile And Hitler Fan Running For Congress Makes Ballot", and "This Hitler-loving Proud Pedophile Was Too Much of a Troll for Wikipedia, but Not for a Congressional Run" are using this less formal but most common usage. I'd be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere, but none of this has anything to do with Herostratus' redacting of the literal word "pedophile" in talk page discussions. Mo Billings (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the definition Wikipedia uses for pedophilia and the sources it uses, not the definition for child rape. "No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children." His arrest is over sexual exploitation of a 12-year-old. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to debate content issues here? Larson was indicted for, among other things, sexual exploitation of a minor. That is not "child rape", to use your phrase. No one has accused Larson of raping children. Mo Billings (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Everyone here seems to have missed the comments in the previous discussion referring to WP:BLPTALK, which reads: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." (emphasis added) Whether or not to describe Larson as a pedophile is clearly a content matter, and the posts should not have been redacted. In my opinion this is a settled argument anyway: Larson describes himself as a pedophile and reliable sources agree. Removing this information from his biography is not enforcing any policy, it's plain censorship. Maybe "self-described pedophile" would be slightly more appropriate, but that's about it. We describe things how reliable sources describe them, not how we would like them to be described, nor do we hide information just because some readers might be offended. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Ivanvector said. WP:BLPTALK has specific criteria on what talk page comments should be redacted, and they obviously don't apply here. The accusations against Nathan Larson are well-sourced, and it is appropriate to discuss them on the talk page to determine whether or how they should be included in the article. Herostratus needs to stop redacting and editing other users' comments, as it is a violation of WP:TPO. If they cannot agree to that willingly, they should be forced to stop. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• The redactions are probably OTT but I'm not sure "pedophile" is well sourced. Per WP:HEADLINES the USA Today source doesn't support. Which leaves HuffPost, which is also what The Independent (and USA Today) are admittedly basing from. All the sourcing stems from the following: It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top, there’s a grain of truth to what they say. I don't think this is sufficient for saying he likes being described as a paedophile, or uses that term on himself. Probably fails WP:BLPSTYLE + MOS:LABEL imo. Not to mention the pending court case which only compounds these concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's completely a content discussion, but if one wanted to know that "pedophile" was well sourced, one would have to look at the actual sources instead of just the headlines which I cherry-picked from the references used in the article. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. Be careful not to use the word "pedophile", though, because Herostratus may redact it. That is why I started the discussion here, not content issues. Mo Billings (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

    Let me link my comment back to this discussion: I think it's not a clear-cut case of inclusion (as some comments above say), and Hero's content concerns have some merit. A discussion should happen, and there's no grounds to redact such a discussion from happening. Ideally Hero can acknowledge that (Or, you could topic ban me ... Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. does not seem like an acknowledgement) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: Mo Billings is blocked as a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World's Lamest Critic. --Blablubbs|talk 23:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bob drobbs flooding discussions

On March 5, Bob drobbs (talk · contribs) started a discussion on Talk:List of Middle Eastern superheroes claiming that all superheroes should be included if they are "ethnic Jews" (diff). Afterwards he started three more discussions on the same talk page: this one, this one, and this one, the latter two marked as RfCs. He also started this discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern Americans and took the issue to editor assistance, NPOVN, and DRN (where it was immeadiately rejected by a volunteer[10] who called it "forum shopping"). In total, he made about 60 (sic) edits in promotion of or related to the idea that Jews should be called Middle Eastern, mostly on talk pages. I tried to ignore him, but he threatens and executes small scale edit warring: Help come up with a fair, non-biased standard, that will be applied to people of all religions or I'll keep reverting[11]. After this edit, I put an uw-ew on his talk page. He then added a POV template (diff and again after I removed it, diff). In the hope to stop his flooding of talk pages, I started this FTN discussion. He got very little support there, but still carries on, his latest related action in main space being the addition of the POV-tag to Middle Eastern Americans on April 5, diff. He accused me of "bias" about ten times, and once of not acting in good faith[12]. Currently he stresses the difference between "all" Jews and "ethnic" Jews, but I don't think that's relevant to the question, since all contributions to the discussions apply to both concepts. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The List of Middle Eastern superheroes is almost certainly going to get deleted with overwhelming concensus, with the support of both you and Bob drobbs, which should settle the issue at least for that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: put forth a Straw man proposition in FTN. Of course not ALL Jews are Middle Eastern; religious converts aren't. Congratulations, he's mostly successfully knocking down his own straw man. But the much more nuanced question whether or not ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern or of Middle Eastern ancestry. I'm not saying definitively either way, but RS support that the idea that they are. 1 2. And contrary to Rsk6400's comment, this is an important distinction. A Jew without any additional qualifiers isn't necessarily of Middle Eastern ancestry (like a random Muslim). But RS indicate that a Sephardic Jew does have Middle Eastern ancestry.

The vast majority of my recent edits have been on talk pages with the intent of trying to get inclusion criteria defined along with adding a couple of POV tags. My only motivation is that clear, non-biased, inclusion criteria needs to be used instead of individual editors applying their subjective bias, some of whom seem to be specifically targeting Jews. If Middle Eastern means "born in the Middle East", perfect. If Middle Eastern means "having ancestors from the Middle East", or being "ethnically from the Middle East" then there needs to be agreement about the definitions of these terms.

Meanwhile, in addition to heavily promoting (flooding?) his views all over wikipedia, and with no agreement on inclusion criteria, rsk6400 has been editing pages heavily in order to exclude Jews. Here's a change he made to a page's lede, with no consensus, where it seems clear his sole intent was to make sure Jews are not included. On the same page, he's made at least 9 different edits in order to remove Jews. So yes, I have questioned his bias.

While these pages remain in such a state, I believe the POV tags are absolutely appropriate, and I ask who's the problem here?

On a constructive note, I once again welcome rsk6400 to join me in defining clear inclusion criteria for "Middle East" pages which will be applied equally to people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

After making his comment above, Bob drobbs has re-added the POV tag to Middle Eastern Americans (diff) which had been removed by another user in the mean time, and has created a new sub-section on the talk page called "Vote here" (diff). Regarding the content dispute: A lot of editors rejected his theory on FTN, and I don't think any of them was "targeting Jews". --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: You are the only person who edited a page with the expressed intention of making sure Jews are excluded. You had no consensus to do this:

"Changed "ancestry" to "background" - some people might be tempted to show that Jewish "ancestry" comes from the M.E. of some 2000 years ago"

What you keep referring to as "my theory" is not my theory. If the page's inclusion criteria is "ancestry" and RS say that Sephardic Jews are of Middle Eastern ancestry, you CANNOT exclude them simply because you don't want them included. That's blatant bias, and that's why the POV tag is there.

Yes, I created a new section asking people to share their views on what the inclusion criteria should be. I encourage everyone to constructively participate. And I welcome advice from more experienced editors on how to get more input and achieve rough consensus there.

Rsk6400 seems nearly obsessed with trying to exclude Jews. But he has zero interest in expressing exactly what a Middle Easterner actually is. So, yes, I question his motivations and his bias. How much effort would it take him to just vote on that page? --- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• From reviewing the discussion at FTN and Middle Eastern Americans, it seems like there's a rough consensus against the changes Bob drobbs is proposing, and the addition of POV tags thus does appear to be somewhat tendentious. While I think that it would be fair game for Bob drobbs to continue discussion at Middle Eastern Americans, and potentially even convene an RfC if consensus cannot be reached, the POV tags do not seem warranted given the balance of the discussions at this time. This looks like it's shaping up to be a WP:1AM situation, which I strongly recommend Bob drobbs read. The claims that Rsk6400 has been nearly obsessed with trying to exclude Jews seem like an unfair characterization of their participation in the discussions and essentially amounts to a personal attack; remember to comment on content, not editors. If the aspersions do not stop, sanctions may be necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I reject the characterization that this is a 1AM situation.There are a number of editors promoting the idea that Ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern and adding them to pages. Here's one example. And, for Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, there are RS which support their claim.

And yet again, the FTN seems nearly irrelevant because it asks the totally absurd straw man if ALL Jews are Middle Eastern. That's obviously not true.

The net result of creating clear inclusion criteria might mean that ethnic Jews are included; It might mean that they're excluded, but a number of Muslims are removed too. I strongly believe that so long as subjective criteria are being used to include some people and exclude some people, and it is being done along ethnic lines, then that POV tag really must remain.. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In the FTN discussion, you argued for the claim that all ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern (e.g.) There was extensive discussion that followed, where a consensus was formed that this claim is fringe. Claiming that the thread indulged in a strawman of all Jews by including non-ethnic Jews (i.e. converts) is misleading, as it does not engage with the substance of the arguments presented there, which specifically considered your arguments pertaining to the status of ethnic Jews, and rejected them. To this I'll add that I think that your suggestions of formalizing criteria for inclusion are fine in a vacuum, but come off as tendentious when coupled with edit warring over the NPOV template and repeated accusations that other editors are out to exclude people on the basis of their ethnicity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion proposal comes off as even more tendentious when their proposal is to only categorize people as Middle Eastern Americans if they were born in the Middle East. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: All of the RS in the lead support the idea that the only people who are "Middle Eastern Americans" are foreigners born in the Middle East [e.g.]. I've put up a citation request, and I've asked editors to please share RS which provide some other definition for "Middle Eastern American", but as of yet, no one has. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I have accused you to editing inclusion criteria solely to to exclude Jews because that's exactly what you said. There was no consensus for this edit and no purpose for edit, beyond you trying to exclude Jews:

"Changed "ancestry" to "background" - some people might be tempted to show that Jewish "ancestry" comes from the M.E. of some 2000 years ago"

Instead of deliberately trying to exclude Jews, you should be asking what does "ancestry" mean?

How much time and effort have you put into this debate? Wouldn't time be better spent by constructively working with me to define actual criteria? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For those that don't want to click through to Bob drobbs' link, it's a US Census table specifically about the foreign-born population of the US.

@Bob drobbs:, do you have any argument for how that is a good faith attempt at evidence for the specific point you were making?

the only people who are "Middle Eastern Americans" are foreigners born in the Middle East

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've made a suggestion of how to resolve the immediate dispute at Middle Eastern Americans, so I'm going to recuse myself from taking any admin actions. That having been said, the repeated attempts to reframe this discussion as being about "correcting double standards around Jews" need to stop, and merit sanctions if they don't. Rsk6400's edits are understandable given the context that Bob drobbs was attempting to label all ethnic Jews as Middle Eastern and their apparent decision to not take a FTN discussion's "no" for an answer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Encouraged by Rosguill's comments of 19:29 and 20:54, 7 April, I removed the POV tag, but Bob drobbs reverted me. (diff) --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by users Lithopsian and Narky Blert

I've been trying to eliminate the page Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) due to there being only one person of that name, but these two are very keen on not allowing me to do that. Up til recently the disambiguation page had two articles, several redirects and several redlinks, and I got rid of all but one of those via prod. The two like to consistently edit-war without properly stating their reasons or clarifying their position; it's not even clear what they want.

First, it took a while (1, 2) for Blert to even realize that the page was full of redirects masking as articles. He then suggested I might've still been wrong, that there still was more than one person that would justify the disamb page's continued existence, and offered a source which, turns out, supported my position. I provided another source (here and here) to confirm. Blert then seemingly abandoned the cause and there was a lull in the discussion, during which the prod expired and one of the outstanding articles was deleted. Lithopsian then came out of nowhere and began laboring to undo everything I did, without offering any specific reason other than there still was a discussion (an abeyant one) ongoing. I reiterated my previous point, to which both Lithopsian and Blert responded by moving the goalposts and making this about disambiguating plausible search terms, however incorrect they are. I gave a similar reply to both Lithopsian and Narky Blert. The former, instead of answering, went on to claim to an administrator that my original prod was made under 'false premises' and demand its restitution. Blert said some nonsense which had nothing to do with the matter and then proceeded to undo a stop-gap compromise of mine and threaten me with 4RR.

To this moment, my last comments, both in the disambiguation page and in Blert's talk page, are not responded to. It's not clear what their grievances even are, but it doesn't look like the two will accept any reasoning whatsoever, it's clear they have no relevant knowledge of classical antiquity (or desire to obtain it) which would help resolve the problem, and my edit count for the day is expired. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

All the relevant discussions I know of can be found (in chronological order) at Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#Name, User talk:Narky Blert#Claudia Pulchra and Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#The purpose of a disambiguation page (which I've only just seen, and haven't taken part in). For completeness, I add my {{uw-3rr}} notice}} at User talk:Avilich#6 April 2021 and my advisory post at User talk:Lithopsian#Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

Courtesy ping to Graeme Bartlett, who reverted a near-blanking edit by Avilich to the page in question on 4 April 2021.

For now, I will let those discussions speak for themselves. I will simply remark that (1) failure to respond instanter does not mean acceptance, (2) my WP:ES "One more revert by Avilich will be WP:4RR" was not a threat but a statement of fact, and (3) the original inhabitants of Australia are famed for their ingenious missile weapons. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You intentionally avoided responding the question which would have decided the issue, you didn't simply 'fail to respond instanter'. Avilich (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No 3RR violations by my count, but right up to the line. Both sides should have been talking instead, of course. I looked at the request for undeletion. It is worth clarifying that Lithopsian asserts that speedy deletion of "redirects", not the prod, were made under "false premises". Lithopsian, what redirects do you mean? Dishonesty is a rather hurtful allegation if exaggerated or untrue. I have made some suggestions about how to move progress forward on the disambiguation page talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects are all the other entries on the disamb page, whose deletion I requested under the same reasoning as the prod. Avilich (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, they were deleted as speedy deletion criterion G8. Of course, I can't see your original request and the criterion you selected. But presumably it's not the same as the article you put the prod on since, if it were, you would have similarly requested speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

They were all dependent on a single article, so that when one was gone the rest followed. The prod justification seemed technically valid for all of them as search terms, though I can understand that Lithopsian would have preferred that I nominated each of the redirects indicvidually, so I apologize if such a bold move was unwarranted. Avilich (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects referred to were all pointing to the PROD'd article (Claudia Pulchra Major), which has since been recreated by Avilich. A PROD is of course an entirely legitimate process, but using it as a mechanism to remove redirects without discussion seems over the line to me. For clarity, I have requested a refund of the PROD'd article (request outstanding as I write this), if only for its history, and recreated the redirects with hopefully better targets in existing articles. Lithopsian (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the article with the PROD was deleted, and then the redirects to that deleted page were tagged G8 and deleted? Do I have that right? If so, what's the supposed false premise in deleting the redirects? That seems entirely legitimate. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And then recreating the PROD'd article that the redirects depended on, albeit now as a redirect but still concerning the same subject? So back to square one, but the offending redirects are now gone. Might have looked good at every step along the way, but I don't think that's how redirects are supposed to be deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an adnin, so I can't see the histories; but when I by chance fell across what is now Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) a week or so ago, almost all of those redlinks were bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You were also interested in the search history of a prod'd article of all things, for some reason. I wonder what is your interest in that, or in recovering incorrect stray search terms in general. From what I gather you only entered this dispute to begin with because you sensed some editwarring going on, which caused you to adopt a reactionary position by default, that is, returning to the status quo ante no matter the cost. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: But you weren't talking about the PROD or whatever was created in its place after it was deleted. You wrote that the redirects were speedily deleted "under false premises". That apparently was a false statement, WP:Casting aspersions on Avilich. Very unimpressed with that conduct. --Bsherr (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notification posted at WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#An ANI case. Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the claims of disruptive editing or the like, but on the substantive matter of whether anyone other than the wife of Varus was called Claudia Pulchra or is so-called in current scholarship, User:Avilich has provided a substantial range of sources and a search for "Claudia Pulchra" on Google Books seems to confirm: no one uses "Claudia Pulchra" for any other individual. Furius (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the one person actually referred by that name is the last line of a long list of non-notable maybe,possibly named the same who require a re-direct to establish them at that name and then in most cases re-direct to a single mention in an article about their husband? Certainly not doing a reader any favors there. Slywriter (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I will note that Avilich has been very argumentative. And Avilich has cause most of the disruption here. I have also restored one redirect that should not have been deleted as it was created due to renaming of a page that had been there for over 6 years. So that was not a "recently created" name. Disambiguation pages can contain many redlinks, and do not need to be deleted just because they do! There just needs to be a proper civil discussion about what is real, what is duplicate, and what will never be notable. That is not for this venue though. The prod can be reversed on request. So this is an administrator that someone can take. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO this didn't need to be referred to ANI. This is an argument over how best to apply Wikipedia policy to a disambiguation page, and should have been resolved there or with community input at Classical Greece and Rome. With respect to the issue, I disagree with Avilich's interpretation of old and new scholarship: the DGRBM is dated, but still a vital source; I'm not going to argue that at length here, except to say that if important scholarship once did support a particular name—especially a plausible one like the one at issue here—then it makes perfect sense to have a disambiguation page, redirects, and hatnotes, even if current scholarship does not use that name (which, I point out, is not the same as refuting it). I think that was the principle upon which Narky Blert was standing, and what Lithopsian was getting at. But more importantly, skimming Narky Blert's arguments I don't see anything disruptive or provocative, and having interacted with him before I wouldn't expect to. I don't see disruptive editing. P Aculeius (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I only argued the DGRBM is unreliable before finding out it actually supports (pp. 761–62) my original point. Apparently believing the other party would read his own source is to expect too much. I couldn't find any instance in older scholarship of the name being used in the manner you speak, and the whole stash seems to be a mess created by a single editor 5 years ago. Avilich (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You may not have noticed but there was persistent editwarring and a very low willingness by the opposing party to actually engage in conversation. They ignored comments of mine, shamelessly gave some misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer, and kept mass reverting my edits based on nothing else than the other having already done so previously. They felt zero need to give an actual, substantial reason why there should be a disambiguation page dedicated to listing redirects with invented names, and, judging by Lithopsian's final answer in the disamb talk page, WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to have been the limit of their repertoire. Avilich (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: Mostly what I see in the discussions is good faith disagreement about how to apply our policies and guidelines to the specifics of this case. I do not see any real evidence of "misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer" etc, not any real reluctance to engage in conversation beyond the apparent frustration with what they feel is the wrong way you went about this. As always, it's easily possible that both sides will continue to believe their preferred outcome is best supported by our policies and guidelines. And with so few participants achieving WP:consensus may be impossible. Therefore using some form of WP:Dispute resolution such as asking for feedback from a relevant Wikiproject may be necessary as recommended by others. But for this to properly succeed, it would require both side to accept there is good faith disagreement, and so frankly I agree with others that you Avilich seem to be the bigger problem since you don't seem to accept that per you comments I'm replying to. While Lithopsian and Narky Blert may be unhappy with how you went about this, and I make no comments on whether their views are fair, at least that's a process dispute unlike your complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not paying attention then. My comment immediately preceding this one offered a solution to the existing predicament, and Blert ignored it altogether by deciding to focus on my wording instead. Immediately after that he went on to revert a stop-gap compromise of mine and put a 4RR warning on my talk page. If you can find a single good-faith contribution by Blert or Lithopsian to the discussion, bring it to me please. Avilich (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're making my point for me, though. The reliability of a source isn't determined by whether its conclusions agree with or disagree with the current scholarly majority on a particular issue. It's not reliable when it supports your position and unreliable when it doesn't. You may be right about the name, although frankly I suspect that "Claudia Pulchra" was a perfectly acceptable way for Romans to refer to any of the Claudiae in this family when distinguishing them from other women of the Claudia gens. It doesn't take a lot of examples to know that this was a logical construction for the Romans, even if they used it only when necessary. But I digress. As I skimmed the argument, I didn't see disruptive editing; I saw two editors refusing to consider each other's points, and admit that they could both be correct. And in my opinion you tend to be a bit inflexible when it comes to the "truth" (and I'm not trying to be mean; I know that I have a tendency to be stubborn about things myself). Since you must have seen that Narky Blert regularly consults with CGR when there are questions of disambiguation beyond his knowledge, and that he's always quite courteous in doing so, I'm surprised you aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt; reporting him to ANI seems extreme, when you could simply have asked the members of CGR for some input. This doesn't seem to be a situation requiring administrator intervention or some kind of formal reprimands or warnings. My advice is to take a deep breath, and look for ways to compromise, or determine a solution that will be satisfactory to each of you. P Aculeius (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: (EC) BTW, I assume you didn't intend to say that a source/DGRBM is unreliable if it does not support your PoV, but if it does then it's reliable. However this is what your comment says to me, and it's definitely not an argument supported by any policy or guideline. Indeed putting aside alignment with someone's personal PoV, it's generally a poor argument to say I though source X said A so it was unreliable but I found it says B so it's reliable. Sources being wrong about basic facts is a sign of unreliability but since a lot of the time basic facts are not easily established, it's generally better to concentrate on whether the author or publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on the subject matter etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You ought to have realized by now that the reliability of this source is a red herring, and not relevant to this discussion. I'll repeat this as many times as I must: I only argued it was unreliable before realizing it supported my conclusions. Now I know it supports what I've been saying all along, so arguing what I think of its quality is pointless distraction.

With regards to whether this is the right place or not to discuss the matter. I still don't know what those two even want, and arguing in good faith with either has been a waste of time. Maybe if I had taken it to the Wikiproject it would have solved things, who knows. ANI's purpose is to solve 'chronic, intractable' problems, which is what this is. I don't care about inflicting sanctions or whatever, I'll rather just leave the issue here and let an administrator have the final say in it. If I'm right, case closed, I got what I came for. If I'm somehow wrong, I'll move on, and it will fall to some other unfortunate editor to fix the outstanding mess; I wish him luck. Avilich (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Although frankly I suspect that "Claudia Pulchra" was a perfectly acceptable way for Romans to refer to any of the Claudiae in this family when distinguishing them from other women of the Claudia gens." But do we have evidence that anyone outside wiki has ever done even this? So far I haven't seen any. Furius (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not, and that quote is plain original research. I must've said this something like 4 times in the disambiguation talk page alone, but the source of the error seems to be one, at most two, editors doing some incorrect page moves and creating redirects 3 to 5 years ago. Although a general search on google returns not much of use (mostly wikipedia mirrors), google books and google scholar show no ambiguity with regards to who is meant by that name. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, while I agree with your ultimate conclusion on the content issue to a substantial degree, let's nuance that point a little: we actually can pretty safely presume that some of those other women were likely to have been referenced as 'Claudia Pulchra' contemporaneous with their life, simply because this is pretty consistent with idiosyncrasies in Roman/latin familial onomastics, for the period of the relevant time spans. But the content determination just doesn't turn on that question. The real point of policy relevance is that, as a historiographic matter, only this one woman is known to history as Claudia Pulchara--or at least, we have not seen evidence of a source which contradicts this extrapolation. And note that in a sense we are doing a kind of light original research touch-over of the issue: because obviously we cannot, with mere absence of evidence, prove the negative that there is no other source out there that says otherwise, of any of our other Claudiea at subject here. But under the burden-shifting required of Wikipedia's relevant content policies, we generally prefer that kind of assumption over the the argument that "Well, someone may have called any of them this, so that justifies A, B, and C." This is really a straight forward read on WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BURDEN, ultimately, and that is why you prevail on the content matter.

...Or rather I should say that is where you would probably prevail, if you weren't busy shooting yourself in the foot over the issue. Because I'm afraid to say that the above is the sum of where I agree with your approach to this dispute. Early in the go with the two editors who represented your opposition to some of your edits, you seem to have consistently adopted a tone that was more combative than it necessarily had to be. I appreciate that you are vexed by the issue, particularly insofar as you apparently had to litigate the content issue once with another editor. But that said, you seem to have imported some of your existing frustration on the matter over into more recent discussions. Indeed, from my review of the discussions raised here so far, I would say you need to be careful of throwing stones at a behavioural forum on this series of exchanges, insofar as some of your comments to the two editors you brought here have been less than polite in tone and verging on uncivil. You certainly at a minimum seem to be taking the matter rather personally: please remember that no one is setting out to "make life more difficult for you", to borrow your own wording--and at the point that you begin to view the dispute in those terms, you may be losing necessary perspective. These two editors, whether they are in error about the content/policy issue or not, seem to be following what they perceive to be the editorially/procedurally appropriate course--they do not seem to be trying to thwart you personally. And you are meant to WP:AGF with regard to them in that respect unless they have given you good reason to suspect a bad-faith motivation. Nor is it a good look to speculate at length about their relative command of the subject: on this project you are meant to argue the point of the policy, not try to frame things in terms of your observations about your rhetorical opponent.

You then compounded these issues by pretty much skipping over numerous community process options at your disposal (WP:RFC, WP:3O, WikiProject and Village Pump noticeboards) that could have brought a community consensus to the talk page to seal the deal on your efforts (that you obviously feel represent an important content correction); instead you brought essentially a content dispute to ANI and implied behavioural issues (if not misconduct) by two other editors. When my best read on the situation says that at most they were trying to slow the roll over concerns that may have been perfectly legitimate from their perspectives, considering the complex procedural history of the issue here. For that matter, the argument that sometimes disambigs are used to represent content groupings which do not map directly to sourced nomenclature is, although not the winning argument here in my opinion, at least a reasonably relevant and good faith perspective. In short, I would attempt to de-escalate the issue from here and maybe own up to your own contribution to the issues that arose in in the previous discussion. You seem like a person with a fairly orderly mind, so I think if you read over the history of your approach to discussion with the editors in question, you'll find you missed opportunities to potentially convert their perspective by being too aggressive. Of course, I can't make you concede to any of the above observation any more than Nil Einne or P Aucelius could when they touched on some of the same points, but I am giving you my frank opinion that, given the contrast between the approaches of the parties the community is being asked to look at here, I don't think a behavioural discussion is the field you want to pitch your camp on right now. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly, 'trying to slow the roll over concerns that may have been perfectly legitimate'; there was tons of obstruction, little engagement from their part. None of them came to my talk page to ask why I was doing what I did (only a 4RR warning after remaining aloof for most of the discussion). The overwhelming majority of arguments in the disamb talk page was authored by me, not them. The effort it took to have them understand or even read an answer or edit summary was astounding, and, when they did, they simply changed the subject and found another argument (which they had not bothered to mention previously) as an excuse to continue with their meddling. As for your 'missed opportunities', I went out of my way to reach out to Blert, whose petty objection started this all, in hopes of convincing him to consider an alternative approach, and he was mostly lazy and dismissive. In the midst of this, sure, I was uncivil, and that sucks, I guess...? Though I'm sure if you even read this reply you'll just roll your eyes, assume (like Aculeius) my tone and obstinacy just proves your point, and dismiss this as nothing more than embittered ranting. Avilich (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, me bringing this here isn't an escalation, it's simply a report of 'chronic, intractable' behavior, which is what editwarring on this scale constitutes. I'm done arguing what to do with that accursed disambiguation page, so what's required now is someone neutral with authority to assess the merits of each party and end this. Avilich (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion derives from the assumption made by several editors in the early years of Wikipedia that Roman Republican women inherited the cognomina of their father (eg. Claudia Pulchra, daughter of Appius Claudius Pulcher). This is generally not supported by scholarly sources and tend to favour Avilich's position regarding this disamb page (delete), considering there is already a disamb page for Claudia. However, Wikipedia has contaminated the web and some people may now look for "Claudia Pulchra". This is something I have seen elsewhere before and source of potential future similar conflicts. Perhaps a guideline/policy exists to deal with acknowledgment of mistakes coming from Wikipedia. T8612 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that in early Wikipedia several mistakes of this nature were made (the sister and mother of the Gracchi for example). But with Claudia the issue is more recent (late 2015), and a standard google search overwhelmingly returns either wikipedia mirrors or sites like geni.com and myheritage. These errors don't seem to have become particularly widespread enough to merit a comment, even the older ones. Most of these errors have been corrected for some time now, so it's safe to assume that, just as the internet may repeat Wikipedia's errors, they may also incorporate its corrections (eventually) when they become available. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Whether these women were actually referred to as "Pulchra" in their lifetime is not the be end of all this, the truth is simply that regardless many of these women will be called "Claudia Pulchra" in other works and as such it becomes a plausible search term for many of them. As such I think a disambiguation page by the name is going to be helpful for the average reader.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But this is still kind of a digression from the main issue here: this was a dispute over how best to serve our readers, and it shouldn't have grown heated; but editors dug in their heels, carried the argument across multiple pages, and it wound up here. I think just about everyone can agree that while the conversation could have been handled better, there wasn't "disruptive" editing in the sense that admins need to mete out sanctions—a simple reminder of the rules and principles by which we're supposed to work should be enough, where all the parties involved are genuinely trying to do the right thing. And really this discussion—mostly civil—should already have accomplished that. This is not an instance of "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour on the part of two editors whose actions are unjustified by comparison with those of others. It's just a dispute that wasn't resolved well. I hope we can just close this referral here. Whether the page or its contents are justified can still be discussed—calmly, I hope—at its talk page; this isn't the place to do it, since the contents here won't be found on the article's talk page, which is where the discussion needs to be. P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 10 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)

All unsourced wrestling content, all the time

Kingabyan91 (talk · contribs). A final warning days ago had no impact. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's helpful if you provide more context and diff links so we know what the actual complaint is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything, it seems: [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [21]. Standard wrestling fan 'I saw it on tv' stuff. WP:CIR appears relevant....more eyes at Mia Yim would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree, I saw the Edge edit when it was made; a lot of this could really be considered WP:OR. — Czello 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked. I think they have good intentions, but it is causing a lot of work for others. I provided some instructions for them, and hopefully they will read and follow my directions. I've made it clear any admin can unblock without my permission. Sometimes it takes a block to just get their attention. They may not have read anything on that talk page, which is common for new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I note this user is using the mobile app to edit, which means they may not have even seen any warnings. I predict they will not see the block, let alone appeal it. Suffusion of Yellow's keeping a record of these here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing warnings is no reason to let disruption continue. GiantSnowman 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: They're using the mobile web interface actually. It's hard to say if they've seen the talk page messages. Logged in mobile users just get a little number in a red circle. It looks just like the system used by ten thousand other websites to tell you about spammy garbage that you don't care about, so they might not have realized that it's important. They will see the block message, though. But, there's no link to the their talk page in the block message, or any indication of how to appeal. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good definition of chutzpah: [22]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:43, 10 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 [23], 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: [24], [25], [26]. Also has no qualms with edit-warring when warned [27] and has even admitted to it [28]. 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 [29] 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)

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 [30] 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)

Vandalising thread

User Dughorm has been constantly vandalising the Emblem of the Republic of Albania article despite there being no resolution in the talk page. He keeps changing the title and contents of the article without providing an argument. Kj1595 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Kj1595 has been vandalizing the page by reverting any and all changes made by me despite them being mostly cosmetic and corrections of terminology. They unilaterally moved the article for the coat of arms of Albania to call it an "emblem" in contradiction with the established Wikipedia practice of referring to heraldic symbols as coats of arms, and despite the naming having been previously decided to be "coat of arms of Albania", and made numerous edits over a short period of time in the past. I have provided all evidence on the talk page, which they dismissed claiming to be a native speaker, pointing me to Google Translate, which outputs results contradictory to their claims, and disregarding the heraldic context of the symbol, insisting that the word "stema" must be translated by emblem despite meaning "coat of arms" and, as is common in the languages of post-Socialist states, being used to refer to any kind of a state emblem. I have been unable to report them as I am only familiar with article and file editing, so I kept reverting their unilateral moderation of my contributions. I have also attempted to manually transfer the contents to "Coat of arms of Albania", but realized my mistake and reverted the changes immediately, as I only intend to restore the page to its original state before the user's numerous changes while maintaining their positive contributions. — Dughorm (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I be vandalising the article when I created all the historical emblems in the article which you have removed? I created the Historical emblems section of the article as well. I urge the admins to look at my last edit and compare it with what Dughorm changed it to and decide who did the vandalism? Kj1595 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

None of your contributions were removed. I have reformatted the section from the form of a table to the usual page format, and arranged numerous images in a gallery so that they would not disrupt the short pieces of text. Only your unilateral conviction-based changes have been changed to proper terminology. Please stop appealing to your authority of being a native speaker or having made constructive contributions in the past, and do not act as if you are an owner of the article. — Dughorm (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed most of the content in the Infobox as well as all the historical logos and replaced them with a gallery of fictional logos. So basically you ruined what was an already good article. You were called out on this in the talk page by another user and you accused that user of being biased and a nationalist. Kj1595 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The infobox had no content in it except the unofficial "blazon", which an "emblem", as you claim, would not have. Who are you to decide whether or not sourced files are "fictional"? I have replaced one or two of them with higher quality vectorizations already present on Wikimedia Commons, as is the policy for visual symbols. Again, I have deleted none of the content and only improved some wording and translations you didn't even bother to double-check. You have also made changes while there is an ongoing dispute, so I expect you to undo them and go back to the exact version at the time of opening the dispute. There hasn't been any negative feedback from non-Albanians so far, so I have reasons to suspect nationalist brigading. — Dughorm (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute? Are both of the editors Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute? It appears that neither of the editors has made an actual case of vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Can these editors be warned that continuing to yell "Vandalism" is a personal attack? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's more than content dispute. The user removed all historical emblems in the article thus changing a significant part of the article's identity. That is vandalism. Not only that, he also removed the sources in the article. And continuely keeps changing the title of the article without there being a resolution in the talk page. How is that not vandalism? Kj1595 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism is a disruptive attempt to deface an article. These edits are good faith efforts to improve the article. You may not like them- and that's fine- but your disliking them does not make them vandalism. And insisting that every change you don't agree with is vandalism is a personal attack and also WP:OWN so- please go to the talk page of the article in question and both of you discuss the proposed changes with an open mind per WP:BRD, and if that doesn't work out- after an extended good faith discussion- you are welcome to come to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and I will volunteer to help mediate this. After you both give a good ole fashion discussion a try first. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Kj1595 (talk) 18:03, 8 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. [31]. 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"[32]) 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"[33]). 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.[34] 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)

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"[35] 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)[36] 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 ([37] ). 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 ([38]), 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"[39], 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." [40]; 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." [41].
• 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. [42]; "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." [43]. When I asked them to strike these personal attacks, the response was a talk page ban because "I don't like your deletionist attitude." [44].
• No Great Shaker: "As Joseph says, there is for some reason an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon on the roll." [45]

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)

Problems with User:Neverrainy

User:Neverrainy is someone who’ve I had trouble with before back when I used to focus on editing video game pages. He recently went onto a set of Game Show pages that I edited to follow infobox rules and changed them all back without an edit summary. His edits were adding modern distributors rather than the ones that existed during the show's air dates and removing the BBC as a production company, although unlike most broadcasters they do indeed produce shows in-house.

I then reverted them back and sent him a talk page message asking why he did so and included all of this. But he deleted it instead and reverted back his edits with the vague “No it’s not”. I tried again on his talk page, asking him to look at the infobox to show what I said was true, but once again he deleted it without an edit summary.

I would need some help with this person, and I’ve noticed he’s been blocked a small number of times for unsourced information, and from this I don’t think he’s even listening to any advice or criticism he gets given. I will need some help with this situation. Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging NinjaRobotPirate who did the last block for "unsourced content". He's had two, and this sounds similar. The fact that he would just delete your two talk page posts, which were polite and proper, and not comment or use a summary, starts to sound like WP:Tendentious editing. Perhaps they will come here an explain, as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't really remember specifics about the previous block, but this does seem pretty tendentious. It looks like Neverrainy was previously removing citations and adding unsourced content. This is fairly common on pop culture topics because everyone is a subject matter expert on pop culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: You are required to notify an editor regarding a discussion you start on this board regarding their editing. I've done so for you here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Some context as another admin who has blocked/monitored Neverrainy over the years. Neverrainy rarely communicates and focuses on gnoming tasks related to templates and infoboxes. It can be difficult, but is possible, to get through to him regarding changes or misunderstanding he has on template/infobox documentation. Once he gets it though, he runs with it and applies it. Further context: I've long monitored LTPHarry as well as an editor who has operated in similar fashion to Neverrainy, and has required a lot of guidance in years past about proper use of infobox fields, such as misusing fields in Infobox company and Infobox video game. What I'm seeing here in this case is that the only guidance {{Infobox television}} gives for the Distributor field is "the original companies". I see a lot of the back and forth here is that LTPHarry is adding Company and Distributor to show infoboxes (apparently without any obvious sourcing) and Neverrainy subsequently removes it again (In response to his talkpage, saying it's "against wikipedia policy", which if he means WP:V could be true, but if he means the infobox doc is wrong). Both editors need to adjust what they are doing here. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On regards to that, I am really strict on what the infobox rules say, so if it says "original distributor" and not "current distributor", then I go for that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here? In the set of reverts I reviewed, Neverrainy wasn't adding distributors at all (original or modern), he was removing it after you recently added them without any sourcing. Perhaps you need to provide some explicit diffs so we're all reviewing the same issues? For example, are you talking about a case like Special:Diff/1016167055? You were the one that added both the original AND current distributor, so the wrongness of the edit started with you. Neverrainy might not have been correct in removing the original and leaving the current, but it began with your edit. How about Special:Diff/1016405817 this one? Why did you add the "current" production and distribution companies? -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • So, as for that... The show currently still airs, and BBC Scotland co-produced the series starting in 2010 until the BBC cancelled it and Channel 5 got the rights, this was already there to begin with. As for my additions, 12 Yard traded as a joint-venture company before ITV purchased them in 2007 and so they solely owned the IP and copyright. Now, when it comes to their earlier shows that didn't last long, like Dirty Money, that was produced in 2002, when 12 Yard was first formed up, so ITV had no involvement with distribution back then. This is all of that done as how I refer to it. I won't be reverting or re-editing any pages he reverted from me until this situation is cleared out. Luigitehplumber (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • So where did you bother explaining any of this? I'm not convinced this explanation works with the infobox's directive of "original only, not current", but let's pretend it does. It's not in your edit notes. Your first message to Neverrainy at Special:Diff/1016405630 doesn't, in your edit to that at Special:Diff/1016407157 you add a little vague insulting that he doesn't understand infoboxes but give him no further rationale on why later subsequent companies are treated as "original", and in your final message at Special:Diff/1016575959 you ABF that he didn't read or check the infobox, again don't explain how/why subsequence companies would be "original", and use his block log as a threat. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
          • I'll be honest, maybe I did take what I said to him a little too much, but still. He doesn’t need to be blocked or anything, I just want him to know next time about what the infobox says, although he'll likely still delete my talk page posts to him.Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Right so, that's kinda my point. Neverrainy's reverts, while not well communicated, are more inline with the infobox documentation than the edits you were making. You cannot tell him "The infobox says ONLY original" then complain when he reverts your edits that are listing multiple companies with sequential year ranges, which means ONE of them is non-original. I don't think he lacks understanding of the infobox at all. And I don't really want to defend his typical lack of communication either, he certainly has an issue there. But you've dragged him to ANI when he was, technically, correct. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
              • So, what should I do now? I do want to re-add everything, but he won’t take all of that and just turn it back to how he wanted it before. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
                • But why would you re-add everything? You were putting non-original companies into those fields in many cases, and in all cases not providing any sourcing. His reverts are, for the most part, in line with Infobox Television and WP:V. This can probably continue elsewhere, on your talk page or if you want, mine. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Okay then, we'll finish this all now. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've issued Neverrainy a warning for failure to communicate. Regardless of the merits of the content dispute, users are not allowed to simply refuse to communicate in good faith. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:XiAdonis keeps reverting against consensus

On the article Rising sun flag, there has been a consensus by multiple editors to include in the introduction that the flag is controversial in parts of East Asia. XiAdonis refuses to accept this consensus, continuing to revert the article against the consensus. In particular, the user seems to think that adding another argument to the talk page after the discussion has run its full course is sufficient to set aside the consensus.

The user's talk page shows that this is not the first time the user has been disruptive on articles related to Japan. RisingStar (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Since XiAdonis has chosen to delete it from their talk page, I'm adding the diff of XiAdonis's talk page where User:Binksternet gave XiAdonis a final warning for being disruptive on another Japan-related article. RisingStar (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus against me, I presented my arguments which have gone unanswered for months, on the basis of stale discussion and due to no one being to assuage the concerns raised I decided to revert the page back to the stable version. XiAdonis (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus, and the article has been edited accordingly in January. That version is the stable version. I've taken care to address the feedback from other editors, but you did not provide any feedback besides giving arguments against the inclusion of the sentence in question, and I have addressed these arguments at length. Consensus does not mean that every single editor has to agree with the consensus. RisingStar (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And now XiAdonis has the gall to revert again. RisingStar (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment Rather than edit war- since 3 to 2 is really not a clear consensus either way- the appropriate thing to do would be to stop editing and open an WP:RFC to get more eyes on this. Rather than continuing this super-slow and unproductive edit war. Just my two cents. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that there are not 2 editors against, as I addressed SLIMHANNYA's concern through my edits, but I will open an RFC. RisingStar (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 176.221.121.64

• 176.221.121.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• What's in It for Me (Amy Diamond song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• This Is Me Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP has been constantly changing release dates without sources on the two articles listed above as well as several other articles, including removing an entire Release History section from Express (Christina Aguilera song) for no reason. They have been warned multiple times to stop. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 16:31, 8 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[46], even though it shouldn't according to its own documentation: both "accessdate" and "access-date" are in the CS1 whitelist[47]; which should guide the bot. The Github list they use[48] 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: [49]. 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)

Disruptive and uncivil IP user, including vandalism

There is an IP editor whose main focus seems to be obsessively making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, which has been an ongoing source of contention amongst some users who edit articles relating to British politics. Some of the user's edits in discussions, notably the one on the RS noticeboard, display a degree of unnecessary bad attitude. That discussion is a case in point. Their tone is quite snappy and curt, and was highlighted by another editor as "Trolling, abusive language."

I am assuming the multiple IP users are the same person, because they seem to edit similar articles and the IP address usually belongs to a Sky Broadband account in the North East of England or East London. The tone is usually similar, too. The editor recently left another snarky message at my Talk page.

I've raised their behaviour at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom page, with regard to the DOB issue. I don't agree with User:Bondegezou there, but at least their input has been somewhat polite; the latest comment by the IP editor seems to be challenging me as if trying to goad me into an argument. I am ignoring it. Their general attitude seems to be "I am right, you are wrong" ("trolling" perhaps being an accurate description).

If you see their edits to the article on Conservative MP Nigel Evans at the account below, they reverted two of my edits, simply writing that one was "not necessary" - when I added the Post-Nominals template to the intro of the article. They also reverted the edit in which I moved the arrest and trial of Evans to a new section, from his "Personal life" - I assume they objected to that, but in the process, also reverted a load of grammatical and formatting related edits I had made. I undid the reversions, noting "Only revert when necessary". That ended that dispute. See here.

The editor also reverted my edit to the article on Conservative MP Christian Wakeford - in this instance, I would assume they objected to me adding the DOB, although it was referenced (I've added a number of DOBs for MPs citing Politics.co.uk, which is presumably why they decided to raise the reliability of the source elsewhere: they are fiercely guarding the insertion of DOBs which don't meet their verifiability requirements, which I don't believe are as black-and-white as they insist). But again, the edit I made to this article also included a number of improvements to the formatting, grammar, structure of the text, so reverting it completely was unnecessary. I undid the reversion, and again that seemed to leave it. See here.

Their recent edit at the WikiProject page, however, highlighted to me an incident of vandalism. See this DIFF for Mike Hill, a former British Labour MP who has recently resigned, and will be facing legal proceedings, as the article notes: "He is due to face an employment tribunal later in the year relating to allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation."

This reversion appears to be replacing the word "politician" with "pervert" - it's tagged "reverted", but as well as a reversion, they also replaced that word. This vandalism was speedily reverted by a registered user. This kind of thing is clearly not on. Editors should not defame subjects or articles prior to legal proceedings - even if the accusations against Hill were upheld though, the language the IP editor used would be completely inappropriate.

Now, I know that interacting with other editors in a hostile manner may not be a serious violation of policies, but the IP user clearly has a pattern of being argumentative for the sake of it. They reverted my edits despite the edits in question including improvements so the articles conformed to the WP MOS.

I notice that one of their accounts has previously been blocked, although the decision was reversed.

I personally am inclined to agree with Alex, who suggested not removing the DOBs, but adding a "Better source needed or Citation needed template". In any case, the way the IP user has obsessively carried out the task of removing unsourced DOBs strikes me as overly fastidious; not only doing that, but then questioning the validity of the source. The user also seems somewhat partisan: protecting articles about Conservative MPs from being reorganised, and vandalising an article on a Labour MP. I think articles about currently serving politicians need a level of automatic protection, but that's another subject I guess.

The known IP user accounts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:D435:A5A9:3725:34EA
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:83f:be8:1cfb:39be
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:318b:2630:294:1df2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:5138:3B45:CB01:5B99
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:54C2:B625:37B3:FA9A
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:cd4c:9d2e:9149:ddd4

There are some common features of the IP accounts - chiefly, that it's a Sky Broadband account, and often located in Washington, Sunderland, United Kingdom. Some of the accounts have been located in East London, but I am sure they all relate to the same person.

I would appreciate some assistance from Administrators with this user. Their behaviour isn't helpful to Wikipedia overall, I feel.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As I was mentioned... If an editor is making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, they should be thanked for their work as per WP:BLP, rather than being sanctioned. A lot of the above appears to be a content dispute that has been discussed at length elsewhere. The Mike Hill edit is vandalism, but it's not clear to me that that is the work of the same editor. There are some further examples of impoliteness: I'm not an admin, but they don't look like severe cases to me. If I see more of the same, I'll try to encourage more constructive engagement. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In my view, hastily removing all DOBs - assuming they come from a particular source - is unhelpful, and there seems to be a rather strict interpretation of the guidelines on BLP by many editors. From what I've seen, some editors are quite open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. In any case, the way the IP user has gone about it, and reverted other edits for little or no reason, is what concerns me. And IMO, they shouldn't be "thanked" for policing the publication of information which has been made available (albeit in a roundabout way) by the UK Parliament website. I accepted their initial post on my Talk page about not using Companies House as a DOB source, but the editor in question has since appeared to have an obsessive fixation on this issue, and responds to myself and others in a rude, abrupt tone, as if they are in a position of authority. If you don't think the Mike Hill edit is the same editor, I suspect you're being overly generous. It isn't "clear", but hiding behind an IP address means such users can evade footprints of their activities being readily obvious. No, these aren't severe cases, but it isn't helpful for them to focus on one small part of WP Policy and resort to ad hominem attacks on me or others, either when discussing RS, or when another editor has merely pointed out that they aren't signing their posts. It points to the wider issues with unregistered users making edits.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Some editors are entitled to be open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. However until they change the policy at WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically prohibiting them, they don't have a leg to stand on. I've had plenty of experience with this IP editor. They initially starting out reverting any attempt to remove a dubious reference for the dates of birth of UK politicians. However when they realised that the reference was indeed dubious, and on multiple cases demonstrably incorrect, they stopped being disruptive and followed policy. FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, from what I've read, the IP editor's stance was originally the opposite - but in both cases, it sounds like they've been over-zealous. Once they have a position, they seem to stick religiously to it. WP policy isn't law, or permanently set in stone - the spirit of the project should be evolving discussion as things change. So questioning a policy shouldn't be dismissed with "they don't have a leg to stand on". But again, my complaints about this IP editor are being answered by an editor who, like the IP editor, has a strong position on removing the DOBs. I recall FDW777 reverting my inclusion of a DOB from Companies House on an MP's article. Both this user and Bondegezou miss the point, which is A) the IP editor's way of going about it is heavy-handed and counter-productive; B) they are uncivil; and C) their activity is often disruptive. It's as if once they learn a policy, they are then determined to police it. Not the most worthwhile contribution, IMO.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Admin threatening to block me for attempting to get an article reassessed

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

---

Hi, @Ferret: threatened to block me for attempting to get the article League of Legends reassessed, which he claimed as "WP:DISRUPTIVE" ostensibly because the article had been a WP:FA recently. Looking at the users talk page it appears that users appear to be unsatisfied with this editor's blocks recently as well. I'd like to be able to request a re-evaluation without risk of my editing privileges being revoked.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, Prisencolin should probably be considered for one or more TBANs (from video games, at least) or CBAN. His attempt to GAR (Not FAR) this FA relates to his long history with the topic area, one that has constantly resulted in fancruft and unnecessary article forks, many contested and deleted at AFD, strange DELREV lawyering, etc. It'd take a while to compile all of it. The short answer is this article languished for a long time under his clear WP:OWNERSHIP, and another editor then took it to GA then FA. His repeated ANI topics of late relating to lists and categories in the ethnic spaces should also be reviewed again. As for the aspirations casted about "users appear to be unsatified" with my blocks on my user talk, he's referring to an IP that was mad they were blocked for disruptive edit requests and vandalism, who has subsequently been reblocked for harassing other editors in that same case. That IP was at ANI already and no one raised concern with my blocks. -- ferret (talk)
  • For the record, I'm not sure why Ferret is accusing me of attempting WP:OWNERSHIP of the League of Legends article, and it certainly an overstatement to say the article was languishing. The reason why I added a lot of the content that was labeled as "bloat" (Talk:League_of_Legends#bloat) in the first place was at the behest of another editor (I believe it was buried in some AFD thread but I can't find it anymore).--Prisencolin (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For starters, as a talk page watcher, I can assure you that the recent complaints about his blocks are baseless and wrong, so don't attempt to use that as an attempt to smear or conflate issues. Secondly, I'm pretty sure the community has had some serious WP:DROPTHESTICK complaints against your in your efforts in the video game and League of Legends subject areas, so your report certainly only captures one side of things. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm striking out the allegation of misinformed blocking so disregard this. All I'm asking is that the article be reassessed for criteria 3. "Broad in its coverage" In fact, I'm not even asking to edit the article myself. If my contributions upsets the community so much I'm asking for someone else to fill in information in the areas I think are missing. Anyways the only thing I'm asking for is to be granted a reevaluation request. --Prisencolin (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN at minimum, upgrade to a vanilla ban if Prisencolin doesn't change his behavior fast. Prisencolin, ferret was trying to help you out by politely informing you that GAR is the incorrect process with which to register a complaint with a FA (try the talk page, or FAR at absolute worst, for future reference - your edit was Just Wrong). The fact that rather than accept his revert + advice you instead took this to ANI, which is literally the place where there is a risk of "your editing privileges being revoked", suggests a deep misreading of the situation and a lack of competence. If you want to keep editing Wikipedia, you need to learn who is on your side and who isn't; ferret has if anything been light in his treatment of you, so he's far from your "enemy" on this. (And for the record, I even agree with some of your concerns as far as content... I think that hitting featured may have hit the LoL article's comprehensiveness a bit by leaving out some of the "fancrufty" yet relevant aspects that were harder to reference. So this is in spite of some mild agreement.) Anyway, the VG topic area has tolerated Prisencolin long enough I think, whatever positives he's added has been weighed down by behavioral issues as ferret notes from previous blocks. The community's patience isn't infinite. SnowFire (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think he was trying to "help" me when he literally threatened to ban me in the same statement.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • And yet ferret's advice was accurate? You are indeed about to get banned because you're persisting in this insane scheme to send a recently promoted FA to... GAR or something via talk page edit war. If somebody tells you that you need to turn around or you're about to drive off a cliff, and there actually is a cliff in front of you, that is helpful if tough information. If you drive off the cliff anyway, it's not the person telling you that's fault. It's your fault! SnowFire (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • For the record there is no "edit war" by WP:3RV standards, the tag was placed by me, then reverted by Ferret, and then reverted back by me, then finally reverted to its current state by Ferret.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • See below, but upgrading this comment to support a full CBAN. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
          • You are misjudging my intentions if you think I was trying to wikilawyer my way out of this. I've never been subject to a topic ban before so I was asking legitimate question and I have dyslexia so I couldn't read the entire page of information without having a nervous breakdown in light of the accusations against me.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure where this discussion is heading, but if the answer is "Featured Articles can't be objected to if they have achieved community concensus" then I'd like to request that this discussion be closed.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  The correct location would be Featured article reassessment, not good article reassessment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like it's cruising towards a WP:BOOMERANG. And I think it's less about "community consensus", and more about you just making some bad calls. The situation, the ANI report, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of the history here, but from the only relevant activity that I can see in recent days, it looks bad on both sides. Prisencolin, consensus about featured status can always change, but the article had an FA assessment that ran for one month and took up 80,000 bytes, and then you come along and your challenge consists entirely in the slapping of a template [50], without any explanation or even an edit summary. If you believe that the substantial assessment from two month ago was wrong, you need to make a substantial argument, and at least seek feedback from other people before going for the red button.
  On the other hand, I'm struggling to see the good side of ferret's reaction. Yes, telling Prisencolin off was good, and then doing that with visible annoyance was not unacceptable, but then threatening them with a block? What grounds can a block have? There are no discretionary sanctions in the area, Prisencolin's template addition and then their single revert, though unhelpful, are light years away from what anyone would consider disruptive, and if a block were placed then it would have had to be done by someone who wasn't involved. No matter how annoying the people who edit in your area may be, you can't threaten them like that. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• He's received many warnings regarding the topic area around League of Legend, from multiple admins. This is not out of the blue, the history is important. It's fair enough though that no, ultimately I should not place the block. Annoyance got the better of me after years of this. If he'd have persisted, I'd have come to ANI myself. I'll certainly take the admonishment to keep my annoyance under better control though. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is in fact, out of the blue. I'm not deserving of a block threat (and now vote) just because I tried to pursue some different avenue of discussion (that is GAR nomination), many months since I last touched the topic.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• To add to this, as far as what grounds could it be for a block: if the nomination was done in bad faith (disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT), that's certainly blockable. This particular nomination was so malformed that it's reasonably possible it was done in bad faith, although it's hard to tell, since as noted Prisencolin really is clueless enough to have potentially done this in good faith... although that raises competence questions then considering how long he's been on Wikipedia, and that he was directly told the proper proedure. Note also that Prisencolin has made weird edits like "This nomination has nothing to do with the upcoming appearance on the front page" out of nowhere... if this nom really was just an attempt to derail the front page appearance for no stated policy reason, that's certainly not collegial behavior. That said, I don't think it's productive to analyze this point too deeply, the general point is that Prisencolin's behavior has been problematic regardless of the reasons behind it. SnowFire (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hi, Uanfala. I'm the editor who took the article in question through the GA and FA processes. 80,000 bytes is an understatement! If you have a look at the Talk page for the nomination, you'll see that we had to remove things because it was kinda breaking the main FA project page because it was so big. Eddie891 conducted a really, really rigorous review, checking basically every citation on the page. I've never properly interacted with Prinsecollin himself, but I was alerted quite early into editing it that he had a long and problematic history with the subject. I understand why you were questioning ferret's actions but, at the same time, we are only human, and ferret has been dealing with issues from this user for a long time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Uanfala, I don't see anything wrong with ferret's note. It's a final warning. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for Prisenconlin, from video games or at least from League of Legends, and even perhaps support community ban – Years of disruption is enough time wasted. If y'all want diffs, here's the tip of the iceberg for disruption since 2014+: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination), DRV'ed twice, which the editor then bypassed and ended up at AfD again under another title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champion (League of Legends). And one barely has to scratch the surface to find the unending issues that keep occuring around this editor, just search the AN/ANI archives or their talk page; a warning by Bishonen even went unheeded (unsurprisingly) and led to a block. This isn't a new issue. That the mere mention of the name Prisencolin elicits instant annoyance amongst or large swath of the community does not reflect brightly on the situation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
  • There was nothing wrong with the Champion (League of Legends) article as it wasn't a strict recreation of any content. I recall spending quite a bit of time finding new sources that for an article that consistently entirely of many more paragraphs full of new prose, whereas the last article deleted was just a table with a few paragraphs of prose. I personally disagree with the WP:G7 speedy closure but a deletion outcome was still obvious.
  • I have no idea what happened with the Bshonen warning, this was during a period of my life when I was significantly busier than I was now and I'm guessing I lost interest in the project at that time, anyways I do apologize that particular incident, however late this may be.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Prisencolin I honestly want nothing to do with this anymore, but anything to do with FA shouldn't have subpar levels of content and research, which is why I'm requesting GA reassessment.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Community ban for Prisenconlin (first choice) or topic ban from video games (second choice). I just looked over their editing history and the disruption has been a major time sink for veteran editors and discourages newbie editors (many of them children) who really want to do the right thing but need a little help learning how things work. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games with the usual offer to appeal in 6 months. This is clearly the way the consensus is leaning and I am fine with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on video game-related articles for Prisenconlin for exhausting the community's patience in this area. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - for exhausting the video game communities patience for this sort of WP:STICK stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Upgrade recommendation to community ban (originally commented above). Diffs like this and this suggest that Prisencolin intends to wikilawyer the exact restraints his topic ban has. Considering that this entire dispute was over this, why would Prisencolin think for a second the remedy wouldn't cover the exact same matter? Maybe a simple community ban would be easier to parse. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan from video games broadly construed for at least 3 months. Obstinate behavior is not conducive to collaborative editing. (still thinking on the CBan and watching in hopes that this all sinks in and we can salvage an editor that wants to be here.) — Ched (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games broadly construed. I would not oppose a community ban if consensus emerges for that. This seems to be an editor who refuses to "get the message" and abandon disruptive editing no matter how many times the need to do so is explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban from video games broadly construed.The two new diffs provided by SnowFire above indicate that a Tban may not be sufficient but let's start there. Nsk92 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Just a note that the 2018 block had nothing to do with video games (ANI thread). I haven't reviewed the recent edits in detail. The specific report looks like it was largely due to a misunderstanding, but it would be easier to assume this if Prisencolin actually spelled out their concerns with the article (if there are any concerns other than those comments they made on the talk page in February during the FA review). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved admin aware of this discussion, it's becoming clear that a topic ban from video games, broadly construed, is in the cards. Seems clear there is no widespread appetite for a site ban, and only a minority think it could be solved by a ban just from LoL. Ched mentions 3 months, a couple mention indef. Assuming a video game topic ban is going to be the result, any thoughts from others on length? I'm usually inclined to go for indef with an appeal in 6 months, but if anyone thinks this isn't fitting in this case, now's the time. (also, obviously, if you think a topic ban from video games is too harsh or too lenient, now's the time too). I'll likely close this at the end of the day, if someone else doesn't do it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I tend towards indef with an appeal in 6 months, as well. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Same. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I was also planning to close this when the 24-hour period is up, and unless there was a big change in the the way the wind is blowing, was intending to go for 'indef, appealable after six months' - my impression is that has always been the default setting, and I don't see any consensus for anything else. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: I am extraordinarily confident that I'm not Involved, since my only action was an administrative one last night after seeing this thread, but for avoidance of any complications, from any avenue - even unreasonable ones - maybe it's better that you close it when the time comes, GS. It's incrementally cleaner. My main concern was this languishing, and if you're uninvolved and have your eye on it too, that's fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, no worries - I'll try to look in later this evening, and will close it if nobody else has already done it. If anyone feels strongly that an indef TBan from video games, broadly construed (and yes, that would include initiating a GAR or FAR process in the topic area), appealable in 6 months, is not the right call - now is the time to speak up. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I can't close this because I spoke to them about this dispute off-wiki, but I would recommend closing this sooner rather than later. They seemed quite upset at how this whole thing played out after their overreaction to the block threat on their talk page. They also said that they preferred that this was closed since the consensus for the indefinite TBan from video games had clearly reached WP:PILEON levels. I don't see how the consensus can be interpreted any other way and I don't have an issue with the "indef, appealable after six months" proposal above. I know they can be productive in the area when keeping a clear head, and would personally prefer something shorter such as 6 months, but since Prisencolin has indicated acceptance of the community sanction, apparently is proactively taking time off Wikipedia[51] and has explained the worst of SnowFire's diffs, there's no reason to keep this discussion open any longer when the outcome is abundantly clear. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Unfair behaviour happening with me.

Hi Admins, I've been subject to unfair and uncivil behaviour with me on wikipedia. I don't know if this is the correct venue to discuss this. Please see Draft_talk:Zeyan_Shafiq, I have been repeatedly called as Paid Editor and accused of sockpuppetry, i do completely know that according to wikipedia's policies i am a paid editor and i have always followed those guidelines. Since my start i've just been reading the wikipedia policies about everything, When i joined wikipedia i thought my only task would be to watch my organisation's page but being an active editor on liquipedia(which is another wiki for esports) i gained interest for this wikipedia as well. I started contributing to the Esports here, and after reading the policies i decided to work on Shafiq's article since as per my research i thought it meets wikipedia's policies and would be a good addition here. I Followed all the due policies, I Raised a Deletion Review request, I Created an improved draft, I made it neutral, Trimmed the promotional content, I Tried my best to resolve all the queries that were addressed in the AfD earlier, The AfD was stormed badly by sockpuppets, and no one addressed the queries raised there properly. But i was today again accused of the same things, i was accused of sockpuppetry even after a Checkuser was done. I'm writing it here to understand how do i respond to such things. If i respond in an Uncivil or bad-faith manner i am sure i will get blocked within no time. But these things certainly affect me, I Feel as if i am doing something wrong. Just tell me one wikipedia's policy that i am violating. And if this isn't stopped how would new editors be encouraged to join wikipedia? I apologise in advance if this is the wrong venue but i couldn't think of any other venue. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, would it really have been that difficult to actually read the multiple large banners telling you that when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page? I have done so for you this time, but please learn how to comprehend basic instructions if you desire to contribute here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, I did not accuse any single person that's why didn't notify anyone. I've been subject to this since the start and my only reason to post it here was to seek any resolution if i encounter this again. I have no grudges with anyone because we are all here to contribute and build. There should be no place for grudges but i'm unable to understand why so many people have grudges with me. I am always ready for a rational discussion for anything that i say but unfortunately i never get that fair chance because i'm a new editor. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, haha, you've done the same what I mentioned just above, accusing me of sock puppetry here lol User_talk:TheAafi I should notify you that the sockfarm has posted yet another thread about you at ANI how did you figure out? Can you care to explain it? Also just for your kind information User TheAafi isn't involved in this at all if I would’ve done something like this and accused you of false allegation I’d have been blocked by now and you shouldn't be making assumptions on your own and you should rather read the thread fully once and maybe you would come to know about the issue that i am addressing here, also what policy on wikipedia authorises you to accuse me of sockpuppetry? Please share the relevant document, Now please don't ask me to follow WP:AGF, i have always followed it and that’s the reason why everyone talks to me rudely lol, give and take respect isn’t the rule here. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a spillover from a Deletion Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 2. It appears to me that Abhay's client first hired an undisclosed paid editor, and that an article was speedy-deleted, and so now they have hired Abhay as a disclosed Paid Editor to try to get their article accepted. And Abhay isn't happy that some volunteer editors don't like paid editors. I haven't reviewed the article, but I think that is what the case is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s not just limited to this, even after a SPI case against me, after a check user against me I’ve been accused of sock puppetry and threats of being blocked, I mean i am no one to stop anyone from filing another case, you can surely proceed and file another SPI but don’t directly accuse me of something that I haven’t done. I don’t want to take the blame for what others have done. Why should i be blamed for it? And I’ve repeated this many times, i am not being paid for this but Let’s assume i am a paid editor, i have already disclosed everything in advance, why don’t i deserve respect? Aren’t paid-editor’s humans? Don’t they deserve respect? Certainly if i do something against the wikipedia’s policies, don’t give me any mercy, block me but if i am following everything, why do i get dis-respected always? Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Racist and highly abusive IP

The IP that was reported here a few weeks ago (and which an unclosed discussion was unanimously in favour of banning) keeps returning at different IP addresses (in the last week they have popped up as 93.137.2.23 (talk · contribs), 93.140.132.141 (talk · contribs), 93.143.123.165 (talk · contribs) and 93.143.108.84 (talk · contribs) ( each of which I have blocked) and probably a few others I haven't spotted. They have also left messages on my mediawiki talk page, and their latest message on my en.wiki talk page,[52] is particularly abusive (read it phonetically). Can an an effective rangeblock be put in place? Cheers, Number 57 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Those four IPs span a /13 range, which is too large to rangeblock. We might be able to target smaller subranges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie, you beat me to it with your rangeblock; thanks. There's close to a dozen IPs operated by the same person in that range. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 9 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)

Disruptive edits and hounding

The editor Wretchskull is Wiki-Stalking me through my edit history. He is currently reverting my edits to the article List of most-wanted Nazi war criminals. The sentence I have added is concise and supported by two reliable sources, yet Wretchskull continues to revert my addition. I left a warning on the editors talk page to discontinue hounding me, but he states he is allowed to hound me if he deems it necessary. Would you please block this editors account for thirty-days, to stop the nonsense.

Reverts:

• Revert one: 1
• Revert two: 2
• Revert three: 3

Thank you Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot take this stubborn editor seriously anymore.. just read what I wrote on my talk page (this has happened in two different instances, see both: User talk:Wretchskull#Big Bang and User talk:Wretchskull#Stop Wiki-Stalking). Wretchskull (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blockhouse321 An accusation of hounding would normally be supported by diffs showing that someone had followed you to multiple pages; all I see here is three reverts on a single page. You're both edit warring, but you'd need to present more evidence to demonstrate that this is a case of hounding. Wretchskull - I don't know what the background is here, but on the face of it you are repeatedly reverting content which appears to be supported by CBC News, which I imagine is an RS - I can see why someone would find that annoying. It might help if you were to set out your specific concerns over the content/sourcing on the talk page rather than edit warring to remove them. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

attention needed at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/COVID-19#RfC on use of COVID-19 editnotice

This really needs sorting out. Not only is it unclosed, I'm not convinced it makes sense. It says the old template was replaced by a new one, but Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/COVID-19 only mentions - and prescribes - the old one. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page block for user:98.100.138.40

98.100.138.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday and is now vandalizing their talkpage. --FF-11 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Along with what look very much like three knitted foot coverings, one already indeffed. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 9 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)

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)

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)

VendelaA persistently adding excessive Youtube links

• VendelaA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roma Downey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VendelaA is a single-purpose account solely dedicated to adding a long list of Youtube links to the Roma Downey article. Including editing as an IP, they have tried this many times. First attempt. Second attempt. Third attempt. Fourth attempt. Fifth attempt. Sixth attempt.

I had assumed they had the got the point in September last year after my message on their talk page, but they have just made a seventh attempt. This isn't even a good faith attempt to add external links, it is actually a revert to their 18 September 2020 version of the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• They only have ONE edit this year, and four edits total for that account. Just revert them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 5.114.154.5

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

Constantly disruptive edits, adding content with totally irrelevant citations. Attempted to revert user edits twice, other users have also attempted to remove anon's edits. User repeatedly restores low quality edits with next to no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewerî (talk • contribs)

• OK, those edits were actually high-quality in terms of sourcing (though I haven't checked whether every one of those books published by Brill and John Benjamins verified all the statements), they were written well, they didn't seem to push any obvious POV. The only problem with the IP is that they seem to not want to explain their edits. This editor, however, got themselves blocked as an IP for three months for "adding anti-Turkish language to article text", and then started this account (it's unfortunate that they ran into a CU who was patrolling AIV). So, for block evasion, false AIV reports, false charges of POV editing, removal of what appears to be reliably sourced material, completely disregarding a DS alert on their talk page, etc., I think an indef block is warranted. If anyone wishes to defend this editor they are welcome to do so, but no admin should consider an unblock request until the editor comes clean. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and probable block evasion from Masud984

• Masud984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AbdullahYakub772 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AbdullahYakub772 was previously blocked for disruptive edits to GDP figures (mainly of Bangladesh). Masud984 is now doing the same, including these four reverted edits of Bangladesh's GDP at List of countries by GDP (nominal): [53] [54] [55] [56]. These numbers, of course, disagree with the source. Masud984 also removed the block messages on the talk page of AbdullahYakub772: [57], which, given the near identical behaviour that lead to that user being blocked, seems like as obvious block evasion as you can get. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Indef blocked as quacking sock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:00, 11 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

• 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)

User:Passani and ad-hominem attacks

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

---

Can some other admins have a chat with Passani about their pattern of attacking other editors? The issue first started when an article they were heavily involved in the creation of went to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Voce di New York): they responded to the AfD by suggesting that the nominator must have a COI if they wanted to delete the article.[58] Modulato subsequently launched a WP:ANEW thread about Passani. The harassment of Modulato continued, even leading them to twice remove comments by Passani that they deemed were personal attacks.[59][60] My own attempts to counsel this user led to allegations that I was involved in the sockpuppetry.[61]

I'm done with the situation. I had no interest in the article as an editor, and my involvement was only as an administrator (other than one minor grammar fix on the article). However, I feel attacked enough by Passani that I am now WP:INVOLVED, so I am recusing myself from the dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not accused C.Fred of anything, just asked why a comment on your talk page (potentially relevant to the discussion we were having about Modulato's COI) was removed by you without explanation. That is not an accusation. About Modulato, I am now in the position to prove a GIGANTIC WP:COI with VNY, which explains why he is so passionately trying to get La Voce di New York removed. Would love a chance to show an admin what evidence I have (SPI and LTA are the keywords here). Since I am not a super-experienced WP editor, I could use some guidance. Thanks Passani (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block of Passani, whose past writings for La Voce di New York gives them a COI they remain in denial about, and whose continued harassment of Modulato, conspiratorial claims about anyone who disagrees with them and extremely negative tone in general makes them clearly not here to build a collaborative encyclopedia. (Specifically, the website gaining prominence would further their career, which is the difference between someone with a Facebook profile and Facebook, the analogy they keep using.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, I can prove that Modulato is a sockpuppet and that he has HUGE undisclosed COI on the article he's trying to kill. Admin please reach out for details or advise on how I can reach out to Admins to provide the evidence I have collected. (Also, the articles I volunteered to VNY as a hobby have nothing to do with my career, as my job is in a completely different field. NO COI for me, sorry) Passani (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can prove sockpuppetry, file your evidence at WP:SPI. If you can't, stop making such accusations. It's also worth noting that being paid is not a hard precondition of having a COI, having worked directly with an entity numerous times, as you clearly have, is sufficient cause to be concerned that there is a COI. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note the recently-created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmacar, from a new account Notaharvardgrad, whose other two edits are comments at my user talk. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I partially blocked them per WP:PROJSOCK. From their comments to you they seem to expect you to know who they are, any idea what's up with that? There's a lot of moving parts here and I'm not at all sure I've got a clear picture of everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I am as innocent as I can be here. And believe me, there is no COI in VNY for me. But there is a HUGE COI for Modulato, as it seems to me WP is starting to realize without my help. Please also note that I created the VNY article draft, but I didn't publish it. I submitted it for approval. And another Admin approved it (this was over one year ago). This is the same approach that someone with a COI would follow, if I am not mistaked. Anyway, to prove my good faith, I think I have an idea: I can trim the article and make it look like its Italian counterpart (on Italian Wikipedia). I have nothing to do with that article. It was created by an Italian user. Does it sound good? Passani (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, back up your accusations or stop making them. And I don't know how you can claim that you have no COI when writing about a publication you have written for. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything, if anything it's better to admit to a COI and behave accordingly. I have no dog in this fight, I don't have an opinion about the actual article and am only acting as an administrator here. I've just perused the AFD in question and you behavior there is frankly ridiculous. You are badgering every person who's comment you do not agree with and making unfounded accusations left and right. You need to calm down and drop the stick. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It was all between me and Modulato who kept refusing to acknowledge evidence. About my supposed COI, if you write a post on FB, do you have a COI on FB? If you are at a Bruce Springsteen concert and he invites you and a few others on stage to dance, do you have a Bruce Springsteen COI? I sent articles to VNY because I chose to, there is no money, no obligation, no ownership. I don't own anything to VNY and they don't own anything to me. Anyway, you are right. I need to stop. This started small and escalated as Modulato revealed that he was hellbent on getting the page killed, not fixed. If the situation had not been this crazy, I'd probably already modified the page in search for consensus. Trust me: my job is in a totally different field. I just don't like getting hacked as you-know-who tried to do. Passani (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• This seems sufficiently stupid and hopeless that I've indef blocked Passani and their apparent alt account. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

I found the main account of a blocked user

Mr.Luther34 is blocked for being a sockpuppet. Now check --MoshPit~8D--'s profile. "This user has previously had a user page. for a complete Contributions History Please visit my old user Page User:Mr.Luther34" is written on their profile. ---Zai- (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And that user is now blocked as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

UPE + WP:RADAR

Bobmcp (talk · contribs) - has ignored 4 successive {{uw-paid}} warnings. SK2242 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems they have been doing this on-and-off for years without ever communicating in any way, I've indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

IPs keep adding WP:NOTNEWS, OR and off topic to Joseph Estrada

At Joseph Estrada some IPs keep adding unreferenced or poorly referenced/off topic/broken syntax with OR claims that it comes from material deleted from a website ("This part gone"). Also [62][63][64][65][66][67]. I keep trying to trim it back to what we can reasonably cover per WP:NOTNEWS but they keep adding it again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please try to discuss with the IP first and notify them of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page messages didn't lead anywhere. The IP has been blocked for a week and the article semi-protected for a week as well. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ITACCPH committing blatant WP:AGENDA

This account has been recently created, and has attempted to rewrite the article of the Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) with a blatant agenda, utilizing the article as if it is an advertisement space. They have been previously warned by one of the Wikipedia bot accounts, yet they persisted. As a result, I have had to become involved and reverted their contributions. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The username seems pretty clearly to refer to the church in question, I've blocked for WP:ORGNAME and spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

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: [68] 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.

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 [69][70] and making a series of bizarre user talk page moves seemingly to try to cover their tracks (e.g.: [71]) 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 [72][73], 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)

• 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)

User ‎Sam Jamadar2020

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)

Unsourced edits and personal attacks by User:JND AMD

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)

Disruptive editing by SPA at People of the Book

• 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)