I am a Mexican editor and since three years ago I've been writing and creating around 200 articles on Wikipedia, including the majority of Real Madrid seasons, a good bunch of Juventus, A.C. Milan and Internazionale seasons, even Nottingham Forest seasons, PSV and Sporting Lisboa, and of course I've been helping with uncountable edits to other users articles. Other pages that you probably reviewed or read, those articles include prose, several sources and of course report-links.

The problem is, early October 2022 I started to write articles about my native country Mexico, the 1994-95 season with 19 football teams and plus another cancelled campaign. I followed the same WP:NSEASONS requirements, I properly included several sources, as I routinely do with my european teams articles. I've never had problems with my past 195 articles, but, suddenly after three years, I've received 10 nominations to delete my Mexican football teams articles by The Banner (talk · contribs) . Naïvely I followed the process, it was abhorrent, I've explained one time, two times several times my artciles were properly sourced, but by an incredible deletion score of 1-0 with the same user . GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) voting in my AfD discussions through a two weeks span, they were deleted by Star Mississippi (talk · contribs) through Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_October_19#1994–95_season_articles.

This is clearly linked to the undeniable fact that the three persons cannot accept a Mexican editor write popular articles with many views, following a Jim Crow strategy' they even don't read my articles, just nominate and delete them always the same three persons (1 nominates, 1 votes, and 1 deletes the same three always). They acted against my 200 articles only after they've realized I am Mexican. I have 18 articles deleted, they are doing the same for the other 200 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Football.

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you are doing something wrong. You've made blatant personal attacks against several editors, accusing them of racism, because they had the gall to nominate some of your articles for deletion based on Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability. I strongly suggest you refactor your post to remove any insinuation that your were targeted because of your nationality as opposed to a relatively recent consensus-driven shift in notability criteria for sports/athletes. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to second this. Calling these editors racists, to be blunt, is a personal attack. I'm also changing the title of this section, as this again is a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not surprisingly, Football in Baltimore is not popular, of course you want the 200 football articles deleted. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't care about the articles in question. I care about your continued personal attacks. Stop with the racism calls immediately, or you're going to be blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Heaven forbid that Wikipedia editors apply notability policies and guidelines, or that we don't treat association football articles as immune to the same. JPxG is correct that there've been sweeping changes to sports notability guidelines (after years of abuse, with some footy editors being among the worst offenders), and it's entirely possible you were unaware of that. But if you're unable to assume good faith, and you reflexively jump to the conclusion that the only conceivable reason anyone could take one of your articles to AfD is sinister intent, then Wikipedia will just have to soldier on without you. Ravenswing 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like it was changed back, should I change it to "Personal attack from HugoAcosta9"? @RickinBaltimore The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See everyone, after I wrote 200 articles I showed with exhibitions those three friendos are acting against a Mexican editor and they deflected the truth labeling as personal attacks. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read the behavioral guideline WP:AGF before you continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can write with fear anymore over here. I will never published another article on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @HugoAcosta9: no one here is being racist, or biased against articles from Mexico. As @JPxG states below, the notability guidelines for sports articles are much stricter now; please take a moment to review the link they provided to understand the changes. (And before I get accused of racism myself, check my user page – I'm actually south of you.) –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Read 1 out of my 200 articles, if you want 1 article unsourced, then I allow you to delete all of them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the one nominating the articles for deletion ;) I'm just saying that the nomination, even if it may have been mistaken, has nothing to do with your nationality or any other personal characteristic. I understand it's distressing, but please avoid attacking other editors because of it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as forum shopping and suggest p-block from DRV which he's bludgeoning (again) with bad faith comments and arguments. Star Mississippi 18:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @HugoAcosta9: A few months ago, some rather sweeping changes were made to WP:NSPORTS, so while I think it is unlikely that you are being specifically targeted, you are not wrong in perceiving a sudden increase in sports-related AfD nominations. jp×g 18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With the difference they are lying about me writing that the 200 articles are unsourced when you red those they are sourced with 6-7 references, and using only 1 vote to delete my 200 articles from the same user. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly spoken, I am not informed about this discussion. I was pointed to WP:AN for a non-existing discussion. But with some searching, I did find the personal attack. The Banner talk 18:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  False. I properly noticed you in your talk page. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just read your own edit on my talk page. The Banner talk 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed you based on real claims, on the contrary, you deleted 10 Mexican football articles based on false claims, then you want my other 200 being deleted precisely the 200 european football. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claims of racism and so on are unacceptable, but on the other hand I would be upset as well if someone started AfD´ing articles like 1989–90 Real Madrid CF season. Believing that this isn´t notable and no sources would exist for this club, the champions of the Spanish competition that year and one of the 5 biggest football clubs ever, is not racism but is a staggering display of ignorance, or lack of any WP:BEFORE and common sense. Fram (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio... The Banner talk 19:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look... Fram (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what evidence? I carry no water for HugoAcosta9, but your seeming assertion that he committed copyvio with no other ground than a lack of sourcing is dealing in bad faith. If you think this is copyvio, prove it with a link. If you can't (or more likely haven't bothered trying), retract the accusation. Fram is exactly right: Real Madrid is one of the most prominent and popular sports teams in the world, and seeking to delete one of their season articles without the slightest attempt at WP:BEFORE is as egregious as if you sought to delete the 1990 New York Yankees or the 1990 New York Giants seasons. Ravenswing 19:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Boomerang per CIR - Hugo is being disruptive at AFD, disruptive at DRV, and is levelling accusations if racism against numerous editors who disagree with him (including me). Totally unacceptable. GiantSnowman 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Says the one man-one vote over my 200 artciles which unable a deletion. I showed you did not read my 200 articles and you vote to delete them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking around, and this editor is virtually accusing anyone who disagrees with them a racist at virtually ever venue I checked. It's not just here - it's talk pages, AFD, DRV, etc. as much as I'm very sympathetic to people who feel they're receiving racist comments towards them...I haven't witnessed a single person say anything racist. Most didn't comment on race or the editor at all. This editor just appears to default to accusations of racism or "not reading the nomination" to anyone who dares doubt him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, I wasn't aware that closing an AfD was a "Jim Crow Pattern". I understand he's frustrated, but this is spiraling beyond necessity.

Star Mississippi 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm neutral on the AFD nominations (I dont edit in sports enough to know) and I know he must be frustrated, but he can't be bogging down good faith discussion with bad faith aspersions at every venue like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. You have no evidence that my 200 articles deserved to be deleted, just deflected the real matter, Mississippi delete pages with a 1-0 AfD consensus. 1 vote is not a consensus over two weeks of discussion. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zero evidence of what? I just told you I was neutral and not taking a stance on the AFDs. This is exactly the problem. You throw accusations around that don't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he's already gone, buddy. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, saw his comment and responded before I read the rest of the thread. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

200 articles deleted with 1-0 consensus over two weeks based on false claims is acceptable to you, well thats not good faith from you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of fighting this, maybe you should work with these other fine souls to fix the issues in the articles? The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is going nowhere. I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That also works, however what does that mean for the AfD's? The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, just seeing that he was blocked. I won't waste further time responding. But regardless, it doesn't mean anything for the AFDs. They can continue on. The article creators participation aren't essential. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Star Mississippi 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Any chance you or an uninvolved admin might consider revoking TPA? Thanks either way Star Mississippi 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir Sputnik did.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you both. There was no way that was going to end in any positive manner. Star Mississippi 21:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would a CU with an eye on this thread/aware of this issue have an eye at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HugoAcosta9 and the contribs there. JoTorres22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not a new editor, but not sure whether this a is joe job. Star Mississippi 18:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner conduct

Good block. But what about the WP:HOUNDING by User:The Banner? It is acceptable to go through someone's contributions when you notice problems, it is not acceptable though to nominate articles for deletion just to further bait an already distressed editor, and it is very hard to see things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989–90 Real Madrid CF season in any other way. Either the editor really believes the topic isn't notable, in which WP:CIR comes to mind, or they just try to rile up Hugo Acosta, in which case it is WP:HOUNDING. Fram (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was about to say Good Block, with respect to the OP, who threw a boomerang at a non-existent kangaroo. But I see that the subject has changed. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You know, just because person A does something wrong, doesn't mean that person B didn't. Hugo clearly had gone off the deep end with his spurious and unfounded accusations of racism, and his refusal to back off that accusation. He wanted to die on that hill, and it looks like he was granted that wish. So, he was unequivocally in the wrong for accusing people of racism where none existed. However, the non-racism-accusations part of the complaint appear to have merit. Yes, we have (wisely) tightened up our WP:NSPORTS requirements in recent months, but just as the tightening of those requirements means that people cannot spam entire batches of non-notable sports articles across Wikipedia, that does not mean that people are empowered to spam spurious AFD discussions all over Wikipedia without a modicum of WP:BEFORE and common sense. AFDing season articles of literally the most successful and well-covered sporting franchises in the world is beyond-the-pale irresponsible. It isn't racist, but it's also a really shitty thing to do, and just as care and consideration needs to be undertaken before creating articles, equal care and consideration needs to be undertaken when nominating articles. La Liga is not Billy's Backyard Soccer Jamboree, and I find the "I think they are copyvios" is an unconvincing. Accusations of bad acting without evidence is casting aspersions and unless you can provide the source of the copied text, such claims are baseless. Being falsely called racists doesn't mean what you did is right, and like Fram above, I think we should not sweep these problems under the rug. --Jayron32 16:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I agree that HugoAcosta dug his own grave, but he had cause to be angry. The Banner filed a heap of AfDs that were just this side of spurious, targeting teams that are among the most successful in the world, and often going after championship seasons -- the analogy I've used in some of those AfDs is that even an American who knows nothing about sports might well hesitate long and hard before going after 1990 New York Yankees season. The "suspected copyvio" charge was just icing on the cake, and obviously there was no attempt at complying with WP:BEFORE. We would not tolerate such antics in a newbie editor with 200 edits, and it's appalling to contemplate that the perp here is someone with over a hundred thousand edits and who has filed well over a thousand AfDs. Some consequence needs to happen here beyond "Gosh, what a shame," and The Banner would be well advised to have some serious explanation for this egregious conduct. Ravenswing 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree - the petty, POINTy nominations by The Banner of clearly notable topics is incredibly disruptive and I agree this constitutes hounding and needs resolving. GiantSnowman 19:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think - if possible - @The Banner should be banned from making AfD's for 24-72 hours. Once this period is done, we can go forward with a possible decision for a long-term solution. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger. A big portion of my Afds are honoured, with. the articles removed. The Banner talk 19:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner not only did you not give a reason for afd'ing the articles but they are extremely notable articles.Td^she/her 19:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have quite a mediocre record at AfD. AfD tools report that in the last thousand nominations you've filed, the eventual result matches yours just 57% of the time, which is not much better than random chance.

But we are not talking about AfDs you filed five years ago -- although given your recent behavior, a closer examination of your record is appropriate. We're talking the AfDs you filed against articles on highly notable subjects that HugoAcosta created, where you demonstrably did not perform WP:BEFORE, where you levied unsupported and likely unfounded accusations of copyright violations at him. Do you have an explanation for those? Ravenswing 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for temporarily banning User:The Banner from AFDs and further punishment if he continues, the AFDs he's just put up are are at best ridiculous, and at worst incendiary. Ortizesp (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jayron and Ravenswing, repeated untenable nominations are bad enough, but AfDing so many that are obviously notable is beyond disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• COpying my comment from one of the AfDs. I think The Banner's conduct at the ongoing AfDs needs evaluation and handling by an uninvolved admin, which isn't me. While I have no issue with Fram's responses, the AfD isn't the place for the discussion. (Will notify both momentarily. Star Mississippi 14:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made by Fram and others about TheBanner's possible HOUNDING behavior (I was very surprised to learn that this is an experienced editor after going through the batch of Spanish football club season articles AfDs they started yesterday). I'm also concerned from the post above that TheBanner doesn't understand their behavior was very likely inappropriate (asking us not to shoot the messenger?). I'm not recommending any sanction, but I would like TheBanner to consider how to handle themselves better in the future. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sums up my thinking as well. Whilst I am note sure about a symbolic 24 hour AfD ban at the moment I would certainly be willing to entertain a sanction if issues recur. Gusfriend (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do that here. "Symbolic bans" are not anything worthwhile. Either we believe that TheBanner will continue to be disruptive, and issue some kind of sanctions, or we believe that they are capable of self-regulating and modifying their own behavior, at which point we let them do that. Symbolic bans are pointless. --Jayron32 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season, where they nominated the article with patently false claims (and ones that are not really relevant for an AfD anyway, what matters is if sources exist, not if they are in the article), and where they apparently still can't admit their fault or withdraw the nom, even after 8 other AfDs in the series have been closed as "speedy keep" with a comment by the closer that they were a "waste of time". This is not some heat of the moment mistake by The Banner, this is an ongoing refusal to see or admit any issue with their behaviour, which has resulted in the meltdown and subsequent (well-deserved) block of a productive editor. Letting them get away with a silly 24 hour AfD ban or a severe "tsk tsk" is extremely mild for this kind of behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the flipside, that's an older nomination, before TheBanner was made aware such nominations were being disruptive. Digging backwards isn't helpful; we know they have a history of this; I just am not sure that before this discussion they didn't know they had a history of problems. Don't misunderstand me here. What they did was wrong. But giving them the opportunity to self-correct should be done here. Blocking or banning should come only after a person has been given the opportunity to do better. @The Banner: Do you agree to stop making these kinds of nominations? --Jayron32 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at the bottom of the AfD indicates to me that The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive. Star Mississippi 14:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a newbie editor: this is someone with a hundred thousand edits, sixteen years of experience and many hundreds of AfD filings. At this stage in his Wikipedia career, The Banner should not have to be instructed not to disrupt Wikipedia by filing spurious AfDs or levying unfounded and unsupported accusations at other editors. Nor should he be pulling defensiveness or deflection, as above in this ANI or on the AfD Fram links; the stance that would have helped in either venue was humility and abject apology, withdrawing his remaining open noms, and as Drmies says below, to take these concerns seriously.

At this point, especially with him weaponizing AfD to drive out a productive editor, I'm no longer up for a token slap on the wrist. Let's give him a month's ban from AfD, broadly construed, and see if that gets his attention. Ravenswing 15:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Work up a formal ban proposal, put it to discussion, and let's see what the consensus is. --Jayron32 15:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Banner--this is a good time to take those concerns seriously. Being defensive is not likely to help you. I've known you for a long time and I want to keep you on board here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was nothing more than protecting the quality of Wikipedia. I am willing to stop looking as football articles, as it is clear that a critical look at (the quality of) them is not appreciated. I am not willing to get a formal ban because others come up with some silly made-up stories over how bad I am and what bad intentions I had. That Hugo now has a block OT, is due to his own behaviour, including accusations of racism and apartheid. I will walk away from football articles and will not care about substandard articles. To put a date on it, the rest of the year, minimum. I hope there will also be a look at the behaviour of "the other side" because to my feeling that is harassment and hounding. The Banner talk 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that as your unrepentant encomium, let's take you at your word. I therefore propose that The Banner receive a two month tban from AfD, broadly construed, with the recommendation that he educate himself better on the purposes of and his obligations under WP:Deletion policy. Ravenswing 19:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you just gonna keep raising it? Just make it indef until they demonstrate that they recognize the problem and can commit to correcting it. But if there's already an unwillingness to do so, what's the point of a 2 months hiatus and/or TBAN, if the issues are likely to continue once that time is up? El_C 20:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose indef instead, feel free. Since this is the first formal proposal I've made, I'm unsure where you get the idea about "raising" anything. Ravenswing 20:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm just speaking generally. I only have a vague idea as to what's happening here. But I saw you in passing above being unimpressed with The Banner's responses, thus, seeking to raise the previously-proposed 24-72 hour ban (shortest TBAN I've heard of) to one month. And then, after being further unimpressed, you proposed to raise it to 2 months. That's what I was referring to wrt raising. But I didn't realize that this was your first proposal, so now I feel like a dick. El_C 20:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the two months, but agree that indef would be better. We don't need The Banner to stop looking at football articles -- the topic area is irrelevant -- we need them to stop disrupting AFD; the TBAN should last until they commit to doing so. Levivich (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I've been a regular closer at AFD since January and I just wanted to add that it is not uncommon for a nominator to target a variety of article creations from the same page creator. There are times, like with those thousands of GEO stubs with terrible sourcing, when such behavior is warranted. But there are other times where it seems like a veteran editor spots one bad article by a relatively new editor (or at least an editor without a "known" profile) and just nominates all of their articles for deletion. There are rare times where it is part of a feud between editors or payback but it usually seems like we have some very experienced editors who become suspicious of editors when they find a weak article and go through their contributions to find others of similar mediocre quality. While it could very well be that these articles merit deletion I just wonder what it feels like for an editor, whether or new or old, to be going along and doing their editing work day by day and suddenly, BOOM! their talk page has 3 or 5 or 12 AFD notices on it, telling them that their articles are being considered for deletion. Unfortunately, there is no requirement with any deletion tagging to actually talk to a page creator first so they are likely blindsided by the number of their articles simultaneously being considered for deletion. I understand that Hugo Acosta crossed over a line here but I can see why he panicked, vocally defending his articles in all those AFDs and then went off the deep end. I think most content creators would get irate.

I guess my point now is that what The Banner did is unacceptable for an experienced editor but they are far from the only editor who has targeted a particular editor's page creations and tagged them for some form of deletion. And I guess those of us, both admins and regular editors, who regularly patrol AFD need to speak up more when we see this happening REGARDLESS of what we think should become of these nominated articles. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I sometimes see something similar with requested moves, merges and the like on people's talk pages and suspect that they might feel the same. Gusfriend (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference, however, between coming across one (non-notable) article, taking to AFD, checking the creator's contribs, and nominating other (non-notable) articles - and what The Banner did. GiantSnowman 11:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking of seeing user talk pages with a dozen messages within a few weeks mixed between different types which I suspect they find hard and this is a whole different level. Gusfriend (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not wholly in relation to this thread, but it (and a good few others I've seen here) inspires me to an idea. The phenomenon of "all of my articles have been AfD'd at once" seems to be a fairly common point of contention -- and it seems to cause a completely disproportionate amount of stress for anyone it happens to. Sure, the articles often have problems, but when there's a bunch of them at the same time, we aren't really leaving creators with much option. Do we really expect someone to call off work for a week to rigorously go through two dozen articles and copyedit them to GA at the same time before the AfDs run to the end? I think it might be worth considering some formal acknowledgement of this; I'm not sure exactly what that would look like. One idea, off the top of my head, is that if an article creator has more than a handful up for deletion at the same time, they could be given more latitude in relisting them, or request a relist under the "barrage clause", or whatever. I don't think that would break the system too badly. Of course, there may be some other solution that makes sense -- but I think it's worth trying to come up with something that satisfies the need to maintain article quality while avoiding the regular and predictable series of meltdowns that occur (even among otherwise productive editors). jp×g 18:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal re: The Banner

AFDs for top Mexican football league

I think we've dealt with the user issues here (above). But what remains is that while some of the Mexican AFDs are going Keep, for the initial couple of weeks the other AFDs were very poorly attended, and were closed with very little participation other than the Delete votes from User:GiantSnowman (which I don't understand to be honest, and seem a bit out-of-character]. These AFDs were for seasons of teams in the top league of North America - easily meeting WP:NSEASONS - heck, two of the nominations were for teams whose season's involved participation in the 1995 CONCACAF Champions' Cup! Football AFDs have become very poorly attended in recent months.

Perhaps User:Star Mississippi can revisit and relist these AFDs, given the poor attendance, systemic problems, and likely being notable; I believe they closed all these (correctly looking at the AFDs in themselves). The AFDs in question include: WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Puebla season, WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Cruz Azul season, , WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Toros Neza season, WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season, WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Tigres UANL season - and also WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Correcaminos UAT season and WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season that were closed by User:Liz. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just realized that 5 of the 7 AFDs I mention above are already at DRV - WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 19#1994–95 season articles. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! I put a note this morning in the DRV that I have no issue if these are relisted. Factors definitely have changed since I closed the discussions. Given the number of endorses in the DRV before HugoAcosta imploded (and subsequently socked), I don't think I can or should unilaterally relist these. That said, I agree with you re: the systemic issues. As someone who doesn't follow soccer, I'm not sure if these are Real Madrid territory where I was a Keep, or one that needs more research. So I guess consider me neutral and fine with whichever outcome develops. Star Mississippi 22:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always willing to revisit a closure I did but in the other AFDs, I can't fault the way they were closed. We have a problem with low participation in most AFD discussions and after a gut-wrenching summer of hundreds of athlete/team AFDs, given the changing guidelines surrounding sports notability, many regular participants in discussions on this subject (and closers for that matter) stay away from AFDs on these articles. I think people are just worn out from arguing, on both sides of the debate.

Repeated relisting is discouraged in the guidelines so these discussions had to be closed with some decision even if that was "No consensus". But I'll take this issue to DRV to discuss it there. I just want editors who don't work with sports articles to realize how grueling things were in AFD over the summer, there were hundreds of AFD discussions, debate got very heated among the dozen or so regular participants in sports deletion discussions. If these articles had been nominated in AFDs in the spring, I think there would have been a more robust and healthy debate on what to do with the articles but what happened, happened and here we are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look. Speaking as one of the editors who was not only in the thick of the arguments this year, but someone who's been a frequent flyer at AfD over the years, I get it: I chalk up the general lack of participation at AfD from where it was just a few years ago partly due to exhaustion. And I wouldn't argue that the closes now at DRV were illegitimate closes.

But I think we can agree now that they were bad decisions, and that the nominations were very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith. Ravenswing 02:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I said relist above and at the DRV, I'm also fine if these are outright restored given the factors that have been identified since my initial closes. Star Mississippi 02:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work Liz. Gusfriend (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again for @Nfitz: - NSEASONS is a presumption of notability - not automatic notability. We need GNG to be met. GiantSnowman 18:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and [1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season]], we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Nfitz's comments, look, GiantSnowman -- I get it. I've made AfD votes before where I looked at the article, maybe looked up the sources listed, saw nothing valid, made my Delete vote and moved on. The same as you did with "no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me" votes. And we both know that any search for qualifying sources we made in such cases was cursory at best. That's the nature of things, and all there'd be at AfD would be tumbleweeds and crickets if every voter was compelled to spend a half hour searching for sources before each vote.

But let's not give ourselves props for that, and let's not imagine that we are truly serving the process well, and for pity's sake let's not dig in our heels defend the result when it blows up on us. The honest truth here is that no one did the legwork to assure themselves these articles could not meet the GNG. And it's not as if we don't know better. C'mon, let's be honest here: you're an active editor in sports topics. Do you really, truly believe that there was not enough media coverage to sustain a season article for a top-flight soccer team in Mexico? Ravenswing 21:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure there is - but it wasn't there when I reviewed, and I have been criticised in the past for saying 'look at the level this player/club plays at, common sense says there must be coverage'. So I can't win can I? GiantSnowman 21:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's a matter of whether anyone can -- or should -- claim to have "won" here. HugoAcosta shot his own foot off, but he was a productive editor with tens of thousands of edits. The Banner's about to be tbanned from AfD, and his future edits are likely to be scrutinized, and that's a hundred thousand edits now tainted. AfD's structural problems won't be addressed and likely can't be (barring a radical redesign), and it'll likely remain vulnerable to being hijacked by editors acting in bad faith. There's egg on faces all around. I doubt anyone here's overjoyed at the consequences. Ravenswing 02:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people should look at your edits too. You are clearly on a rampage to get me kicked from AfD by claiming all kinds of bad intent of my side. If you think that caring about quality is a bad intent, then I am guilty as charged. But then Wikipedia and football articles in particular have a problem when scrutinizing the quality of articles becomes illegal and punishable. Lowering the quality of articles is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 19:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice: claiming that you are fighting for "article quality" while others are not is a bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reading the comments in this thread with a genuine desire to understand why almost everyone here has a problem with your actions? Or did you immediately decide that you were the victim the moment that someone started scrutinizing your edits? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People are welcome to look at my edits, and if they find obvious flaws in them, then I'd better hitch up my trousers and admit to that, instead of repeating "I've done nothing, it's everyone else who's wrong!" in an infinite loop. Neither my longevity, nor my edit count, nor my accomplishments immunize me against Wikipedia policies or guidelines. (Never mind that, in the department of Bad Looks, do you really think it's a good look for you right now to plot to go after yet another editor's contribution history? Really?)

This is where I would ask whether you get the gravity of numerous editors, including several administrators, with a combined Wikipedia experience of over a century, unanimously thinking that your actions are enough to warrant an indefinite topic ban from AfD. Except it's fairly obvious that you don't, and there's not much point to it. Ravenswing 22:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously couldn't find any SIGCOV SIRS for any of the season articles when you searched? JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they could or not, and whether they searched or not, is irrelevant to ANI, because there is not and has never been any requirement to do a search for sources before nominating something for deletion. It is suggested, yes. It is not required, and any such requirement would obviously go against WP:BURDEN. The formal burden to perform such searches is entirely and exclusively on people who add or wish to retain material, never on people who wish to remove or delete it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the common misconception. The actual phrasing at WP:BEFORE runs: "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:" "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability ... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects ... If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating."

This is rather obviously not the sort of phrasing used for mere suggestions. Ravenswing 21:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman's AfD edits

I have for a while now noticed that GiantSnowman's votes at AFD are often identical, but I presumed that they did at least a short search for sources and only then posted their boilerplate "no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.". From the above AfDs and their response in this discussion, it has become clear that in reality, GiantSnowman does no such effort at all, and just relies on the state of the article and the comments by the nom (when they vote delete) or the work by others (in the cases where they vote keep after others have looked for sources). The effect, certainly with the delete votes, is that the nom basically gets an automatic additional "delete" without any effort, leading to articles being deleted without anyone actually bothering to look for sources, as is required.

They seem to have used this boilerplate delete in more than 1,000 AfDs so far[2], sometimes voting very rapidly (e.g. 8 delete votes in 4 minutes, 17:55, 16 October 2022 to 17:58, 16 October 2022. Between 15:20, 3 October 2022 and 15:28, 3 October 2022 When they voted 31 times in 9 minutes. 27 of these were identical boilerplate deletes. When they voted "keep", it's also simply and blindly based on the work of others in the AfD: e.g. here and here.

AfD is not supposed to be a vote, but GiantSnowman treats it like one, in most cases simply reinforcing the nom no matter if they are right or wrong, thereby skewing the outcome. Their AfD stats are probably pretty good this way, but that's more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than any actual merit. Can we give them some restriction that they are from now on only allowed to !vote if they provide some evidence of having done at least a basic WP:BEFORE check if they want to participate at AfD? It's not hard to change votes to "delete, the best I could find was this passing mention (link)" or "keep, sources like X and Y show notability", but it does takes more time than 15 seconds. Fram (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've three comments. The first is that while WP:BEFORE is nominally a requirement lain upon nominators, it's widely ignored, almost never enforced ... and doesn't apply to AfD voters. The second is that the guidance lain upon contributors to AfD discussions (WP:AFDEQ, WP:AFDFORMAT) is mostly procedural; there's almost nothing in there concerning any duty -- theoretical or otherwise -- on the part of a AfD voter to do his or her own research.

Finally, a large part of the problem here is simply that AfD participation has cratered. Many discussions are relisted multiple times. Many are closed with soft deletes with only one -- or none -- participant. We don't have enough participants to have the luxury of booting knee-jerk voters. I wish there was a better answer. Ravenswing 16:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on boilerplate !votes ignores the reality of the subject matter Snowman is working in, namely association football. Given the breadth of available routine sports coverage, the low amount of effort required to use said coverage to create articles, and the sport's sizeable global fan base, it should come as no surprise that there is a never ending supply of non-notable stub articles in this subject area. Most of these should be PROD's but wind up at AfD one way or the other. For the vast majority of these, there really is nothing more to be said than that there isn't enough coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines, but it does need to be said in order to get these articles through AfD. Look at just about any other editor who regularly !votes to delete football related articles and you'll see similar patterns. It's not some novel behaviour by Snowman, it's just how AfD functions at the scale needed to keep the never ending supply of low effort non-notable football stubs in check. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'issue' of my AFD !votes was raised, explained, and resolved at the NSPORTS RFC - in short, just because I 'vote' rapidly does not mean that I am not checking articles in advance of the edit being made; I use more than just a boilerplate, such as this and this (although I do use one in many AFDs, because in many AFDs there is nothing else to say!); I do search for sources, such as this; and if I !vote 'delete', and somebody else finds sources, I always ask to be pinged so I can reconsider.

I therefore see no issues with my AFD votes, and indeed less than 3 months ago I was complimented by @Liz: (an admin active in closing AFDs) for how I "eavluate [sic] each case individually". I have not changed my AFD habits since. GiantSnowman 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Sir Sputnik said. In 2019 I participated in hundreds of NFOOTY AFDs; these are all processed the same way: either someone drops links to two or more GNG sources, or nobody does. Either way, there is not much more to say other than "keep, meets GNG per above sources," or "delete, no GNG sources". Very rarely is there need for discussion about the sources or other matters -- 90% of the time, it's clear: either there are GNG sources or there aren't. When I was participating in these AFDs, I started out writing longer rationales, but later realized that I was just writing useless filler that others (the closer) had to read, and so I'd just say "keep meets GNG per X" or "delete, no GNG sources". I can also say, as someone who has participated in hundreds of AFDs with GS (though not lately), and very contentious AFDs where I was intentionally nominating players who met the SNG but not GNG, that although the text of GS's !votes can be brief, in substance, they are not cookie-cutter. I could prove this if needed, but I remember GS as being one of the few regular NSPORTS AFD participants who would actually change their vote based on the quality of the sourcing; even if I disagreed with him a lot on the particulars, it's clear that he doesn't always vote the same way, he votes based on an individualized analysis of each topic. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look another AFD where I find sources and !vote accordingly... GiantSnowman 18:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look an AFD where I change my mind after somebody found a bunch of offline Norwegian newspaper coverage... GiantSnowman 11:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...which has nothing to do with the above complaint. The issue is not whether you are willing to change your mind if someone else finds sources, the issue is that we have AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season, where despite the article already having sources like this and this you blindly follow the nom and post your empty !delete vote, and even when it becomes clear that the noms by The Banner can't be trusted and the subject is obviously notable, you reply with "I know there were sources - I checked the article - but I was (and remain) of the view they were not enough for GNG. More than happy to be persuaded otherwise, however..." and still can't be bothered to do even the most minor search for additional searches, if the sources already there are for unknown reasons not sufficient for you. Then you would have found, oh, perhaps this or this or this. Fram (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it does have something to do with the above complaint - you said that I when I !vote keep, it is "simply and blindly based on the work of others". I showed an example where that is clearly not the case.

However, you're absolutely right - I should be sanctioned because I'm not as good at Googling information about 1990s Mexico as you are. Did you ping me as requested after you had found those sources? No. If you had I would likely have changed my mind. So what's the issue here? GiantSnowman 14:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your example being this, where you changed an effortless "delete" in an effortless "keep" based on the work of others? And that is somehow disproving my point? And no, I am not in the habit of pinging editors who have no interest in doing any effort, but want to influence the outcome of the AfD anyway. Fram (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Craig Skinner AFD I also linked and which you are conveniently ignoring. Another earlier example here. No effort is it? GiantSnowman 15:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to an example you provided and which had nothing to do with this section (well, it confirmed that many of your keeps are not any better than your deletes, but it didn't show what you intended to show). But congrats, not all your AfD votes are worthless, well done. Fram (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I often do a thorough WP:BEFORE before voting on an AfD. That is very time-consuming, and is a part of why I'm currently burned out and not participating. There are simply far too many nominations to devote that much time, which is why we should demand that a proper WP:BEFORE is done before nominating an article. As far as GiantSnowman goes, he does vote a lot, but he is reasonable, and responds to discussion. Jacona (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meta ish comment. The challenge with the flood of AfDs and lack of participation is that "drive by" votes don't help with an unfamiliar subject and/or where there's a language issue. Folks have raised the lack of quorum issue above. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andi Fadel Muhammad is an example of one where I rebooted it (ultimately closed as soft PROD) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes Junior is one where neither !vote helps the closer. An n/c is just kicking the can down the road, which doesn't help with the flood. Is the ArbComm RFC going to address any of this? And by this I mean not @Ortiezsp @GiantSnowman !votes, which are not against procedure, but just the general lack of quorum or is AfD is broken the new RfA is broken?

Star Mississippi 18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those seem like they're coming to the correct result (under our flawed but nevertheless current consensus about notability) and efficiently? What's broken about it? Levivich (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich the way that I see it is repeat nominations when it's not a case of consensus/other factors changing are a symptom of a broken process. There's a no consensus close where editors are making a case on both sides and there's no clear answer, and then there's no meaningful input, let's kick the can down the road a few months. It does nothing to help the backlog, but that may just be my POV. @Ravenswing I mostly agree. I also just don't think we have the active editor base to keep up with ~100 discussions/day (factoring in all the XfDs). They require work and not everyone has the time/interest/language skills/research database access to !vote "properly" unfortunately. Star Mississippi 23:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi After seeing so many of these deletion related ANI's over the years, I've had the thought before that if an article is nominated repeatedly for AfD and the outcome is no consensus each time, there'd be a mandatory moratorium of re-nominating it for a year or more. I don't know what the general appetite is for that idea, but it's an idea . ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with you. It's not that there are substantially more AfDs; AfDs often went over a hundred a day five years ago and ten years ago and fifteen years ago. A lot of people have just fallen away. I've had many thousands of edits at AfD myself, but other than (a) articles I've nominated, and (b) hockey- and Massachusetts-related deletions, which I follow, I haven't regularly participated in random AfDs since 2017. Kicking the can NCs aren't responsible; do repeat nominations really form more than just a fraction of AfDs? No. Ravenswing 01:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly how an RfC could fix AfD, not without a (highly unlikely) radical revamp of the system. There was less potential for abuse in the days when many AfDs had numerous participants, but even there gaps existed: the couple dozen at the top of a day's listing might have a dozen, the couple dozen at the bottom heard crickets. Now? People just don't bother. Nor is there a feasible way to compel them to do so. (Nor, honestly, is this any sort of subject for ANI.) Ravenswing 22:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NorthAmerica1000 and I brought this up in independent evidence submissions at the ArbCom case, but since it was out of scope it wasn't really addressed there.

On the one hand, I have argued at length that WP:AFD and WP:N don't require participants to perform a BEFORE search. Editors at the NSPORTS2022 RfC also rejected the proposal for a "special sports PROD" that could be used to handle the tens of thousands of athlete articles that do not demonstrate notability in their sourcing; regular PRODs on athletes are quickly removed based on non-guideline-based "claims" to notability and anyway I can see why one might be reluctant to PROD an article, see it get dePRODded, then nominate it at AfD where it would be ineligible for soft deletion and thus require more participation than can be expected at this juncture for it to be deleted; and it's unlikely my off-the-cuff suggestion at the mass AfD RfC pre-workshop here would be technically feasible (although maybe...). Making BEFORE a requirement that must be demonstrated would help assuage concerns that no one looked for sources, but at the same time it massively shifts the burden of proving notability onto those who challenge it rather than those who wish to retain the material, and since the community is inexplicably adamant that article creators should never have to include any references at creation, let alone references that even halfway show notability, and even under circumstances of mass creation, it would be unfair to make non-compliance with BEFORE sanctionable or grounds for a procedural keep. So pretty much our only option to process these countless microstubs of dubious notability is through AfD, at whatever rate the nominators decide, and that means !voters will have to match that rate.

On the other hand, what do these contentless !votes contribute to (notability-based) deletion discussions? Especially when they are one of the first !votes in an AfD with just a hyperlink to a DELREASON as the nomination statement--I can definitely see justification for a perfunctory "X, per the above arguments" when there is substantial discussion of sources in prior !votes, or when the nominator provides a good BEFORE analysis. But if the only data you (general "you") are going off of is the nom's unelaborated claim the subject "doesn't meet X", then your !vote should be ignored. And if you actually did look at all the sources in the article, or even better, did a search yourself, then why wouldn't you explain your findings? If you care so little one way or the other whether an AfD comes to an appropriate conclusion, why !vote in the first place? JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, preach! — Jacona (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of this, but I am pretty sure GS reviews sources before voting or at least uses experience from prior sourcing reviews to guide their voting (e.g., I suspect GS knows what kind of sourcing is generally available for a footballer who played during a particular time period with a particular type of career because we've gone through dozens of AfDs like that in the past - see Levivich's comments above). Using the Hermes Junior example above, I'm not entirely sure what we can do differently. This is an article I started in 2008 (purely from a statistics database, as was customary then). I've been improving or culling a batch of similar articles I started in that time frame. Here, I looked for WP:SIRS - even added the closest things I could find to the article - and realized I cannot get the article into a state where it satisfied WP:GNG. My PROD was reverted without any improvement or suggestion that SIRS exist (as happens probably 80% of the time). I moved it to AfD, where participation is very limited, so honestly GS's input was useful (as they are one of a handful of active editors in footballer AfDs). I suppose I could have included my own search output in the nomination rationale, but I figured the description was sufficient (and the references I added to the article were there for all to see). In short, the no consensus outcome was a bit frustrating, but I'm struggling to think of something that would have led to a better outcome. Jogurney (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• leading to articles being deleted without anyone actually bothering to look for sources, as is required... It is absolutely not required, nor has it ever been required to search for sources before proposing, nominating, or supporting the deletion of an article; per WP:BEFORE, the ultimate responsibility to search for sources is solely and exclusively on those who add it or wish to retain it, never on people who wish to remove it. Trying to invert WP:BEFORE by demanding that other people perform searches for you for things you've added or want to retain is completely inappropriate and would make challenging many additions unworkable given the volume at which new material is added to the wiki. --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trying to invert WP:BEFORE by demanding that other people perform searches for you for things you've added or want to retain is completely inappropriate"??? WP:BEFORE is about what the nom should do before nominating an article for deletion. It is not about what the creator or others should do, and nothing is inverted here. WHile "required" is perhaps too strong and "strongly advised" is better, your interpretation is the opposite of what BEFORE actually says. Note also that BEFORE is only about deletions, not about parts of articles which you challenge. Basically, your objection seems to be about current contents, while BEFORE is about the subject, not about the state of the article. Fram (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AFDs themselves may be no more numerous before - but those in the Football area have increased significantly - and many editors can't keep up. A likely cause of this is the elimination of the NFOOTBALL guideline, which kept most of the borderline cases from going to AFD. I believe that one shouldn't vote either way at AFD without a BEFORE. And these borderline cases invariably kick up sources - so instead of a relatively clear cut decision on there not being sources, we end up with an endless and tiring debate about the quality of sources. This doesn't directly effect this article (for which NSEASONS and plain common sense should have stopped the nomination for the top league on the continent, and one of the top leagues in the world), the burnout on the football AFD issue is. If GS's "votes" look a little rushed these days, then this issue plays into the whole thing. GS should be commended for his work earlier this year trying to find alternatives to NFOOTBALL at a truly thankless discussion at WT:Notability (sports)/Association football. Hopefully the lack of such a guideline, and the fallout from that, is discussed at WP:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale. Nfitz (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure please

This thread seems to have deviated/degenerated into a general discussion about Afd, and GNG vs SNG, and disussions of other users' use of AfD, all which are topics for another case or venue. The one part of this case is the Topic ban proposal re: The Banner and perhaps it's time for an uninvolved admin to do his thing and close this according to his or her reading of consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In September after some talk page conversations ([3]) I boldly split off the page Haskell Manufacturing Company Building from the GA article Haskell Manufacturing Company. On 16 October User:Doug Coldwell made a cut and paste page move to Haskelite Building without attribution and with other issues. I left a note on his talk page [4], reverted the redirect and tagged it for speed deletion (G6) and started a page move discussion [5].

On 16 October Doug Coldwell expressed support for the move [6] and then made another 8 posts in support of the renaming. The move was closed as supported and actioned about 12 hours ago [7] then less than hour later Doug Coldwell created a new page called 801 N. Rowe Street [8] about the same building and added a merge template from the Haskelite Building to the new page.

I would normally have skipped ANI and left a note on his talk page about it being a duplicate page and either merged the new information into the existing page or suggesting that they do it except for the following timeline:

• The page was starting to be worked on by 18 October [9]
• There is a note indicating that he was planning to create a new page with a merge request since at least 18 October (see top of [10]) whilst the recommended move discussion was still underway.
• The page 801 N. Rowe Street is a cut and paste creation from the sandbox of their alternate account [11] and has no attribution for any information. I believe that at least some of the information comes from other Wikipedia pages.
• He is arguing that the current name, Haskelite Building would not be appropriate [12] when he said the opposite during the move discussion which was open until 1 hour previously to him making that statement.

Happy to provide additional context if required. Gusfriend (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• True - The section Haskell building of Haskell Manufacturing Company was my work in the first place. Yes, that is correct Gusfriend then started a new article of Haskell Manufacturing Company Building from my work. True, I created new work on October 16 about the Haskelite Building which was an improvement on my previous work Haskell building. As you can see in "History" in the "Page statistics" that I have 56.1% authorship. Gusfriend has 27.6% authorship because that represents what he had taken of my work of Haskell building section of Haskell Manufacturing Company. Since the majority of the work (basically all) of Haskelite Building is my work, then what I am doing is improving on my work with 801 N. Rowe Street. You can see that Haskelite Building is my work from the very start because on 17 May 2016 I added the four pictures of the 3 story brick building. Those pictures I took and uploaded to Commons on May 16, 2016. The article Haskell Manufacturing Company I created on May 15, 2016. So you can see it is ALL my work and all I am doing is improving on my work. Yes, that is true 801 N. Rowe Street I created and is all my work (100% authorship). What I am doing is improving with this article the work I originally did 17 May 2016 from the article I created on May 15, 2016. Any information of 801 N. Rowe Street is only information from Haskelite Building, which is information from Haskell Manufacturing Company, which is the information from my work of Haskell building from the article I created on Haskell Manufacturing Company on May 15, 2016. So all I am doing is improving on my own work. I would think it would be correct to improve on my own work. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the new article to the older one, as its creation was a WP:POINT violation with severe WP:OWN issues, as highlighted in their above comment. Fram (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• True, with the creation of Haskell Manufacturing Company Building that Gusfriend did on 22 September 2022 he used all my references I already had in the article 1 May 2020. So all he did is took all my work I did on Haskell building section of Haskell Manufacturing Company including pictures and references. In the process of doing this he made the mistake of saying the building was made for the Mendelson Manufacturing Company was in 1982. If you will notice that in the section I wrote in Haskell building the correct date should be 1892. Notice also he said the company went out of business in 1984 which again is wrong - the company went out of business in 1894. Gusfriend made these mistakes since he did NOT do the research in the first place. He was just taking my research work and attempting to make it look like he had done the work. I corrected the dates when I made improvements the article. So all I am doing is improving on my own work. It would be a major improvement if Haskelite Building were to be merged into 801 N Rowe Street. I would know how to make the merge since I did most of the work in the first place and all of the research on these two articles. There is an ongoing discussion with merging Haskelite Building into 801 N. Rowe Street which User:Fram just redirected into Haskelite Building. That should NOT be done with an ongoing discussion about the merge.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, he wrote 1984 instead of 1894. That's a clear typo, and not an error in research. Andrew Jameson (talk · contribs) corrected it almost immediately, over a month ago. This is trivial and irrelevant.

  I'm much more concerned about what you write here: So all he did is took all my work I did on Haskell building section of Haskell Manufacturing Company including pictures and references. Doug, you were nearly blocked indefinitely a month ago over self-promotion and ownership concerns. The content split is correctly attributed on Talk:Haskelite Building (something you have not done when you do copy/paste moves). Gusfriend is not claiming credit or ownership for the work you did. That's not how any of this works. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of Doug’s comments are bordering on personal attacks. Accusing Gusfriend of stealing his work is an outrageous comment, especially considering the amount of time and effort Gus has spent trying to repair Doug’s articles. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:7056:59B4:45AA:64BC (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I still remember when you accused me last month of starting an ANI thread about you out of "jealousy" over your articles (as if I could ever be "jealous" over articles full of copyright violations and factual errors). Here you go again throwing out unsubstantiated allegations against other editors. Your remaining time on this website will be very short if you continue down this path. You are demonstrating an inability to work collaboratively with other editors, which is a vital part of editing Wikipedia. This has all happened because you are so upset that another editor tried to fix your copyright violations and nonsensical page creations, you made a fork to try and make the article entirely your own writing again. You seem more concerned with who "owns" content than with building an encyclopedia, which is what we are here to do, not boost our own egos. You are already on a very thin leash, Doug. This could easily escalate to you being blocked indefinitely. If I were you, I'd be changing my tune right now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Fram removed the merge to and merge from templates of 801 N. Rowe Street and Haskelite Building. Whatever happened to discussing the merge before anyone does anything. I believe an administrator should look at this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You created a content fork and it was boldly redirected. If you think the article should be at a different name then you should request a move. Creating a copy of the article and then proposing a merge with the original article is disruptive and not how our processes work. I see nothing controversial about how Fram handled this. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• INDEFed, which arguably could/should have happened last time. There is no indication Coldwell has learnt from or will change his behavior. Star Mississippi 18:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Coldwell has a secondary account here, which remains unblocked CiphriusKane (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. Doug has been given multiple chances and far more leeway than most editors would get and he hasn't shown the slightest indication he is willing to edit collaboratively or address the issues with his conduct. It's a shame he decided to go out this way, but the blame is on nobody but him. You'd think after having a proposal to indefinitely block you narrowly defeated, one would change their behavior. I hope Gusfriend will continue to clean up Doug's articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was hoping that it wouldn't have to come to this point, especially after the indefinite block proposal last month. It's unfortunate that Doug had to go out this way, but with his unchanged behavior after his hiatus, a block was sure to come at one point or another. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Very good block. There was no indication last month either that DC felt the slightest degree of remorse or resolve to do better, but the apologists were out in droves all the same, making excuses for him all the same. I suppose we should count ourselves fortunate that it only took him several extra weeks to flame out, instead of several more years. Ravenswing 06:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/Douglas_Coldwell needs to be blocked as well. I echo everyone else's sadness. Most of me feels sorry for DC, but his steadfast IDHT leaves no way out. Since the last ANI thread I've had some further encounters with his articles, and things are definitely as bad, and probably worse, than it seemed at ANI: non-RS sources; sources abused for purposes they can't possibly serve; rampant OR; misinterpretation of sources leading to the assertion of ridiculous things; discursions into random miscellany apparently thrown in because they popped up in a keyword search of old newspapers; sources from 100 years ago used to make assertions about the state of the world today; and, of course, blatant copyvios.

DC shows, and has shown, absolutely zero understanding of any of these problems, much less of how serious they are. He just keeps plowing forward like nothing happened. Even how he's been fiddling with his talk page to brag about how 97% of his articles became DYKs, how he's got 500 550 DYKs, and how he set the record for quickest time from article creation to DYK appearance [13] (36 hours). One fucking thing Doug Coldwell should not be bragging about is how fast he's been able to shovel crappy articles onto the main page. It's like when old-time surgeons used to pride themselves on amputating a leg in 45 seconds -- no thanks, Doc. EEng 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked secondary account. Apologies for missing your first note @CiphriusKane Star Mississippi 00:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too am sad that it ended up like this as I do not like seeing any long term editor blocked but unfortunately I think that there was no other option. I will be leaving the Haskelite Building page to other editors for a while to avoid any perception of ownership of the page but I will be working on some of his other articles where I see something to be improved upon. For example, GA that says longest and heaviest grain-laden train ever put together which is supported by a reference from 1898. In fact a couple of minutes of searching found an article from 2020 about a 3km grain train called the longest ever. Gusfriend (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, do you have a diff or link for the "biggest plywood sheet" goof? EEng 09:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng It's still in the lead of Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation. In the body of the article it's sourced to a book from 1918. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mysterious IP editor! I feel I should add the following, for the record in case years later someone can't understand why all this happened. Bluntly, it's the only thing you need to know to understand why Doug Coldwell simply cannot be a productive editor here until he allows himself to be tutored in the proper use of sources. On May 31, 2016, he added the following to the article Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation [14]:

The largest plywood panels ever made were manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation

This is cited [15] to an article published in 1918 and written by a Haskelite employee [16]. What's going on here is wrong on so, so many levels:

• Even if the claim was "As of 1918, the largest plywood panels ever made had been manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation", we wouldn't accept that with a source written by the manufacturer itself -- we'd need a reliable and independent source.
• But the statement made in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, is that Haskelite made the largest plywood panels ever made, period. And it's cited to something more from more than 100 years ago. This is so monumentally stupid that even my very substantial powers of invective cannot do it justice.
• And to add the cherry on top, the cited article isn't talking about the largest plywood panels ever made -- it's talking about the largest waterproof plywood panels ever made. That qualifier just got left out.

It's just hopeless, and it's not occasional -- it's typical of DC's work. I'm really beginning to think we need a special process to deal with the stupefying amounts of crap he's woven into the fabric of the English Wikipedia -- a sort of nuke-on-sight authorization for deleting his articles, or reducing them to harmless stubs, without the usual ponderous processes. We did something like this, IIRC, in the Neelix situation. EEng 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely support this. We have to go through over 200 GAs and look for issues like this; doing it the standard way will take years. We need an expedited process where if we find one or two glaring errors like this (or copyvio) the article is summarily delisted from GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA delisting isn't enough. Really, GA-or-not-GA is a relatively minor issue. The real issue is the misinformation and copyvios in the articles themselves. To address that we need a process like you describe, except it ends with the article being stubified (or, in some cases) deleted. Arid Desiccant, thou art wise -- can you suggest a rough outline of how such a process might work? EEng 21:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng; depending on how much copyvio we find and how little interest the community takes in crawling through every single one of DC's major contributions, we could probably apply WP:PDEL; there's a significant amount of pure copyvio mixed in with PD copying that merely needs to be attributed though. CCI uses a nuke-on-sight principle on about ~4-5 cases off the top of my head, and that is after over a decade of having the case open. If we do something like this for DC, the community's most likely going to get pissed at us for the collateral. I think we'd need some kind of community consensus to actually do this; similar to the case that resulted in the mass bot blanking of pages back in 2010. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the rail transport related DC articles, I'd be happy with committing to rewriting them from scratch if that will make people happy that we aren't "losing" anything (except for copyvio, of course). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Belated comment that this is a good block, and that it really should have happened earlier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, similarly to Neelix, we need a list of articles to deal with, so it can be worked through in a similar manner. Having "good" articles which include total garbage is a serious issue, and needs to be dealt with ASAP (before the next slow news day). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely. If the powers that be would prefer this be discussed somewhere besides ANI, we can start a discussion elsewhere specifically on this question. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a list over at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 of a mix of his old contributions and some newer ones that MER-C grabbed during the September thread. We could expand that list (and the CCI size), or grab a query of every article DC's sent to DYK or GAN and create a checkpage elsewhere if people want to assess the articles out of what CCI normally does. We end up having to handle neutrality, verification, and copyright issues anyways fwiw. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a specialised process to deal with this. Based on what I have seen so far I believe that the majority of his GAs have enough issues to start a GAR which could easily overload the GA pages. Gusfriend (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He has requested an unblock, which @Yamla: has declined. I'm obviously going to stay away from it and defer to any admin to take whichever action they deem appropriate, but based on the content, he still does not understand why he was blocked going back to the original discussion that quantity of DYKs etc. is irrelevant. Star Mississippi 10:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading his unblock request I will be doing my best to avoid any of the articles that he has had a significant contribution to for the next 4 weeks in order to allow time for things to settle down as I do not want to complicate (or be seen to complicate) matters further. Gusfriend (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to now?

So to recap, we now have a giant mess of copyright violations, improperly attributed sourcing, dodgy sources which don't properly verify claims, and outright tripe to clean up, and need to figure out how that will be done. That isn't exactly within the scope of ANI. So, the question now is, where does that discussion happen? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about @Sennecaster's suggestion of the open CCI, or the Talk thereof? Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer for discussion to be on the talk page of the CCI, or on WT:CCI or WT:CP even. Putting it on the CCI itself would be cluttering. CCI usually ends up cleaning serious verification and sourcing issues while also checking for copyvio, so if the community wants to look at other things or set up a space to check everything over, there's going to be anywhere from mild to serious redundancy. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT just about copyright problems. Somewhere in VP is probably a better venue. EEng 01:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Over 90% of my issues with their pages are not CV related and are based on:

• incorrect information
• poor use of sources
• mismatch between information on 2 related pages
• Some poor prose (which I actually suspect comes from CV issues)
• incomplete information in GAs
• DYK statements not supported by information included in articles (sometimes the issue is the DYK and sometimes it is the article)
• OR and irrelevant information to meet a specific narrative

Even just somewhere to list the discussions like Talk:SS John Sherman/GA2 and Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_26#GAR_for_multiple_interlinked_articles

would be appreciated. Gusfriend (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I presume by VP, you meant Village pump, but I'm just not sure where on Village Pump you had in mind? Or were you thinking of a new subpage or something? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Kamala Harris should handle it. EEng 11:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it might do to let Joe know that he'll need to find a stand-in VP for a few months. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging others who've participated above: @Trainsandotherthings, @Fram, @Mackensen, @CiphriusKane, @XtraJovial, @Ravenswing, @Beyond My Ken. Any input would be welcome. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the best way to handle this. As others have noted, it's not just copyright issues. Any article to which he was a major contributor needs to go through a thorough reassessment. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need a process that has authority to go through his articles with a chainsaw and cut out copyvios and factual errors with extreme prejudice. It's the only way this gets resolved in anything resembling a timely manner. I've brought a handful of his articles to GAR, and one was delisted the other day, but that's a slow process and doing all his articles that way would take a very long time. Not to mention the other issues beyond GA status that EEng mentioned. We need to compile a list of his articles and go through them one by one looking for issues. As much as I'd like to just wave a wand and say delist every GA he did, at least a few are likely ok. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently added a comment [17] at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates on a thread concerning the Chinese election that I believe used the racist stereotype that East Asians, when speaking English, confuse /l/ and /r/. I removed the comment, he restored it again, I re-removed it and left a note on his talk that I would block him if he restored it again. He is now asking that I apologise as it was a "joke", it wasn't racist and even that he had a friend that was Japanese-American so he can't be racist. Given that I'm one of the admins that regularly patrols the WP:ITN queue, where Sca contributes almost exclusively and often excessively, it's inevitable that I have to read his commentary whenever I'm here. I'd like an opinion on whether I'm being too sensitive. He refuses to discuss the topic on his talk page, and has moved the discussion repeatedly to mine. Stephen 22:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's offensive. Restoring it after it was removed is bad judgement. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not racist, I even have black friends!" Yeah, that's a stereotype and a very bad joke to make. The fact it was restored, I almost would say was worthy of a block. You certainly do not need to apologize. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly and certainly. Why didn't they just think about it after Stephen reverted the comment? Sarrail (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the discussion above - It's a blatantly offensive comment, the restoration was bad judgement, and doubling down afterwards is even worse. Worthy of a temp block IMO. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I ask Sca to explain further his claim that using "erection" "erected" instead of "election" "elected" was a play on words, but one that didn't play into that stereotype? Like, can he rationally explain how else to interpret it? Why the word erection? Or would that just be me disingenuously forcing him to dig a deeper hole when we all know he is lying? I find one of the most inexplicable things about the post-2016 world is that people no longer feel the need to figure out a plausible lie; any non-plausible lie is apparently sufficient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Purely a joke related to a discussion about whether "elected" was a valid verb in describing a totalitarian leader whose third term had been meticulously pre-planned. No thought whatsoever in my part of any "racist stereotype," nor of any prurient innuendo re "erection," which I see now was an unfortunate word choice. -- Sca (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At the risk of tarnishing my bleeding heart credentials - because I think I'm in the minority on this these days - I'm not sure "racist" is the best term to use; I've always felt that term should have a more specific, narrow meaning. "Mocking ethnic stereotypes" is maybe more accurate? Perhaps Sca would be willing to cop to that? Maybe he's just hung up on the word "racist", and being more accurate would give him a chance to think in a less reflexive way about what he said and realize he is in the wrong here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, we wouldn't want to offend Sca by using the wrong word... Levivich (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whereas Levivich wants to burnish his.--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Say it loud and say it proud! Levivich (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly true that Sca's contributions at ITN are excessive. He has a scarcely believable 9498 edits to WP:ITN/C, an awful lot of them jokes and asides in small text that don't add much to the discussion. I can't say that I've noticed him say anything that could be called racist before, although like Floq it's hard for me to understand what the joke would be if it was not the pronunciation stereotype. Perhaps a temporary partial block from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates would give him time to reflect and go do something more productive. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You're not being too sensitive. Sca's explanation that it was intended as a run-of-the-mill boner joke and not a racist joke playing on the stereotype of Asians' pronunciation of l's as r's strains WP:AGF to its limit, but AGFing it's true, now that it's been pointed out, any reasonable person would've apologized for inadvertently making a racist joke. This is block-worthy. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether he meant it as an Asian l/r pronunciation joke or as a boner joke, it's inappropriate either way. In no way does that edit improve the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Purely a joke related to a discussion about whether "elected" was a valid verb in describing a totalitarian leader whose third term had been meticulously pre-planned. No thought whatsoever in my part of any "racist stereotype," nor of any prurient innuendo re "erection," which I see now was an unfortunate word choice. -- Sca (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You've made me realize I typed incorrectly in my comment above. It was "erected", not "erection". "Erected" makes zero sense as a phallic joke of any kind. This is not plausible as a phallic joke. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. -- Sca (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So, "erected" can mean "put in power", per Wiktionary, and so if I crank my AGF meter all the way to 11 I can see this as a comment about the lack of democracy in China, as Sca claims it was. That said, making political remarks at ITN/C at all is against Wikipedia's purpose (although Sca's far from the only ITN/C regular to run afoul of that), and restoring the comment after it was challenged shows particularly poor judgment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your AGF meter is miscalibrated; this is at least a 23. Sca is not using the word archaically. I'll stop harping on this now, though. It's just so annoying someone can blatantly tell an impossible lie and we're supposed to grit our teeth and chant AGF, AGF. Although looking ahead a few weeks, and a couple of years, I suppose I should just get used to it. OK, now I'll stop harping on it. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, harp away. I despise that it's become part of our cultural zeitgeist that as long as someone Denies! Denies! Denies! at the top of their lungs -- never wavering -- they can never be called on their bullshit, they're immunized against wrongdoing, and the rest of us are enjoined to bow our heads and mumble apologies for having doubted their inner good nature. AGF is not a suicide pact, and treating it as such only enables the edgelords in their bad faith. Ravenswing 01:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, here's how DYK's acknowledged greatest hooker handles erection humor:
  • [18] ... that Edwin Stevens, while in a missionary position, said that erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?
  • [19] ... that erection engineer Mark Barr had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee?

EEng 01:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• after reviewing their comment, their ridiculous defense of it, and the fact that they were already p-blocked once before for using ITNC as a venue for idiotic humor, I've partially blocked them from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates indefinitely. We don't need to decide here whether this meets the textbook definition of racism or is more of an ethnic slur as project pages are not for either of those things. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. Awful comment. Pathetic defense of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block, per Vanamonde93. The "jokes" and ongoing political commentary have got to be dealt with. Jusdafax (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. WP:NOTSUICIDE. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't say that I'm in a much better position than Sca as I have contributed heavily to ITN as well, at times not with the best decorum, but I agree that this was inevitable. Good block. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Response – Yesterday (10/25) I posted a reply to part of the relevant discussion on Stephen's talk page:

Your "joke" was based on the racist stereotype that East Asians, when speaking English, confuse /l/ and /r/. Stephen 23:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! That was your interpretation of it, not my intention or motivation. It was simply a play on a word to substitute for "elected" – which Xi wasn't, not really. (And BTW, one of my closest friends from junior high through college and beyond was a second-generation Japanese-American whose last name was Ujifusa, and whose parents were interned during WWII.) I never dreamed that anyone would interpret my comment as a racial slur.
I still think you owe me an apology. – Sca (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely flabbergasted, and offended, that anyone would term me racist or view my purely joking post as a racist comment. Please note that Stephen specifically accused me of employing a "racist stereotype," which wasn't the case at all. In 16 years on Wiki no one has ever accused me of 'racism.' (Please note that my user page has long included a photo – by me – of this statue of Anne Frank at the Idaho Human Rights Memorial. Also, I'm a former employee of the Idaho Human Rights Commission.)

• Racism aside; if one accepts the argument that the comment was not racist, it has no place here. It was deliberate vandalism either way, it is NOTHERE behavior. We don't need this editor, editors who behave this way keep good editors away. — Jacona (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never has Stephen offered an apology for his aggressive attack on me over what was a very small and insignificant post, not intended to engender controversy of any kind. Nor has he made any effort toward conciliation and mutual understanding. Instead, he responded with a threat to have me blocked, and has filed this spurious, nonsensical complaint at ANI, where no one ever has filed a complaint against me before.

Furthermore – and I'm reluctant to raise this point as I don't want to spawn some new proceeding – I've gotten the impression that Stephen may harbor some personal dislike for me, as he has opposed my comments many times over an extended period. Note that he claims I contribute "excessively" at ITN/C. My only motive in contributing there is to offer information, mainly story links, or observations intended to help make ITN blurbs clear, accurate and reasonably concise.

I view Wikipedia as a tremendously positive player in the realm of information presentation, and I appreciate the opportunity it offers volunteer editors like me to participate in this important work. (I say this as a former [retired] newspaper reporter, editor and copy editor.)

In view of what has transpired, I hereby withdraw my request for an apology, as none seems likely to be forthcoming. However, I wish to state that I remain open to any effort on Stephen's part toward conciliation. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of justification here - You're essentially saying "I can't possibly have had the impact you're saying I did, because I am exceptionally well qualified and know better than you." If you were formerly employed by the Idaho Human Rights Commission (an honorable career), then you should know that intent is not necessarily important - As multiple editors have explained above, it's a comment that can clearly be easily interpreted in a racist way. I really encourage you to take Levivich's words above, that any reasonable person would've apologized for inadvertently making a racist joke to heart. A simple "I'm sorry that my comment was interpreted that way and I'll try and be more intentional with my language moving forward" would go a long way here. Instead, it seems you're intent on doubling-down. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Where can I see the decision in this case? -- Sca (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a "case," and you can see Beeblebrox's reasoning above in this very thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish to appeal my block, but can't figure out from the guidance where one files an appeal. – Sca (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on your talk page. Just post {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at your talk page and someone will review your block. I strongly suggest internalising some of the comments made here before doing so, if you wish it to be successful. FWIW I think the block was reasonable, given the behaviour and your response to it, but good luck anyway. John (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have declined the unblock request, in part because of the comments on this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The cluelessness and doubling down on poor decisions continues on my talk page. I closed a duplicate discussion there, and Sca kept posting about it anyway [20] [21] and when I closed that discussion with an edit summary of please stop they just kept posting in it anyway [22]. I'm not asking for further action at this time as I've issued a warning to them already about this, just wanted it recorded ion this thread if and when this issue comes back here later. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed that Sca seems to have removed the declined unblock request from their talk page in the name of archiving. I'm not entirely sure if WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK applies here given that it is merely a block for editing certain pages rather than wikiwide, so I figured I'd report it here rather than restore it against their wishes if this is indeed permitted. Zapientus (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person has made 47 edits over the past month, most or all of which consist of genre warring on music pages. (S)he has continued to do this in spite of having received a level-4 warning against this behavior a week ago, and has made genre-warring edits under three hours ago as of this post. I believe a temporary block is warranted for this situation. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This individual just made two more genre-based edits: here and here on the "Das Model" page. This person does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia, as evidenced by all edits from him/her being genre warring/tinkering, with exactly zero edits outside of such description. This person has made no effort to communicate or respond to other editors; has ignored editor's messages within articles (i.e. erasing and replaced "please source genres" in multiple instances); and some of the sources this editor has introduced, all of which are cited as bare URLs, are questionable. I believe action needs to be taken, such as a block, to mitigate this person's behavior on Wikipedia. Tomorrow, I will be messaging editors who have warned #47 on their user talk page so as to attract further attention to this issue and this thread. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out the last part because I have notified the other three editors who have posted on #47's talk page. Hopefully at least one of them will give further valuable input to this thread. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user also inserts random articles that dont contain whats supposed to be sourced https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_Hope_Is_Gone&diff=1115570339&oldid=1115438108 alternative metal is not mentioned anywhere in the source --FMSky (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This person uses multiple IPs from Long Beach, California, and was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/47.155.35.83. They have also used Special:Contributions/47.149.216.159, Special:Contributions/47.153.205.29, Special:Contributions/47.153.196.129 and Special:Contributions/47.153.196.129. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• On occasion, this editor has included references in their edits, but every case that I've checked (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4) the reference does not support the genre changes that the editor has made. In the first example, the editor has changed the genre for the song Ich Will to "industrial metal", while the source they provided says "before this record, band's sounds [was] very tight and industrial" but now has changed, pretty much contradicting the edit. In the second example, they changed the genre for the song Zick Zack to "industrial metal" but the source they provided does not discuss the song or its genre at all. In the third example, they changed the genre of the song Second Heartbeat to "heavy metal", but the source they provided is a brief review of the album and does not mention the heavy metal genre nor the song itself. In the fourth example, they changed the genre of the song Genocidal Humanoidz to "heavy metal", but the source they provided is a review of the song but again does not mention the heavy metal genre. CodeTalker (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor #47 just made another genre edit, this one at Heldmaschine. This needs administrator intervention immediately, because this editor is likely to continue doing this without such. #47 deserves no further inaction nor benefit of the doubt. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of User:Aarp65 just a few minutes ago when they added "Category:Surnames of Vanuatuan origin" to Jimmy. I noticed that this category page was also added to David (surname) and John (surname) which are of biblical origin, and George (surname) which states that it has many origins, none of them Vanuatuan.

I then noticed that Aarp65 had put "Category:Surnames of Marshall Islands origin" on Joseph (surname), Peter (surname), Philip and Samuel (name).

The next thing I noticed is that for the past two months, User talk:Aarp65's talkspace is filled with at least 25 mostly successful speedy deletion nominations for creating categories and other pages. More pages have been moved to draftspace as suitable and several disrupted editing warnings posted by User:Uricdivine, User:Leschnei, User:Joy, User:Pppery and especially User: Liz.

As far as I can tell, Aarp65 does not state reasons or cite sources for the creation of so many of these pages. Probably because they are factually incorrect. In my opinion, this user is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. Warnings have already been given, so if the consensus agrees, I propose a discussion about the possibility of a WP:TBAN on creating categories and pages having to do with names and surnames, etc. for this user. The exact topic could be decided later. I hope this makes sense. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. 17:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, Aarp65 knows a lot about this topic and most of their contributions are very productive. I take back my WP:NOTHERE accusation but these categories and 25 warnings in 2 months are genuinely concerning. I'm going to try to talk to them more about it in their talkspace. Nothing urgent needs to be immediately addressed by others here, but I don't think it should be closed until a response can be had. Again, suggestions welcome. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) Jimmy is a DAB page. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of adding such a category to surname pages, it should not be added to a DAB page per WP:DBC. Narky Blert (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) It's either too late or too early. Origin-type categories are fine (indeed, recommended) on DAB pages also categorised as surname or given name pages. Narky Blert (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a whole bunch of their recent edits, as they were indeed bizarre and non-constructive. Things like this, this, this, or this are just some samples of the type of edits. If they don't or inadequately reply, a topic ban from categorisation (or name categorisation) may be needed. I mean, on a long disambig where none of the entries are for Samoans, they still proclaiml that the name "Meredith" is of Samoan origin.[28]... Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this is continuing while this section is open, with Raisi (disambiguation) created today and added to e.g. Category:Zimbabwean surnames despite nothing on that page relating to Zimbabwe; can please some action be taken? Letting someone continue to add such fake information to Wikipedia while this iss being discussed at ANI doesn't look good (on us, and even less on them). Fram (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've DABified Raisi (disambiguation) (which was a needed page) and deleted the Zimbabwean category as unsupported. Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any suggestions on how to avoid or minimize further such issues? The editor involved seems unwilling to join any discussion about it, giving little hope of improvemeñt. Fram (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a specific problem like this, the time-honoured solution is digging through contribs, and if necessary following the usual escalation procedures aimed at persuading or forcing nuisances to stop. I have no solution to the more general one of under-, excessive, or over-precise categorisation of DAB-with-surname and surname pages other gnomishly than fix when found. (A moderately common case of over-precision is labelling a Germanic surname as specifically Jewish/Yiddish when it is not specific to that community. Bernstein and Kahn (an unusual case with two distinct etymologies) are models of how it should be done.) Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another strange DAB creation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wodarz&oldid=1118543166 (current version) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a weird one; notably in the mismatch between title (Wodarz) and lede (Holetschek). It has already, and correctly, been WP:BLARed into an {{R from surname}} page. Holetschek exists, and is another recent creation by Aarp65; a good one, which I've minorly tweaked. Narky Blert (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a Level 3 warning before I noticed Fram's proposal below. He's definitely been warned. Kire1975 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And another bizarre edit: Ranseier was redirected to Karl Ranseier, which itself is a redirect to RTL Samstag Nacht. No reasons given. Kire1975 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this: why does "Category:Malagasy given names" exist? Even if it had more than one entry, Aarp65 should at least give a reason for it? Every new page gets added to his impressive list of "Written pages" created on his username. Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like User:Joe Roe granted Aarp65 the autopatrolled status. And a quick review of Joe's talk page, it looks like he has a history of ignoring ANI discussions as the discussion on his talk page from 18 days ago indicated. There is an active ANI discussion right now that has User:Bishonen pinging Joe Roe to find out why he hasn't responded. Perhaps we should be exploring possibility of removing Joe's ability to grant autopatrol status. Kire1975 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kire1975: A "history"? Please don't be ridiculous. I am one of the most active admins at WP:PERM/A (at times I've been the only person responding to request there), and I've granted autopatrolled to about 100 editors. As far as I know, the three incidents you mentioned are the only problems that have arisen. I participated fully in the first ANI thread. I had no way of knowing about this one, since I wasn't pinged and I don't have ANI on my watchlist. The third thread, below, was started on Saturday evening in my timezone, and autopatrolled was pulled by Sunday morning (also when Bish pinged me). I have no problem with that "error rate", and in any case, I can only grant or refuse to grant autopatrolled based on the criteria agreed by the community, which I have been trying to get tightened for years. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: topic ban (user:Aarp65)

I propose that Aarp65 is topic banned from all name-related pages (articles, categories, templates...) broadly construed. Their recently granted autopatrolled right should also be removed again. They have been warned about their problematic edits in the past. During the above discussion, they created Lipovsky (disambiguation), with 4 completely unsupported categories, created multiple unnecessary name disambiguation pages (with only one bluelink), added name categories unrelated to the contents of the page they were placed on ([29]), and so on. They show no indication of changing their approach or participating in this (or any) discussion. Expecting other editors to check all their edits and revert this many of them is not useful. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their recently granted autopatrolled right was removed once before? I'm not sure what that is or where to find evidence of that. Can you put that in the discussion please? Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, originally they (like everyone else) didn't have it, it was granted in June or so, and should now be removed again. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "again" is the problem, it suggests that it has been removed before. 66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Aarp65 does seem to have some expertise in the field, or at least a lot of experience working on this topic, but the prominence of the multiple "Veteran Editor" badges in their infobox makes me think they might be just trying to create so many tiny little name pages and DAP's so they can bulk up their numbers to increase their "rank" like this is a video game. Of course, all we can do is speculate on what they're doing because they are ignoring so many warnings and invitations to participate in this ANI discussion. I don't want them to be TBAN'd but what else is there left to do? It's disruptive, not productive and makes a lot of work for other editors to fix. Kire1975 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bedivere insists[30] on using sprurious sources to brand Amarillos_por_Chile "neoliberal" and "conservative". For context I can also mention that the issue ocurrs also in the Spanish Wikipedia where I have made a relatively detailed account es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Miscelánea/Actual#Sucesos en Amarillos por Chile on how a group of users that includes Bedivere have kidnapped the article. This sort of behaviour needs an end. Dentren | ^Talk 19:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to note that Dentren has engaged in cross-wiki disruptive behavior. They've been recently blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia for edit-warring and POV-pushing on the Gabriel Boric article [31]. Most recently, just today, they've been warned not to continue in disrupting behavior (including personal attacks and fallacies) exactly on the Amarillos por Chile article. Just above they say I have "kidnapped" and "a group of users" have "kidnapped" the article. Under such an unwelcoming environment it is very difficult to work collaboratively. I hope some action is taken against his continuing disruptive behaviour. --Bedivere (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked into this particular party, but the long list under "ideology" in the infobox tells me nothing as a reader except that the party is not socialist. Wouldn't it be better to write in prose what the party stands for and get rid of this useless infobox content? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Phil Bridger, one thing is for sure: the party can not be hold to stand for whatever it detractors says it does in opinion pieces. Ideologies are to stem either from self-declerations or quality sources. Dentren | ^Talk 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reliable third party sources are always preferable, rather than opinion pieces or self declarations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Its ideology was labeled as Concertaciónism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Social conservatism, Laguism, Neoliberalism, and Moderate reformism!!! I'd like to see how all those ideologies coexist. I boldly removed the whole ideology line in the infobox. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Neoliberal" and "conservative" are not slurs. Most EU pragmatical parties are de facto neoliberal, even if they consider themselves left or right. "Conservative" does not necessarily means MAGA Trumpists. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone is claiming here that they are slurs, but one or both of them may or may not be inaccurate. I really don't get this edit-warring that we see in many articles over this field in the party infobox. A party's ideology can rarely be summed up in such a way, so it's better described in prose. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be better dealt with in prose. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, despite Dentren's personal attacks and assumptions. Bedivere (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Dentren has been just permabanned from the Spanish Wikipedia for their disruptive behavoiur and wikihounding. Since this user continues those disruptive actions here with the same users (Bedivere, Aroblesm, etc), this user should be permabanned from here too, and be globally blocked. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Please note Spanish Wikipedia admin Farisori, who indefinitely blocked today Dentren in that wiki (locally dubbed "expulsion"), has also called out Dentren's behavior at talk:Gabriel Boric#Iglesias. I ask admins to block Dentren here indefinitely. They've gotten away with their disruptive behavior for too long. Bedivere (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fell compelled here to give some cue to those curious on what is happening in the Spanish Wikipedia. Try Google translate on this [32]. Spanish Wikipedia is each day resembling more and more the Croatian Wikipedia, except the bias has a different political sign. Dentren | ^Talk 03:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll presumably say exactly the same thing about this Wikipedia, when you've been blocked from here too. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss alleged problems with the Spanish Wikipedia but I'd note I did try Google translate, and that article seems fairly useless in demonstrating problems with the Spanish Wikipedia. All it seems to say is a bunch of people complained about alleged problems with the Spanish Wikipedia. It doesn't mention any specific problems that can be considered. You'll find a large number of people complaining about problems with the English Wikipedia too e.g. Trump supporters or frankly many Republicans in the US, some BJP supporters in India, those who support Putin's worldview, those who support the Chinese government's worldview, people who support fringe theories or pseudoscience on vaccines, alternative medicine, climate change, COVID-19, intelligence design; etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite what Spanish Wikipedia users are saying above, that list of terms in the Ideology section were very clearly not applicable or appropriate, as they contained just a ridiculous number of contradictory inclusions. Do any of the editors above want to address the quality of the sources raised for the inclusion, as brought up by Dentren? Were they indeed opinion pieces? Silverseren^C 13:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They were just translated verbatim from the Spanish Wikipedia, where there is currently a discussion on the issue. I don't oppose removing them all while describing the party's ideology in its own section (which needs creating). Bedivere (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Siren seren, yes I can confirm both are opinion pieces. The write of the first is Bárbara Brito, a former student leader of University of Chile Student Federation. She finishes her rant with "let us not forget that it was the Christian Democratic Party that supported the coup of 1973" (Spanish: no olvidamos que fue la DC la que apoyó el Golpe de Estado del 73’.). Roberto Bruna's opinion piece begins with "There is no dubt that the last nine months have been intense and hard..." (Spanish: No cabe duda que los últimos nueves meses han sido intensos y complejos...). Again, using opinion pieces to peyoratively link a party to "conservatism" and "neoliberalism" is unacceptable, that "They were just translated verbatim" is no escuse for Bediveres behaviour, he is an user who by now can be supposed to know the rules of Wikipedia, and actually there are indications his life here begun long before the creation of the current account (such as using advanced shortcuts from day one..).

I add also that Amarillos is wrongly portrayed in the infobox as a split of both (!) the Christian Democratic Party and the Party for Democracy. Take note on what is happening in the Spanish Wikipedia, this event is a spillover of the bias there. Dentren | ^Talk 19:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on the Spanish Wikipedia needs to be addressed there, or in extremis at Meta:. We have no jurisdiction over them and they have none over us. Let's concentrate here on the English Wikipedia, of which this noticeboard is part. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger You're correct, what happens on the Spanish Wikipedia should be addressed there. However, Dentren has been actively engaging in disruptive behavior here for several months now, without receiving warnings, despite their obvious despisal of some contents. Bedivere (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mako001, what you have written is just an unsubstantiated ad-hominem attack. If you want to crititize me do it with facts (and the proper place, here we are discussing Bedivere's insistence on using sprurious sources to provide a pejoritaive descrption of a party that is critical of the politics Bedivere supports (self-declared Boric "fan" and supporter of Gabriel Boric's party Convergencia Social.[33]). tgeorgescu, neoliberal and conservative can be used as slurs and by the context (opinion pieces criticizing a party that idenfies as grouping centre ans centre-left people) it is pejoriative. I recomend you that you read the article Neoliberalism and the sources therein about how it is used as a negative attribute and its modern origin in Chilean political discourse. Dentren | ^Talk 09:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are still continuing on ad hominem fallacies and attacks, reinforcing yet again your false claims that I am a sockpuppet. You should be stopped. Endorse site-ban as requested by Amitie 10g. Bedivere (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would not have blanked away your open sympathies for Boric and Convergencia Social from your user page I would not have needed to link your sockpuppet investigation as source for the claim. Dentren | ^Talk 22:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked them out precisely because you use them to personally attack me. I hope admins take action and have you blocked. I am tired of having to review your contributions only to revert your pointless, POV-ish edits and your relentless, never stopping and unfair attacks. Stop for once and for all. Bedivere (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bediveres lastest edit: [34]. Conclusion: He removes legitimate sourced content making a missuse of WP:NOTNEWS justify this when it comes to the politics he likes, but insists on using spurious sources (eg. opinion pieces) to peyoratively brand (as if it was a fact) politics of other parties "neoliberal" and "conservative" [35]. Dentren | ^Talk 07:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any hope, given the bickering above, that the protagonists here will come to an agreement on the article talk page? This seems to be a content dispute at heart, but this thread seems not to be being conducted in good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Extraordinary2#Block. El_C 12:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Extraordinary2 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user seems to only be here to pick fights. Stemming from an extremely minor content dispute at 2022 Florida gubernatorial election and from a reversion of unsourced content in a BLP [41] (in which both issues were resolved mostly in their favor [42]), Extraordinary2 has decided to Wikistalk me to other unrelated articles I've created and insert really obvious grammatical errors ([43][44][45]). After telling the user to not follow me to other articles [46], they state "so long as you refuse to follow precedent, answer questions or reply on your own talk pg, and make incorrect edits I will change them" [47]. They also engage in the same type of battleground behavior here, where Bluerules has displayed exceptional patience. Extraordinary2's my-way-or-the-highway-mentality, to the point they can't even take an ounce of an opposing viewpoint, is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[48] This user just does not seem to get how to work cooperatively, and lashes out over seemingly minor disputes. Curbon7 (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather the case is I went to Curbon's talk page and tried to resolve the differences. Also asked for a poll to be started. There's not enough interest for the election talk page to be effective.

Curbon is incorrect. It is revising history to leave out pertinent information about how Charlie Crist was both a governor and ran in another election for Florida governor. There's no basis for leaving it out. It calls into question complete and effective reporting and also bias. Bluerules is similarly wrong about how eligibility rules are described and covered. Extraordinary2 (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldawg thanked me three weeks ago for contributing to a page. Extraordinary2 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your own words, Curbon7, the issues were resolved in my favor. Thus you were incorrect. Extraordinary2 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(uninvolved editor) @Extraordinary2 This might be a little bit off-topic, but I am just very confused about the discussions that you opened at WP:DRN. The discussion '2022 Florida Gubernatorial Election' have another user stated in the 'Users involved' section although you mentioned Curbon7 in 'Dispute overview'. In addition, the template at the top of the noticeboard states We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves, which your filing at DRN would have counted as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the edit history of the page mentioned here, it seems that @Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck has also reverted Extraordinary2's edit, so I am just going to ping them here. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DR or dispute resolution may well be underutilized. Didn't see all of the noticeboards before; I suppose a dr forum or board would be helpful. It's not very common to find resolution with simple techniques. Was trying to brainstorm a little. Extraordinary2 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not easy to find resolution if one of the parties is mostly telling another party how many ways they are wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary2's contention over how eligibility rules are described and covered derives from an assertion that other media outlets haven't said a college athlete "used" his last year of eligibility at a certain school. I have provided sources to demonstrate "used" is present in this context. Zappe started playing college football at one school and used his last year of eligibility at another. That's what happened. Bluerules (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was a tough read at your talk page. This level of combativeness rises to a level that makes it tough for anybody to work with. They need to learn to actually work with others instead of trying to wear others down and bruteforce their way into their preferred version of an article being the version that stands. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary2 filed two cases at DRN. I closed both of them as not properly discussed. The Bailey Zappe dispute had not been discussed at Talk:Bailey Zappe, the article talk page, only at User talk:Bluerules. Discussing an article content dispute at the article talk page may seem like an overly precise rule, but it has its purposes, both because a third editor may be watching and may take part in the dispute, either as a mediator or as another party, and in order to document the past dispute in the archive in the event of future disagreements. (Also, the discussion on the user talk page was unnecessarily combative, but that is a separate point.) The Florida election dispute had not been discussed adequately, and Extraordinary did not include and notify Curbon7. User:Extraordinary2 - If you are filing multiple disputes, and having multiple disputes closed, and being reported at ANI, maybe you are being confrontational. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear there's no "maybe" about them being confrontational. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally decided to mass merge and redirect hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles on insect species and genera to higher level ranks (i.e. genera and tribes) without discussion. Admittedly there are a lot of insect species stubs with very little content, but a mass action like this should have been discussed beforehand to gain consensus for it prior to implementation. This has been previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Ongoing_disaster:_a_heads-up Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have rolled back the lot as a highly disruptive and ill-advised (or rather, non-advised) mass change against established and well-known consensus. Not sure we need any ANI action here as the damage is undone and I assume BilledMammal will agree to discuss this kind of thing henceforward. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most or at least a lot of them seem to be sourced (only?) to Bezark, Larry G. A Photographic Catalog of the Cerambycidae of the World, which is now a deadlink. Is it considered unreliable? Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion at WikiProject insects that I can see. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beetles either. Bezark is an academic entomologist [49], so I would think he is reliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bezark migrated the entirety of his site to a different URL ([50]), but it is all still online, and all very authoritative. The dead URL is part of the text of several thousand articles, changing them all will take a very long time. Dyanega (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bezark's site was used for long-horned beetle articles and I updated the refs for many of them when I went through them systematically earlier this year. Loopy30 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a systematic correspondence between the two sets of urls Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests, can probably use a bot to fix all the links. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that BilledMammal has participated at an Arbcom sanctioned discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale, but that is still open as best I can tell, so any implication of taking mass action from that is not appropriate. I know there was a recent discussion on some page (can't find but was within last 2 months) about the mass creation of fish species articles which was pointing away from mass creation of similar articles (minimal facts, sourced to the same source), but I don't BilledMammal participated in that. --Masem (t) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion Masem refers to was on village pump (linked here). That discussion was instigated by BilledMammal when they had suggested that a user "request permission" to continue their low rate production of stub fish articles (all notable species). Loopy30 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Two things 1) Someone doesn't need permission to follow guidance we already give in our WP:PAGs. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages or If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. but "upmerging a bunch of stubby articles into a list" is quite literally the guidance we give people as part of normal editing practices. 2) The OP is being a bit disingenuous when they say "this has been previously discussed". That thread was started less than 30 minutes before this one. That is not "has been previously discussed". Given that no attempt has been made to reach a consensus on this one way or another, and that the user being dragged here is quite literally doing what guidance tells us to do. So given that A) No real attempt has been made to have a discussion and B) The user is LITERALLY DOING what the rules tell them to do, I am at a loss as to why you want to see them blocked, banned, or whatever. --Jayron32 18:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that an article for a species was, by definition, notable, no matter how short. Species articles include unique features - especially categories they belong to - that are lost if they are merged. Dyanega (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider just one example of one of the pages this user deleted: Berosus undatus. It contains references, wikidata links, taxonomic synonyms, and categories, all of which should be maintained but would not appear in the genus-rank article. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:NSPECIES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today I learnt Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does WP:NSPECIES state that species articles are "generally" kept at AfD, in actual practice "all" (yes, 100% in the last 6.5 yrs) of the valid species articles nominated for deletion have been kept (see here). Loopy30 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant as a reply to me? I don't see the relevance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a response to Gråbergs Gråa Sångn, whose addition to Dyanega's comment seemed ambiguous, if not the inverse of what they might have intended to convey. Not sure of the connection of your original comment though, unless you are just trying to support the notability of all species articles based on what you have "just learnt today. Loopy30 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant nothing more or less than I said. Best way to avoid confusion is to reply to the right comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30 ...actually, I know of at least one beetle species article that was deleted 6 years ago (Syagrus atricolor, if you must know), but it was not listed on the Organisms deletion sorting archive but only on the Animal deletion sorting archive. Not sure if this might be an exception to the rule or not though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The original description appears to have not been subsequently recognised by any other authority after Pic (self-) published it. As such, it was effectively not a valid species and not covered by NSPECIES. Even if it was kept, it is likely to have been synonymized with another species eventually and them turned into a redirect. (As an aside, this shows the value of sourcing to a taxonomic database that has sorted out what is recognised as valid or not.) Loopy30 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in 2019, Zoia finally published his revision of African Eumolpinae which reclassified Syagrus atricolor as Afroeurydemus atricollis, facts that are now reflected in Wikipedia. Loopy30 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting as that may be (I don't want to go on a tangent), my point was that AddWittyNameHere (unless I am mistaken) appeared to have overlooked that the Animal archive has pages not covered by the Organisms archive ...and this may also be true for plants, bacteria and other organisms if they have their own separate deletion sorting archives. That's something to look through to confirm if species articles truly have a ~100% keep rate as per WP:NSPECIES. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, accurate stats over a wide range of kingdoms/phyla would be beneficial to inform other editors of the rate at which species articles are kept. (Sorry for going down the Syagrus sp. tangent, I find Wikipedia is full of such hidden rabbit holes.) Loopy30 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(No worries, I would have loved to talk a bit on it too, but then I remembered this was not the place for it) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not a guideline. If the various species projects want it to be a guideline, they should make an RfC on it. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES has been treated as a de facto guideline encouraging the creation of individual articles for all recent species for at least a decade (probably further back) - this was an obviously controversial mass change. I don't advocate any action against BilledMammal but that was a dumb move that had no chance of going unchallenged and shouldn't have been implemented at this scale. For further attempts, get consensus. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, when I suggested a block, I meant as a temporary measure to prevent ongoing merges until someone got their attention. Dyanega (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't ongoing merges at the time that this was discovered by Elmidae. BilledMammal had stopped editing close to 6 hours ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OUTCOMES is absolutely not an allowance to create article on the belief they will be kept. OUTCOMES allows for existing article to be kept but still allows merges and AFD to be performed. Masem (t) 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rate at which this was done is impressive - for example, at 01:57 at 28 October 2022 they redirected 25 articles in one minute, or one every ~2.5 seconds. Is this an unauthorized bot run? Spicy (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no record of 01:57 at 28 October. Perhaps you meant 01:37? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, sorry. Spicy (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't see is the time to set up those redirects before I press "publish changes" in rapid sequence. Entirely manually. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OUTCOMES in not a policy or guideline, it's just an observation of happenings at AFD. And such a summary is generally for individually created articles. Mass-creation or mass major modification of articles certainly needs prior discussion as a minimum. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These mergers were appropriate per WP:MERGEREASON. Look at the last five articles I redirected (four created between 00:40, 3 May 2014‎ and 00:43, 3 May 2014‎, the other created at 22:58, 2 May 2014), for the reason Duplicates content at Cotyclytus:

1. Cotyclytus scenicus
2. Cotyclytus sobrinus
3. Cotyclytus regularis
4. Cotyclytus stillatus
5. Cotyclytus suturalis

The only information these give is the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, and who by and when it was described. The same information that is given at Cotyclytus. How is removing the duplication of information controversial?

The mergers are similar. The last five articles I merged (created between 23:30, 1 May 2014‎ and 23:34, 1 May 2014‎) are:

1. Sphallotrichus spadiceus
2. Sphallotrichus setosus
3. Sphallotrichus sericeotomentosus
4. Sphallotrichus sculpticolle
5. Sphallotrichus puncticolle

These give the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, who by and when it was described, the range, and in one case a list of subspecies. The first three were already available at Sphallotrichus, and I created a table to contain the rest. How is replacing boilerplate micro-stubs with a table containing all of the same information controversial?

BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the merge destroys unique species-specific information that is not being exported to the genus page. For your last set of species, for example, for Sphallotrichus puncticolle you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q16758751 and Category:Beetles described in 1870; for Sphallotrichus sculpticolle you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718823 and Category:Beetles described in 1852; for Sphallotrichus sericeotomentosus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718824 and Category:Beetles described in 1995; for Sphallotrichus setosus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718821 and Category:Beetles described in 1824; for Sphallotrichus spadiceus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718818 and Category:Beetles described in 1892. By merging articles you are removing links to Wikidata, and wiping out members of viable categories. For other articles your bulk edits merged, you deleted lists of synonyms, you deleted categories defined by geographic distributions, and categories linked to authorships. In addition to removing synonyms, you also removed the parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus. That's a lot of valuable information being lost to your arbitrary merges. Please stop. Dyanega (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other information removed included images of the the article subjects. Examples at Ochraethes viridiventris, Coleoxestia sanguinipes, Ochraethes palmeri, Ochraethes brevicornis Criodion tomentosum, Ochraethes citrinus, Ochraethes obliquus, Ochraethes pollinosus, Ochraethes tulensis, Ochraethes z-littera, Chlorida festiva and Criodion angustatum) Loopy30 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable to species project editors and...who else? Wikipedia is not a directory/database, and even less so a meta-directory. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's valuable to the kind of people who would be looking up articles in the topic area. What more justification do we need? XOR'easter (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working through that list:

• parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus - I wasn't aware that was deliberate. They can easily be preserved in the merged articles.
• wiping out members of viable categories - The categories could be left in the redirects
• Taxonbar - Wikidata is not permitted in article text, and we are writing for the reader, who isn't going to benefit from having to go microstub by microstub to look at all species within a genus just so that we can include a few external links.
• lists of synonyms - Can be included in the merged article.

I've done these for Sphallotrichus; given your concerns can easily be addressed, I believe the correct response would have been to ask me to address them, rather than misusing rollback and dragging me to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the correct thing would be for you to discuss this sort of bulk editing and achieve consensus from - for example - the Wikiproject Tree of Life people whose hard work you're deleting, BEFORE you go deleting it. Again, all species articles are considered notable, by definition. You'd find little support, as noted above, given several existing policies. Additionally, your tabular format only works when ALL of the species in a genus have limited amounts of information, including limited lists of synonyms. Look at Sternotomis pulchra for an example of just how impractical that sort of "one size fits all" approach is likely to get. Dyanega (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't merge that article? No one is suggesting that every article on a species should be merged into its genus.

I'm also not deleting anyone's hard work; the information is being kept? BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it is a lot of work to find and attach the correct Wikidata links to articles? You don't think it's hard work to create redirects for long lists of synonymic names? One of the articles you merged had a pile of species-level redirects that suddenly pointed to a genus article instead of a species article (e.g. [51]). That's not trivial, and you STILL seem to be avoiding taking the responsible step and discussing this approach with the editors who are most directly involved and getting consensus that your approach is an improvement. Dyanega (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it took the creator approximately one minute to create each of these articles, no, I don't think it is a lot of work. And we don't create articles just so that we can create redirects to them. BilledMammal (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say I was talking about the creator? I'm talking about all the editors who worked to improve these crappy stubs AFTER they were created. A high proportion of the articles you merged were created by a single user, Wilhelmina Wil, who probably shouldn't have done bulk stub creation on that scale. But, instead of merging/deleting those stubs, many editors took the time and energy to do things like adding Wikidata links and lists of synonyms, and adding categories, and fixing spelling, and all sorts of other labor that you're wiping clean (e.g, [52]). If these had been articles created and never improved after their creation, maybe you could claim that no one's work was being lost, but that's simply not true for many of these articles at this stage of the game. Dyanega (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've already established that we can keep all of that except the Wikidata, due to there being a consensus against including it, so what is your point?

Also, the amount of effort that went into creating an article, regardless of whether you think it is a lot of work or not, is irrelevant to whether it should exist as a stand-alone article. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we haven't, and you haven't - you ignored Loopy30's very valid point about losing species images when you merged pages containing them. I'm sure we can find other editor-added content that is being lost by bulk merges. Dyanega (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. I missed Loopy30's point because they posted it out of order; I didn't ignore it. And we don't keep standalone articles to give us a place to use images any more than we keep articles to give us a place to include external links.

In addition, only a small minority of articles I merged include pictures; that argument cannot be used to suggest my up-merger of the rest, such as Cotyclytus scenicus, was inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal I just wanted to add that I think you are underestimating the value of the wikidata in the taxonbar. They provide links to many different good external sites, such as GBIF or iNaturalist (many people, such as myself, use iNaturalist for taking pictures of animals they find). Those sites can provide more detailed range maps, for example, as well. And I guess I just don't understand the problem with having species stub articles. What is the harm? Cougroyalty (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

underestimating the value of the wikidata - that's a separate discussion about the use of wikidata generally.

What is the harm? - Because our goal is to benefit the reader. The reader receives more benefit from data being easily accessible by being up-merged rather than having to look at dozens of micro-stubs to gain the same understanding. This isn't controversial per WP:MERGEREASON, particularly for the articles that currently only duplicate the content of the list. BilledMammal (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just have both? Your "merged" genus-level articles are fine. But can't we keep the species-level stubs as well? Cougroyalty (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When they are stubs I normally do keep them, as they normally contain information that cannot be merged into the genus level article, but for the sub-stubs like the ones I linked above, which duplicate the content either already or after the merge then Wikipedia:Content forking tells us not to do that. BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the first in your list, if someone were to do the work of looking in the Biodiversity Heritage Library for the reference Pascoe 1866, maybe they could add a redirect neoclytus scenicus, write the Peter Bouchard article [53], expand Francis Polkinghorne Pascoe and end up with a bit of article prose and a figure. From seeing various Afd's this work looks sometimes pretty difficult and the existence of the species article might help. fiveby(zero) 22:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect understanding of that RFC, the intent of which allows Wikidata for authority control, taxon bar, and similar, as well as infoboxes and a few other places (Template:Official as an example). What it bans is the use in article text-proper and I think it's been reasonably interpreted to list articles automatically updated by Wikidata changes (though I recall no direct RFC on that point). --IznoPublic (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant list of edits is here. Now, BilledMammal, what you wrote above looks like the sort of proposal you could have put forward to the relevant wikiproject to see if there'd be consensus for it. Personally, I don't think there would be, and such a project would be impractical for a number of reasons (some of which have been listed in the two threads so far). All that is a content matter though, and what gets discussed in this board is instead behaviour. I join those above who have expressed the view that no sanctions are necessary, but it would really help if you could appreciate the reasons why what you did was a misstep. I'll just point out one thing. There's a stark contrast between, on one hand, your stance in the recent fish species discussion, where you demanded that one editor get community approval first before going back to creating 3-4 articles per day, and, on the other hand, your decision here to unilaterally redirect 459 articles in the space of 25 hours. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The relevant wikiproject has no bearing on whether this is appropriate. Further, the difference between the fish species discussion is the existence of the policy WP:MASSCREATE, which requires consensus to exist for their mass creation. BilledMammal (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So in your view, the bot policy, which you've just linked, prohibits one editor from making 5 article creations a day, but somehow also allows another editor, you, to remove 500 articles in the same period? I don't want to belabour the obvious anymore, but you really need to grasp the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here. – Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here - Given that no-one took the creator of these articles to ANI when they created 201 sub-stubs in one day, I'm assuming that what I did wrong was to clean up a mess, rather than create one. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like normal editing to me. Hundreds of bold edits were reverted; per WP:BRD they should be discussed before being reinstated. This is not ANI- or sanction-worthy. Also, editors who start ANI threads shouldn't advertise them off-wiki. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "normal" about this. I've been around WP a long time, and as far as I'm aware the wholesale merging of several hundred articles on valid species has never happened before. Again, there is a vast community of people who work on taxonomic articles in WP, and none of this was ever discussed with any of them before the merges commenced. Dyanega (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was done during the late 2000s to topics of fictional nature. It was somewhat controversial then but a decade later and consensus is basically that the choice there was correct in the general. It took a particularly determined editor to see those changes through but I think that editor was vindicated by current attitudes.

Species are not all that dissimilar, and the path taken here was one prompted by actual guidelines on the point.

Anyway, the general discussion is soon to be had, but don't think species are special. IznoPublic (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically, this is not difficult. If you're going to start bot-like editing on large number of articles, it is always a good idea to gain consensus for those edits first. Otherwise, you may end up causing a problem, like we see here. I have no view on whether BM's edits were useful or not, but it is the concept of mass editing that is the issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely with Black Kite. How can one go ahead and make so many edits that one could realize would not go unchallenged, without even trying to sense whether the community would agree with them? It just goes against the very spirit of everything. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information was retained, in a format that is much more convenient for readers. I genuinely thought this wouldn’t be controversial - and looking at the AFD’s, where no one has objected on the grounds that it is not an improvement (except for one editor who has made the bizarre claim that a 6000 byte article is too long) I still don’t understand why it is, although I recognise that it is. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      You're experienced enough that you should have known that not everybody was going to be happy with 500 articles being turned into redirects. I hope that moving forward you'll start discussions with others in relevant WikiProjects prior to these types of mass changes. We're a collaborative effort and discussions help to bring out alternative points of view that others may not have considered. The longer I'm on Wikipedia the more I'm realizing just how useful starting discussions in the proper places can be in helping to guide what large scale changes I make or don't make. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like BilledMammal has now gone ahead and nominated all the species articles for deletion at AfD. Cougroyalty (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is very much POINTy given they are involved in this conversation. Masem (t) 00:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ive opened two AFD’s, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus. Given that this isn’t a content discussion, and editors are saying I should get consensus before repeating those edits, I don’t see opening them as pointy or in any way disruptive? BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominating these for deletion looks pointy and, without a link to this discussion where the consensus is running against a merge, a lot like forum shopping. Jahaza (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POINT applies to "making edits with which they do not actually agree", not edits with which they agree, and sending a page to AfD after a bold redirection was rejected is the regular process at work, not forum shopping. Avilich (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Making an AFD when there is a large number of complains about previous merges (read: keeping the status quo until a discussion can be had) is definitely making such edits. Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles. I mean, I agree on the principle of merging, but WP:FAIT is also required. Masem (t) 01:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  'Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles'... which is exactly what he did? Avilich (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that there were already two ongoing discussions, here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life going on about how to handle these articles. Since a merge discussion doesn't require posting to AFD (which is, in fact, not called "articles for discussion"), bypassing those discussions and creating two new ones without, initially, referring to either of them is WP:FORUMSHOP. Jahaza (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP Tree of Life can’t come a consensus on this, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and ANI only discusses behaviour, not content. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that says that a merger discussion can't take place on a project notice board. The point is that a local consensus after a discussion at a project noticeboard can't overrule a consensus established project wide. In the absence of a project-level consensus on these though, there was no need to create another discussion and if you did want to create one, there were more appropriate venues. And per WP:PROPMERGE, you should have notified interested wikiprojects (rather than accusing them of canvassing when they self-notified!). Jahaza (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The notification posted at TOL was not neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not the regular process when you don't tell people that there's an extensive conversation about the topic going on somewhere else. And your reading of WP:POINT needs additional subtlety. WP:POINT specifically says that it's edits with which the person does not agree "as a rule," which means "usually, but not always."[54] Jahaza (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• POINTy actions like the AfD nominations do seem like they can and should have an actionable response at ANI. Silverseren^C 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no dog in this fight but nominating an article for deletion and proposing a merge, after a bold redirection was reverted, is the right and proper course of action. It's not POINTy at all. It's the legitimate next step to gain consensus for a controversial change. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, because while a merger can be an outcome at AFD, nominating dozens of articles for deletion isn't the right way to propose a merger. Proposing a merger is described at WP:AFD as an alternative to listing at AFD and the instructions say "Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers." Jahaza (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For those who say "this is just normal editing", what would you say if someone did this for all species articles? Or every stub across the project that has a clear parent article? Just "normal editing"? The rate/quantity does matter. BilledMammal is one of the more active participants in the ongoing discussions about the rate of article creation. With so much of that predicated on when permission/discussion needs to happen before taking some sort of mass action, it's ... weird ... to see BM mass redirecting subjects (species) that have among the strongest consensus of any subject for having stand-alone articles. That's not to say that species articles can never be merged up, or even that these shouldn't (I'm not weighing in on that), but the number combined with absence of discussion does matter.
  It makes me feel old that I'm starting to feel like there's a relatively small but growing and very active group of people who are primarily here to cleanse Wikipedia of stubs and anything without inline cites. They used to call me a deletionist; maybe being around a while makes you a bit softer (or just me)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a difference between the two; WP:MASSCREATE doesn’t apply here, and my actions don’t create a WP:FAIT situation as evidenced by the fact they have been reversed.

that have among the strongest consensus of any subject for having stand-alone articles. I would be interested to see if that was true; I would suggest TOL draft an SNG saying that species should almost always have a standalone article, and see if there is a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posh. Your redirects were reverted, then after you saw the concerns laid out here at AN/I, you tempted WP:FAIT by going ahead and nominating some 30 of those stubs for deletion. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there was any risk of WP:FAIT here. Those articles were not going to change by AfD for at least a week, and it would notify lots of different people to its existence. BilledMammal was right in saying elsewhere in the discussion that the post to WT:TOL was not neutral. AfD is probably the most appropriate place for these kind of content discussions.

Whether BilledMammal should stir the pot while there is an ANI thread open, well, that's a different conversation. EDIT: Not to imply that creating upset was intentional: just that it is a bit escalatory and they could have maybe waited longer. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we would be well served by finally holding a general RfC that develops WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES into a solid SNG, which may well turn out to be more restrictive than the current interpretation. As long as there is no more than a vague observation of "this is what usually happens with species articles" we will keep getting these issues (which admittedly don't normally extend to such an ...unwise 500-article chainsaw approach.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still very new to Wikipedia and basically only interact with parts related to taxonomy, and I think what Elmidae suggests would be very useful. Certainly there's a lot of "implied knowledge" when it comes to interpreting WP:NSPECIES. It is a very short essay based on observation that is brought into AfD conversations as de-facto policy and it would be a great idea to hash out where everyone stands on the issue. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in agreement with Elmidae. We need more solid footing, even if it changes the scope of allowability. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How would this address the current situation. I don't think that BM has actually asserted that lack of notability was the reason of these merges., Codifying long standing consensus, while possibly useful for other reasons, wouldn't do anything to prevent merges on the same basis BM based these on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• These merges were legitimate BOLD edits and the use of rollback was inappropriate. AfD is a normal next step after a redirect is challenged. Tree of Life project participants are reminded that there is no requirement to consult Wikiprojects before making changes; disciplinary and anti-vandalism processes should not be misused to challenge edits that one disagrees with; and editors are expected to participate in content discussions in good faith without accusing others of misconduct. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you draw the line though? What is the upper limit on the number of established notable articles that an editor is free to boldly redirect each day without seeking consensus? – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same as the number of articles an editor is free to boldly create each day without seeking consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't the entire point of the ArbCom discussion going on now about how there should be consensus made in both cases and trying to remove or create a large amount of articles without some form of community approval beforehand is disruptive? Silverseren^C 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        And notice how that's not getting consensus in the ongoing discussion. The entire point is: anyone can make as many articles as they like as long as the articles are policy-compliant without having to ask permission first. There is no rate limit, nor is there consensus to implement one. Similarly, anyone can merge as many article as they like without having to ask permission first, as long as the merges are policy-compliant. Similarly, anyone can revert BOLD mergers without any rate limit. Similarly, anyone can nominate as many articles as they like for AFD with no rate limit, again, as long as it's all policy-compliant. This is normal editing, and people do it all the time (mass creations, mass moves, mass mergers, mass category changes, mass AFDs, mass this and mass that and mass everything else too), and they've been doing it for decades. We have no rule against it. We should, but there isn't consensus for it. This isn't directed at you, silver, but I notice that WikiProjects cheer and celebrate when someone mass-creates articles in-scope, then those same projects recoils in horror when anyone else mass-nominates them for AFD or mass-merges them, etc. This notion that, once created, a mainspace page is somehow "sacred" or "protected" from being "destroyed" by deletion or merger -- see above and in the WT:TOL discussion, how people are talking about information being "lost," "hidden," or "destroyed," as if content curation isn't a part of encyclopedia building -- has no basis in global consensus. In fact, global consensus is the opposite, per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. WP:BEBOLD doesn't just apply to content creation, it also applies to content curation. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further action needed? I was just alerted to the carnage disrutption through the AfD alerts, and seriously? What sort of WP:HERE editor would even think this kind of behavior is ok on a mass scale?

The mass redirects without any discussion when such structure is the norm was already bad enough. It's not quite the volume as when we had mass disruption of insect articles by Mishae when I had to go back and fix 10k insect talk pages (something about insects sure attracts this behavior), but this is affecting actual mainspace. Elmidae, as someone who's had to do similar cleanup after mass disruption like that kudos to you. BilledMammal should have known better at that point, but doubling down with the mass AfD is definitely getting in to WP:POINT territory. They were already warned that species articles are inherently notable (not to mention guidance we have like WP:MONOTYPICTAXON), and instead they're trying to wikilawyer about it. It looks like BilledMammal is also harassing editors like Hey man im josh commenting on this ANI too.

I'm not very familiar with BM, but given that they're causing major disruption in taxonomy articles, is that what a potential topic ban needs to be tailored towards? Based on the attitude and "warnings" they are giving out now, it's like they're just itching for a block they narrowly avoiding when they stopped making mainspace edits. Not sure on what action is best at this very moment, but hopefully this nth whack BilledMammal's noggin that they are on ridiculously thin ice sticks. I'm not up to speed on the ArbCom case, but usually continuing disputes related to the locus of the case are expressly forbidden during a case. Someone more familiar with it would know how/if clerks need to be involved. KoA (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

were already warned that species articles are inherently notable There is no guideline that says that, and in any case not every notable topic warrants an article, per WP:PAGEDECIDE.

It looks like BilledMammal is also harassing editors like Hey man im josh commenting on this ANI too. That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's I had recently opened to oppose them, including those unrelated to species. I believe the warning about WP:HOUNDING was appropriate. The fact that they ignored the warning and instead used rollback to remove it was less appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I did not respond to you because I did not believe it would be a constructive conversation given how you've been combative against others during this process. That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's I voted in two additional AfDs (this and this). Given the nature of your two species related AfD nominations, it's not inappropriate to question if there were other inappropriate nominations.

I used rollback as, per WP:ROLLBACKUSE point #2, the edit was in my userspace and the reason for reverting I felt to be clear (point #1). The warning was retaliation and inappropriate. If you feel my behaviour was as well, then I do encourage you to open up an ANI because, while I believe my actions were not inappropriate, I'd adjust and learn from it others believed they were. But that should be its own discussion. To be honest this is why I usually don't participate in ANI, I'd rather be a no drama llama. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the nominations were inappropriate; you can disagree with them, but that doesn't make them inappropriate. However, if you had stuck to the species nominations I wouldn't have objected; they are sufficiently related that I can see the argument that they are an appropriate use of an editors contribution history. What crossed over into hounding is when you used my contribution history to follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there. BilledMammal (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those following along on the "none of the nominations were inappropriate" comment , this is part of the major problem with the disruption BM caused despite multiple cautions. They are basically ignoring their own behavior. They made mass nominations without following WP:BEFORE, namely that they didn't try to improve content themselves even though the articles had sourcing to expand the articles when their complaint was that they were too short (not a reason for AfD), nor were they at individual talk pages trying to work details out or going to relevant Wikiprojects that BEFORE advises before even getting to the last step of doing merges/redirects. The mass article disruption only compounds that. To ignore that is clearly showing WP:NOTHERE behavior (extreme lack of self correction in this subject).

BM, you need to take your behavior seriously here. While it may be a red herring if you are going to make accusations against Hey man im josh, you need diffs. I don't see anything obvious in your interactions that would be to follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there. If there is, you really need a diff at this point that actually shows it. If not, that is a WP:ASPERSION and is just giving the community another reason to block you. That is why I'm saying you need to take this seriously because it really comes across as you trying to escalate things more and more as we try to work with your behavior here. KoA (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section of WP:BEFORE that recommends improving content through normal editing links WP:ATD. One of the recommended ways to improve content is merging; when the redirect aspect of the bold merge was rejected the appropriate action, per WP:ATD-R and WP:CONRED #4, is to open an AfD. You also misrepresent my nomination, which was on the grounds of WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:RF.

Hey man im josh !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila at 03:23, 29 October 2022. Two minutes later, they !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus. I consider both of these votes to be appropriate.

What was inappropriate and a violation of WP:HOUNDING is that they then went through my contributions to find and oppose other unrelated nominations which they did at 03:38, 29 October 2022 and 03:39, 29 October 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BM, you're talking past again and ignoring what you're actually doing in your edits, that's becoming disrutpive. You're just ignoring what multiple people have told you should have done in terms of process and that ATD directly points you to and are instead cherrypicking. Not to mention you're edit warring at Bothriospilini to add to your issues. This is not the time to joke around like that.

For for your actions with Hey man im josh, that's hardly harassment. When you had issues with disruptive use of AfD, of course someone is going to look in on other cases and comment independently if they notice something. In that case though, you aren't mentioned at all, and they are just reflecting what the rest of community is also saying at the AfDs. You on the other hand are adding to the case that you are treating AfD like a battleground the more you link to these interactions. KoA (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we assume good faith, please? I doubt BilledMammal has bad-faith intentions, and it doesn't appear to be good-faith disruption either. Okay, maybe it wasn't a great idea to unilaterally redirect hundreds of articles without prior consensus and many of you disagreed with the deletion nominations, but I don't see disruption or sanctionable behavior on BilledMammal's part. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think their original edits to turn the pages into redirects were in bad faith. I just think they should have known better given their experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When someone is engaging in patently disruptive behavior, especially given the battleground attitude they are injecting, we call a WP:SPADE a spade, so it's rather oblivious to just reduce it down to name-dropping good-faith. That happens all too often with tendentious editing like this. Either way, it looks like ArbCom doesn't have an active case that would involve BM like I assumed from previous comments. Some have commenting on solidfying some taxonomy standards in guidelines, etc. to avoid wikilawyering that's going on, but that also seems somewhat independent of BM's attitude.

Given the ongoing pointy attitude I'm seeing on comments from BM though, it is increasingly looking like a sanction will be needed to prevent disruption at some point. Especially given the cluelessness above in their harassing of Hey man im josh above, it's really coming across as a how dare you clean up after my mess mentality while trying to use WP:HOUND as a get of out jail free card as we commonly see with tendentious editors. They've been around long enough to know better. As I linked above, that's the opposite of WP:HERE when someone's behavior issues are brought up, so I'm increasingly convinced sanctions will be needed to curb disruption BM is injecting into the taxonomy subject. KoA (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is closed and BilledMammal was not a party. There's currently a related ongoing RfC but creation/deletion tasks are continuing as usual. –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Looks like this would be the appropriate venue then. KoA (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escalation and edit-warring by BilledMammal

Despite warnings above, we're getting more pointy behavior by BilledMammal at Bothriospilini. Without using the talk page at all until just a few minutes ago, they've tried to insert their preferred version three times now over a few days.[55][56][57] They're basically trying to partially start the merge they're proposing in the AfD ahead of time. One diff is particularly odd where they try to reverse the burden for consensus: Restore content while AfD is ongoing, to prevent disruption and confusion. If the AfD closes as "no consensus" or "keep", then please reinstate your reversion and I will open an RfC on the preferred content.[58] Basically, they're trying to edit war in the new content for the page and trying to justify it because it would complicate their AfD if it wasn't there in some strange circular reasoning. More on that at the talk page.[59]

This attitude is clearly wasting time at this point, so this is partly a request for admins to monitor for future edit warring, but to also indicate we're still dealing with timesink behavior issues even after the mass redirects stopped above. Too much battleground mentality being projected from this editor. KoA (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

try to reverse the burden for consensus - I asked you to delay your edit a few days, in order to avoid disrupting an ongoing AfD whose debate is related to the existence of the content you removed. That isn't an attempt to reverse the burden for consensus.

I also find it surprising that you're accusing me of edit warring. While I have reverted twice, it was across several days, and the first was to restore content that appeared to have been unintentionally caught up in the rollback. Meanwhile, you've reverted twice in a single hour.

Finally, while I didn't use the article talk page until after you opened a discussion there, I did try to open a discussion on your talk page; rather than engage with it, you removed it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KoA, could you explain how adding species tables to an article is WP:POINTy? Such tables appear to be a standard practice (eg. Ibis). CMD (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an accurate description just saying it's tables. For the article itself, BM has been repeatedly told that the species articles already handle the information they are trying to insert, and that sections like this were not helpful in terms of structure and prose. If they had simply engaged on the talk page and stopped edit warring from the start, that part of the behavior would not have been as pointy.

I already mentioned it above, but repeatedly restoring disputed content is what is also pointy, especially when they are trying to edit war in the content merge they're trying to accomplish at the AfD before the close. It should be self-apparent when reading their edit summary I quoted or their comment just above this how much they are doubling down on abusing the process they've been blocked for before.[60] It is literally wiki-lawyering to not get consensus on something only to start an AfD and accuse others of disrupting the AfD because those other editors won't let BM edit war in content they actively chose not to get consensus for. The short of it is that BM is just inflaming the topic independent of content that could be worked on and sucking time away from editors trying hold their behavior issues at bay. KoA (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you describe it? It appears to be tables, or where the table would be one row, text that covers the same material. On disputed content, until now there has been no indication that the Bothriospilini content was disputed. The version you have chosen is literally a single sentence, I do not understand how that is an improvement. CMD (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not addressing the behavior issues. KoA (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, it would nonetheless be helpful to get answers to my questions to understand what you feel is pointy (to be specific, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point). I have asked because in the situation you raise I see one editor expanding an article and one reducing it back to a single sentence. An explanation for how the reduction is helpful to that article remains outstanding. CMD (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to read this ANI and the relevant AfDs you're already at for that, but the disruption doesn't change based on what someone thinks of the content question, and that's really a subject for the other venues. BM was already alerted multiple times the content belongs at the species pages, not the tribe, and BM was well are of their approach to trying to merge that content in was disputed. You don't just keep charging ahead with edits then. Avoiding relevant talk pages and their onus to get consensus for the content even when pinged[61] is already disruptive. Trying to do the mass merge through an AfD is one thing (not to mention the many comments on procedural issues with their nomination there), but then insisting they get to start that merge ahead of time at the target articles and act like those trying to deal with BM avoiding getting consensus are somehow disrupting the AfD is just plain escalating and projecting. It's disruptive WP:GAMING no matter how you cut it and why we are here rather than solely dealing with the content in the other venues. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't see the basic non-responses like at Talk:Bothriospilini when we finally got them to comment at an article talk page only yesterday.

At this point I'm spending time on this because whenever it looks like there might be a little reprieve, BM has another stunt that comes up, and that's reviewing what I've seen even before I stepped in here too. Given past ANIs and blocks on BM, it's clear that trend is just continuing even in their most recent comments. That's why we now have a section on escalation and starting to queue up preventative measures. We do have to respect the community that shouldn't have to deal with the behavior time-sink at some point. KoA (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure if this needs admin attention or not, but I can't resolve this with the person in question. Mr. Doggy Dog has caused an interesting situation here in that they pretty much never directly respond to their talk page/warnings/etc. They have made a few constructive edits since joining, but the majority of their edits involve adding extraneous/useless information to articles, particularly plot summaries/cast lists of films and TV episodes. For instance, describing a person's costume in minute detail during a plot summary, adding extra/redundant adjectives to character descriptions, putting some side detail or reference to things from fan wikis or reddit discussions that have no source/are hearsay, and so on (they put on the Romeo and Juliet article, for instance, that "The Lion King 2" was a direct film adaptation of the story (it does share the star-crossed lovers theme, but isn't a plot like the Shakespeare tragedy at all. Also there was no source for the comment either.)). They've also had disruptive edit warnings too, on their talk page and in edit summaries because some of the same edits they keep doing over and over again. For more than a year, I and many others, in the article talk pages, Mr. Doggy Dog's own talk page, and in the edit summaries, have tried to help and to explain why their edits are inadmissable/what the rules are, and suggest a reading of the manual of style, but there is never any response and the behavior continues. I tried really hard to go without involving admin and told them I really didn't want to involve admin or cause a fight/get them blocked, but at this point I don't see what else can be done. I know these are all probably good faith edits, but at this point it's been explained so many times it's getting kind of silly. Is there anything that can be done, or do we just let it go? EEBuchanan (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a case of WP:CIR, and yes, editors get blocked for it quite often. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have been trying to be helpful/explain to them how this works for a long time, and really didn't want to get them blocked because they're obviously a newer user and trying to help. However their unwillingness to respond or check the manual of style, no matter how many times they were told to do so, was getting out of hand. I let them know we're discussing this, but based on patterns of behavior I doubt they'll answer that either. I've only ever had one answer from them in the year they've been here and it was a simple unsigned - "Sorry I'm new". or something like that. I'll let the admins sort this one out.

EEBuchanan (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to make sure that I understand correctly, it IS only admins that can block/take action like that, right? I'm not expected to do anything further? This is the first time I've had to bring anything up on this noticeboard.

EEBuchanan (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the average user has no power to make blocks. Bringing the report here should be sufficient, an admin will typically hop on a case like this relatively quickly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll let this sit, then, for the admins to deal with, unless you need me to provide more info or anything like that. EEBuchanan (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A massive bot attack is underway at Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi with hundreds of identical comments being added by different IPs. AusLondonder (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can concur. It's next to impossible to undo all of the damage that's being done right now because the bots are flooding it all at once. Love of Corey (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Talk:Paul Pelosi. Brunton (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been happening for over an hour, now. AusLondonder (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the main Attack on Paul Pelosi article protected? There's been no IP activity for a bit, but I sense we're going to have to be ahead of the curve here. Love of Corey (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing (saw I edit conflicted on the page protection).. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the history pages of these talkpages are now a list of a few hundred open proxies. Any admins with experience blocking open proxies may want to lend a hand. Malcolmxl5 seems to have started, but there are a lot of blocks to do. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! :D Love of Corey (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Malcolmxl5: looks like you started blocking the IP addresses. Need some help? A quick scan of a random selection of the IPs shows they are indeed proxies. There are close to a thousand entries to get through, so an automated process would be helpful here if anyone has suggestions. I'm a bit surprised this attacker showed their hand so soon and so incompetently. --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I extracted the list of involved IP addresses to User talk:Yamla/Attack on Paul Pelosi botnet. --Yamla (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timotheus Canens/massblock.js might help you there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I plan to block all involved IP addresses for two weeks as proxies. I'm going to wait a while to see if Malcolmxl5 has any comments, though, or if anyone else objects. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used Tim's script to block that many users in one go so I don't know if it'll handle such a large batch. If you want to split it down I can start from the bottom and meet you in the middle. A two-week hard block seems reasonable unless any of the IPs have been open for a while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through some of more obvious ones and blocking them for longer. Should be fine to massblock, just make sure you don't override anything. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start at the beginning of the next hour (1 PM UTC), unless anyone objects. HJ Mitchell, happy to start at the top if you start at the bottom. I've split the list in (roughly) half, so you can take the bottom half. I plan to leave {{blocked proxy}} as the talk page message, choose the same for "Common reasons", use "2 weeks" as the expiration time, hard block (leave "Block anonymous users only" unchecked, as per default), and UNCHECK the "Override existing blocks". --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla. Yes, I blocked a few. Out now so I’ll leave to others to you all to carry on. They are certainly proxies, almost certainly p2p proxies. A couple of weeks should do it. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went through half of User talk:Yamla/Attack on Paul Pelosi botnet and noted all the ones marked by IPQualityScore as proxies at User:DatGuy/sandbox. Am hitting the rate limit so leaving the rest for someone else, can provide code if requested. Will compare with a few with other sources to determine which ones to block and for how long. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DatGuy, any objections if we start by blocking all of them for 2 weeks, then you can override with longer blocks as appropriate? I expect you will object; let me know how specifically you think we should proceed instead. :) --Yamla (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, go ahead. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I got as far up as 188.72.163.238. Beyond that most seem to be already blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent. I'm done, too. Took the opportunity to add very brief documentation to the mass block script. The script seemed to handle lists of 100 "users" without problems; I didn't test beyond that. Thanks, everyone! --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @HJ Mitchell: was this intentional? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah bollocks! No it wasn't. I'll fix it when I'm back on a proper computer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following an unholy amount of blocks, rangeblocks, and everything in between (my spur.us account was suspended for 'suspicious activity'), I'd like to think that we're finished with this. Until the next time they somehow pull out five hundred proxies out of their arse, that is. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that in (actual) bot attacks, blocks can be fairly ineffective — we have other higher-level methods of mitigating attacks, which the functionaries/stewards etc. know how to request. (Partly covered in T321971) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the technical skills to deal with type of attack, but I just want to say how grateful I am to all the administrators who helped out with this. Thanks to all. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phab task has restricted viewing, but I trust in your ability to handle this kind of stuff . DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry I am a little late to the discussion, I just noticed that some of the blocks initially placed were indefinite. Is there really any harm in having IP addresses blocked indefinitely? There are numerous instances of IP addresses being blocked indefinitely, although they are few and far between. Per the WP:NOP policy we can block open proxies, Tor networks, and VPNs for any length of time. An indefinite IP block can still be reversed once it is found that the IP is no longer an open proxy. In my humble opinion the fact that these IP addresses are still open proxies is likely not going to change in two or three weeks. Unless if those IP addresses will be getting 403s when attempting to access Wikipedia I think a much longer block, potentially even indefinite, may be warranted. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The technical nature of the proxies in use, and the mitigation, does not lend itself to indefinitely blocking the IP(s) in question — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeonChrisfield (talk · contribs) has a clear POV on Atatürk and has now been desruptive at Deportations of Kurds (1916–1934) and Sheikh Said rebellion[62] removing sourced information that depicts his rule negatively. They also went further and call me a nationalist[63] and the 'Deportations of Kurds' article as "Kurdish ethnonationalist propaganda" despite being mostly if not solely based on scholar references.[64] This sentence: "Ataturk always supported the multi-ethnic Turkish Republic, and he allowed the use of the Kurdish language and the practice of their culture even though he did Turkification" screams POVPUSH intentions.[65] Semsûrî (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not my POV. This part is cited on Ataturk’s page: “His government carried out a policy of Turkification, trying to create a homogeneous, unified and above all secular nation under the Turkish banner.[12][13][14] Under Atatürk, the Minorities in Turkey were asked to speak Turkish in public but also were allowed to maintain their own languages at the same time;[15]” I read your discussion board, and you have a history of vandalisms and removing well-cited scholar sources just because you disagree with their views. I’ve never deleted the sources citied on this page or the entire page. I never said the deportation is Kurdish ethnonationalist propaganda. I was talking about your removal of peer-reviewed sources that disagreed with your POV and sent a disruptive link to my page just because I disagreed with your opinion. I didn’t even further engage in edit wars with you considering your history of vandalisms. The “multi-ethnic republic” part can also be found in my sources. LeonChrisfield (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a history of vandalism. If you say that Kurdish was only banned in public why did you remove that info from the article then with the excuse "Ataturk allowed ethnic minorities to speak Kurdish"? [66] You are contradicting yourself. Semsûrî (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what relevance does these additions of yours about Sheikh Said rebellion have for the deportations?[67] And this? "Despite the conflicts between Ataturk and the Kurds, most Kurds today in Turkey have a positive view of Kemal Ataturk, even among HDP voters."[68] Semsûrî (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that he banned Kurdish in public but not that such a policy is fascist because he himself denied being a fascist.[69] That to me screams POV-pushing. Semsûrî (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Than Tun Ba Thein Tin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite a hefty amount of warnings distributed over the past year and a half (including two by myself in the past days), this user hasn't stopped their disruptive editing, mostly on pages dealing with subjects related to Myanmar's armed forces. Recent edits include unexplained changes to sourced content [70], unsourced additions [71], and removal of sourced content with no good reason [72][73][74] or no reason at all [75]. Despite all the reverts and warnings, their behavior doesn't seem to be evolving in a right direction. Could something be done about it? BilletsMauves^€500 19:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Than Tun has filed a report at AIV against BilletsMauves. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have come across this user's articles and they are horrendously written. The English is awful and completely broken. I am unable to even attempt to make corrections to some of these articles. Sure English isn't everyone's native language, but this user for some reason has auto patrolled rights, meaning the articles he's creating are not even being checked or reviewed properly. How Wikipedia can allow this is astounding, there should be a basic level of English required before such articles are published. Two examples of poorly written articles that I cannot even attempt to try and fix: David Mark Hill and Samuel Hartsel. The Hill article did not even correctly name the execution method which I had to correct: [76]. There are many more. Please can an admin review. Inexpiable (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, you need to post a notice on a user's talk page when starting a discussion about them at ANI. I've posted the notice on MATF's talk page. Levivich (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually find that the non-native English users are better than the native editors whose English is just bad. The former are usually happy to be corrected but the latter often take great offence at anything that could be construed as criticism of their writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are indeed practically unreadable and would definitely have benefitted from an NPPer tagging them with the copyedit template. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that their prose is atrocious, and that their autopatrolled status should be revoked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - WP:CIR. Very inappropriate for them to be an auto-patroller. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe Roe gave the user the AP right last year. I'm reluctant to revoke the right without Joe's views.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Folks, before we discuss removing perms or any sanction, perhaps we could give our colleague the opportunity to respond first? AFAIK, this ANI thread is the first time these problems have been raised? It's kind of rude to jump straight to talk of sanctions without even talking to the user first, particularly when it's someone who has donated thousands of hours here. Before any of the rest of us give our opinion, shouldn't we hear what MATF has to say first? Levivich (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Three comments. First, we should definitely allow MATF to respond before any further steps are discussed. Second, please remember that the AP flag isn't really a right; while some stigma likely attaches to its removal, fundamentally it exists to benefit reviewers and readers, and has no benefit to the holder. Third, I would like to hear from MATF whether they have used machine translation to assist them at any point; some of the phraseology strikes me as similar to the meaninglessness that google sometimes produces. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that hearing from the editor for clarification is a good idea, but I also agree that revoking their autopatrolled status is called for and shouldn't be dependent on it. First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Their status can easily be changed back if it appears to be warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MATF has created 1,152 articles. I just spent a half-hour 45 minutes fixing a relatively simple one, John Harllee (admiral). If that's typical, we're talking about volunteers spending something like 500 800 hours cleaning up after their mess. That's a problem that's significant enough to warrant acting first, and listening to explanations later. Please, would some admin remove their autopatrolled flag? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There appear to be some major content issues here. For example, the article Talmadge L. Heflin states

  In 1983, Heflin won the election for the 149th district of the Texas House of Representatives. He was honored by the Alief Independent School District which it was renamed as the Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The source [77] however states

  Mr. Heflin served on the Board of Trustees of the Alief Independent School District from 1973 to 1980. In 1982, the district honored his service to the area with the opening of Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The article implies that he was honoured for winning the election, rather than because he served on the board of trustees, falsely states that something was "renamed" when it was actually a new school being opened, implies the school naming occurred after the election in 1983 when it actually took place in 1982 and it confusingly suggests that the school district turned into a elementary school somehow. There are other examples of exceptionally poor writing,

  In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly.

  Is an extremely convoluted and confused way of saying he lost an election, which somehow avoids actually telling us what the election was. The article is also full of grammatical errors and nonsensical sentences, MOS issues ("politician" and "business" should not be linked), and a plethora of categories that are not verified in the article text - the article contains no information on his involvement in the energy business, his religious beliefs or his non-fiction writing.

  @Beyond My Ken perhaps it would looking into running a bot to unpatrol their article creations after they were granted the right? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm continuing to look to their articles, and indeed you are correct that grammar and construction errors are the least of the problems; the information itself has in many cases been corrupted. I would suggest that all of their articles be moved to draftspace, where they can be worked on without being generally accessible to the public. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beyond My Ken: Are they actively creating bad articles without responding here? If not, removal isn't urgent, though I agree it's likely to be warranted. AP removal isn't retroactive; any articles they've created would still need to be manually reviewed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to have edited since last night. I understand the principal of not acting unless there is a need to stop ongoing activity, but I think the need here is obvious enough (as I continue to review their articles) that lifting the flag is warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the editors above that the issues here go beyond spelling and grammar errors. I attempted to copyedit David Mark Hill before giving up in frustration. At the time I found it, the article stated He had his own The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints church. This was sourced to [78], which says The Hills' Mormon church helped pay their mortgage, utilities and groceries - obviously that doesn't mean that he ran a church!
  The next paragraph is extremely convoluted, difficult to understand and leaves out important context: Hill had began to act as a spree killer after receiving a notice from his wife to file a divorce against him. He was involved in some murders which had resulted three people being killed, in which he was suspected that Hill was the murderer since he had visited a department of social office. It was stated that he also assaulted a person which was his daughter. He killed them since it was for taking his children away from him, in which there was a restraining order against Hill. The actual story, from [79], is Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.
  I can understand why autopatrolled was granted because many of their articles are brief stubs where these issues with writing coherently aren't as apparent (e.g. Nicolas Becker (sound engineer), Andy Lewis (screenwriter)). However, considering the factual errors and general incomprehensiblity of their longer creations I don't think it is appropriate for them to hold this right. Spicy (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Did the admin who granted them this permission actually review any of their work? Every single article I’ve checked so far has been plagued with the above mentioned content issues. Now I’m seeing that they’ve created over 1000 articles? This has the potential to be a massive problem. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:FC3F:FA47:1CA0:2CF8 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the same, but then looking at their page creations before they were granted the autopatrolled right, a lot were stubs with short sentences or lists of films/shows obscuring their language deficiencies. So if Joe just looked at a handful of the stubs on Academy Award winners he wouldn't have noticed anything egregious. The typos and sentence construction chaos are only really apparent when MATF attempts to expand beyond a stub. Perhaps in the case of serial (notable, sourced) stub creators AP grantors should look for any larger page creations/expansions by the user to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the user right. There is sufficient evidence presented here. Additionally require that all future articles from this editor are created as a draft. Per Beyond My Ken: First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Donating thousands of hours here has never been a hurdle to stripping of special rights if the content quality is a serious problem and creating unnecessary work for others. Furthermore, autopatrolled is the one right that accords absolutely no benefits to the user whatsoever other than giving them another hat to wear. NPP has been acutely aware of the abuse of the auto patrolled right for a very long time. Their best suggestion to date is to deprecate this user right which having become a contentious issue has already been recently removed from the sysop bundle. To suggest that it would increase the workload of the reviewers (the usual contra argument) would be a straw man - articles of the quality expected by auto patrolled users only take a second or two to review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with removal of AP as the first step. Per WP:AUTOPAT, "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles". It's quite clear that this editor is not producing "clean articles". I just spot-checked six very quickly and could not identify any major problem without comparing them with the sources. But 5/6 need a copyedit cleanup minimally, with things like Born in Bentonville, Arkansas. (The sixth was a two-line stub). MB 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According the autopatrolled right based on a random look at a few stubs (if that's what happened) is not the best way to go. Stubs, however clean they might be, are not sufficient to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the requirements for producing a fully fleshed out article. I do recall that mass creating stubs to obtain the autopatrolled right has been deliberately used in the past by users with a specific agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an agenda here, I haven't glommed on to it yet. The articles I've reviewed and fixed so far are about minor politicians and officials, both Democrat and Republican; the encyclopedia would not be affected in any significant way if they were all moved to draft to be worked on.

The problems I've seen are misrepresentation of what sources say (apparently because of misunderstanding), stilted writing, incorrect use of idiomatic constructions (especially in the use of prepositions), convoluted and awkward phrasings, use of infobox parameters that don't exist, nonsensical facts (such as a legislator being suceeded by three people), categorization not supported by text in the article (almost as if MATF has personal knowledge they're using), inclusion of unnecessary information, failure to update information from more recent sources (a person is reported to have 4 brothers, but a correction in the same newspaper changes it to 3 brothers; both sources are cited, but the article still said 4 brothers until I corrected it), etc., all of which are, I think, neither deliberate nor malign, but nevertheless result in sloppy articles that are well below the expected standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that, but from the results, they don't seem to be spending any significant amount of time crafting them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, is everybody waiting for the user and/or Joe Roe to weigh in here..? I've removed the autopatrolled right. Bishonen | tålk 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I hope we'll hear from the editor soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two active ANI discussions right now regarding users granted autopatrol rights by User:Joe Roe making bizarre and disruptive edits. It also appears in his talk page from 18 days ago that he intends to ignore ANI discussions? Looks like he had a spot of trouble regarding a third autopatrolled user here. Kire1975 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "ignoring ANI discussions". I haven't been editing for a few days, and by the time I saw the pings in this thread, it had already run its course and I didn't have anything to add. WP:AGF, please. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]