Topic on User talk:Clump

94rain (talkcontribs)

Hi Clump. Thanks for doing cleanup work over the years. I saw that you recently blocked 130.105.160.235 (talk · contribs). I personally think the pages that they created Sister projects does not seem very out of scope. We have a few other pages here related to Category:Wikimedia_projects. I won't encourage such creations though, and their creation is not very high-quality. It'd be better just create soft redirects to Meta-Wiki.

Whether it's within the scope or not, the edits appear to be made in good faith. I feel issuing a {{offtopic}} warning on their talk page might be more appropriate than a block.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Clump (talkcontribs)

Greetings 94rain. I agree that the title and potential content of that page is not out of scope, but it was well below just being not high quality, and looked more like nonsense/vandalism: the actual content of that page consisted of a sentence that made very little sense, followed by an arbitrary list of special pages, and what looked like a cut-and-paste of another page (showing icons and actual related projects) as pure html. Still, and just on that basis it doesn't deserve a block, but they returned an hour or so later to create an orphaned talk page consisting of gibberish (broken image link and some nonsense text). I looked at their contribution history, and the day prior that IP had also been recently posting nonsense on wikipedia and wikinews (including the same cut-and-paste of sister projects in a very unrelated context). So it seemed they were just doing cross-wiki nonsense. That impression has not lessened---today they've continued to make nonsense edits on wikipedia and wikisource, in the latter case creating a very mangled and renamed cut-and-paste of the 'trolls world tour page' but changing it to include wikipedia into the title.

I don't object if you want to unblock them, but that behaviour looks less like naive or incompetent attempts at good faith editing and more like random vandalism that just happened to touch on a relevant name/topic.

94rain (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Given their Wikisource edits, it's evident that the block was warranted... Thanks for catching this!