Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 144.13.183.111 (talk) at 17:04, 1 March 2017 (→Doxing by Special:Contributions/144.13.183.111). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    OVERLINKING and redirect problems

    Fmadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fmadd is a (relatively) new user on Wikipedia, but has already created quite a big stir. In the past two weeks alone they have created over 250 redirects and DAB pages (and a total of 942 redirs since joining). While clearly they are not all bad, the majority are somewhat nonsensical (such as thermomagnetic, Scattering_event, and a couple of not-actually-DAB pages that have already been deleted). From looking down their creation list, it almost appears as if they say "I don't know what this means", put a wikilink, and then attempts to shoehorn in a redirect to something that is vaguely related.

    I was going to drop this and walk away, but after seeing three subsequent similar posts at the user's page I feel obligated to bring it up here. In the last two months there have been 5 threads on their talk page regarding overlinking and a half-dozen notices left for pages listed for deletion. They have displayed a rather alarming NOTLISTENING attitude, brushing off attempts at correction to things like "Wikipedia should be a...resource for AI training", "the more links the better", and finishing it all up with "I am utterly amazed that this is controversial" (hint: when a dozen different editors say it's problematic, it might just be problematic). A similar discussion at WT:PHYS has also been started, with similar results. Minutes after I nominated Organic dye for deletion (it had zero incoming links) they created 50 incoming links in a clearly POINTY response. Similarly, they brushed off being told that linking to dab pages like stellar explosion was not overly helpful.

    Fmadd is clearly not getting the point, which is why we're here. The overlinking needs to stop, and the wanton creation of barely-usable redirects needs to stop. While we shouldn't just delete every redirect they've created, there are a bunch of them that could use some serious scrutiny and a ton of overlinking that needs to be looked at. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had conversations as well. To be fair: Fmadd is a relatively new user and has not yet fully grasped that Wikipedia is a community project that works by consensus. He thinks Wikipedia should operate the way he wants it to, not the way it does. I do not believe any sanction is warranted at the present time, but what is required is someone with a bit more clout than us humble users to firmly explain how things work around here. With any luck, that should solve the problem. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that being relatively new is a good reason to avoid sanctions here. 10 months isn't that new, especially with 10,000 edits (I've been on here for a little over 10 months and 11,000 edits, and I understand consensus, it's a fairly easy thing to understand). 1/3 of his edits were in the past month, but you should have a general idea on how Wikipedia works with that number of edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit bothered by the fact that although User:Fmadd has commented on their talk page about the discussion here, and has been very busy editing, they haven't responded here. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this was a discussion between admins. Fmadd (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All this fretting about over-linking, when it turns out there's already a script that can change the colour of links (e.g. .. controversial pages can be marked and they no longer 'compete for the users attention'). I said I was amazed it was contraversial, because I can imagine there are technical solutions. With whats there now you can indeed de-highlight 'contraversial' articles. I bet the script or server side software could be further modified to mark certain types of page 'trivial' within a domain (hence blanked out by default) (e.g. all physics articles dont highlight trivial physics terms, all ) etc. I got the impression this is more about a 'priestly cult' mindset. It's only by arguing I managed to discover the highlighting script (several days in, he knew about it all along..) Fmadd (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmadd/linkclassifier.css there's an example, I was able to modify that link-highlighter script to display 'articles marked for deletion' blanked out. Fmadd (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fmadd, has made other kinds of problematic edits as well, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#User:Fmadd and destruction of article leads. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like there might be some competency issues lurking about. If someone informs you that you are causing a problem, it's not a normal response to search for a technical solution that allows you to continue to cause the problem it's meant to solve. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. as I thought, priestly cult mentality. Instead of improving a system, some people prefer to nit-pick, criticise others and so on. Thats why it was only many days into the discussion that someone finally told me there *is* actually already a way to colour code links by category. It would be easy to have a category of 'exploratory links', invisible by default, which are only visible if a user goes out of their way to highlight them with a custom colour scheme. Thats the first step, but imagine if wikipedia had a concept of 'prerequisites', where you could flag content according to what knowledge is pre-requisite, and dynamically blank content depending on what a user has clarified they already know. Fmadd (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fmadd, you're missing the forest for the trees. We're telling you that per the Manual of Style, the overlinking guidelines, and (based on other conversations) SURPRISE and LEAD conventions, you should not be creating all of these redirects, and you are saying we need to start colour-coding our links better. In other words, you're missing the bloody point. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    missing the point... there's already a facility for colour coding. My intuition was, "it is surprising that we fret about overlinking". There must be a way to improve the system such that contributing information is never a problem. Fmadd (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No Primefac, I think you're the one missing the point. If we wrote a script that flipped all our articles around for us, then we could write everything backwards, and it would automatically fix it. But instead you want to be close minded and demand that we conform to your cult of directionality. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    nice straw man there. I'm talking about colour coding (which already exists) not writing articles backwards. Fmadd (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You sure are. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fmadd, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central point here, which has nothing whatsoever to do with color coding. The concern is that redirects you are creating should not exist at all and you are adding unnecessary links in articles. You may be surprised that this is a real concern, but it is, and brushing it off by suggesting the rest of us use a script or whatever to mitigate it is not the correct response. You don't have to agree with the concern, but you are expected to respect the established policy and consensus on this issue. If you'd like to change the overlinking policy you are welcome to try, but unless and until such an effort is succesful you should abide by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fmadd, I agree with Beeblebrox. I'm going to ask you to stop adding links and creating redirects against current policy. You are very welcome to argue for changes in those policies, and to propose changes to the software to allow multi coloured links to facilitate those changes. But until you achieve a consensus that those policies should change, you must comply with them. Deliberately editing in contravention of policies just because you don't agree with them is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you will blocked from editing Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think Fmadd just needs to slow it way down in general. They are editing so fast it is impossible to conceive that they are really thinking things through. I see formatting errors and creation of double redirects in just their last few edits, with no sign that they are even aware of them. There's no rush, and it's always better to think about what you are doing before you do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: I rather fear that the double redirects are intentional, not accidental creations - see my comment below... WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left them a warning. Regardless of if they're right or wrong (though they're wrong) editing practices should be checked until a resolution is reached. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another example of the sort of problem this is creating - see Remote_control_(general). This appears to have been created by Fmadd on the basis that it will one day be a page with content (despite the fact that the disambiguator "(general)" is not used). See incoming links: [1] Numerous articles have had their links changed to point to Remote_control_(general). In addition several redirects have been changed to point to that page, apparently to deliberately create double redirects. This seems to be part of a master plan to restructure our articles about Remote controls and related topics. But instead of getting consensus to change that structure first, Fmadd has created a "web of redirects" to accommodate his vision of how the articles should be structured. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As a note, I reinstated the declined speedy and cleaned up that mess. Triple redirects! WTF. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A thought regarding this incredibly disruptive editing - their edits have to be undone individually; we can't just unlink all links to their silly redirects because they used to point to valid targets... what a friggin nightmare. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I've read some (not all) of the discussions with Fmadd, and my take is that this is a user who not only doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it. He's even trotted out that old saw, the cabal of admins, in the form of a "priestly cult". Frankly, I don't believe more argumentation with him is going to stop him doing what he intends to do, so I think it's time for admins to consider a sanction of some sort to stop him. My first choice would be an indef block that would not be lifted until he promised to undo the mess he made, but more kind-hearted souls might prefer a topic ban on creating redirects and making wikilinks - I just feel it's likely that he wouldn't follow it, and we'd be back at an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) see below. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Question 1: block or no?

    Slight edit conflict with BMK above, but good timing I guess. First question is easy - if Fmadd refuses to accept the requests made here to alter their behaviour, do we block, or just impose a tban on creating redirects (i.e. a page-creation ban)? Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Question 2: all those pesky redirects

    Fmadd has made a pretty big mess. The question becomes what to do about their past editing history. I see two main options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could whoever posted the above please sign their post? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1 (slap on the wrist)

    Fmadd's past redirect actions are (mostly) overlooked. Interested parties are welcome to comb through them and RFD/delete/edit/restructure as desired, but no "official" action takes place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2 (more involved response)

    Fmadd's edits are all looked over by some sort of task force. Unnecessary redirects (such as Particle physics experiment and India gained independence) are deleted and the pages that linked to them are reverted to their pre-redirect status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 3 (nuclear option)

    Roll back all edits, delete all pages. Small team to go through and undelete the few pages that might have been useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would support this if it was changed a little bit:
    1. List all created pages in userspace
    2. Roll back all edits that were not on pages this user created
    3. Review all pages in the userspace
    4. Delete all unapproved pages in the userspace
    We did the same thing with wp:x1 (with the exception of number 2), and it worked well, I think the same approach will work here. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work. I've already started compiling a list at User:Primefac/Fmadd. I completely agree with rolling back all of their mainspace edits, since 99% of the time it appears all they were doing was creating a link to an odd redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In relation to point 2, I should note that Fmadd is sometimes correct that the links should be changed. The problem is that many did not need changing or, if they did, he often made the problem worse. We will lose some useful work if we mass revert his edits instead of reviewing each of them, but I estimate only about 10% based on what I've looked at in relation to Remote control. For example, there were some instances in which he changed articles that linked to that page when they would more naturally refer to Teleoperation (i.e. the process of controlling electronics from a distance, not the device that enables someone to do it). However, instead of linking directly to Teleoperation, he redirected Remote controlled to Teleoperation (which probably makes sense and shouldn't be reverted), and linked to that redirect (which doesn't). WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WJBscribe, I concur that there is a small proportion of their edits that were actually useful, but given that I spent an hour untangling the "remote control" issue last night and ended up only keeping four edits out of about 100, I'd say in this case we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, if only for the sanity of those draining the tub. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Primfac, Gamebuster19901, and WJBscribe. This is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, I support the nuclear option, given the downside seems so low. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support this iff the percentage of good contributions reported above is accurate. @Primefac:, yow is the listing coming? Do you have something the community can look at? Tazerdadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tazerdadog, I've gotten User:Primefac/Fmadd into a reasonable shape. I've sorted the redirects by incoming link count, which will make proofing them a bit easier. I haven't sorted through their articles yet, but that's not quite as important. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    After a spot-check of my own, I have to disagree with the assessment of Primefac and WJBScribe. I found that about 50% of the redirects were a net positive, especially with small tweaks applied. Therefore I have to Oppose this option. A more detailed review is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tazerdadog, are you willing to support option 2? Primefac (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I support mass revert, unless somebody else wants to wade through it all in more detail. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2, possibly combined with X3 is the appropriate response in my opinion. 50% is an unacceptable error rate, and based on my evaluation both a nuke and a slap on the wrist would have that error rate. I'd be willing to wade through a significant chunk of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My 10% figure above was stated to be based upon review of Remote control based redirects. If link changes/redirections in other topic areas show as much as 50% positive edits, then I agree that this calls for a more nuanced step-by-step review of the edits. Such an approach would also allow editors to correct occasions where Fmadd identified a problem but applied the wrong solution - the optimal result is neither a revert nor keep Fmadd's edits in those instances! WJBscribe (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on the above questions and proposals

    Fmadd, I guess this is the part where I ask you if you're willing to take into consideration the views expressed in this discussion as well as on the various talk pages you've been involved with. To summarize a few of the points:

    • Decrease the number of redirects you create. Start discussions to see if they're necessary. Pipe otherwise.
    • Slow down on the editing. Thing don't need to happen immediately. Finding out an idea isn't the best after two days is a lot easier to deal with if you then don't have to go back and fix fifty pages afterwards.
    • Start discussions. Yes, I mentioned this above, but this goes for things like moving remote control unilaterally. Consider all page moves to be potentially contentious, and ask if it's a good idea first.

    There are other points mentioned above, but these are the major ones. Does this sound reasonable? Primefac (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    well I can take a break from this, and amuse myself somewhere else for a while. I'm not going to stay focussed on making major changes if it takes several days of discussion.. I just wont bother. thats why I liked blasting my way through one issue at a time. If you dont like redirects then my workflow can't be used here. I might as well give up. Thanks for destroying what little faith in humanity I had.. they're just redirects.. and you have to get all "priestly-cult"/"control freak" over it. The point of redirects (or any other abstractions) is breaking problems down into smaller pieces, at which point solutions crystallise out more easily. Tension in "the plan" or ambiguity is just a sign of something else to fix. I've seen this situation many times before. Some people have more to gain from problems, than solutions. Fmadd (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's enough. Deploying block hammer. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) If Fmadd hasn't been here before under another name, I'll eat my aussie hat. Flat Out (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems fond of the "priestly cult" meme - anyone recall another editor using that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Easier to make mass changes and argue later" seems to be a hallmark, this is their work too Flat Out (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If Fmadd isn't already back as Special:Contributions/Ll928, I'll eat my non-Aussie hat (it's got fewer corks). Dukwon (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as I've been opposed to similar solutions in the past, I'm really leaning toward the nuclear option, at least on anything that's purely a redirect. Looking through several pages of their creations, they seems to be an attempt to...I guess...manually create a search function? Probably fully a quarter of them are created as questions e.g., "should X redirect to Y?" or "is A the proper term for B?" I'm just not seeing much in the way of harmful collateral damage that would in any way outweigh the inordinate amount of time it would take to sort through these individually. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We could expand wp:x1 to include redirects created by this user. Just an idea I thought should be mentioned. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The main question in my mind, and I really don't know precisely how this works with the admin bit, but if all article creations are nuke-able with the click of a button, is there anything worth saving in the ~9% of their article creations that are not redirects, which would justify having to tag and delete 950 redirects. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't support or oppose nuking everything outright without a review, but if it comes to it, I wouldn't get upset about it. I've added a different proposal under the Nuke proposal. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    New Speedy Deletion Criteria in Response

    Since there seems to be consensus at this time to revert these edits, and issues VERY similar to this have happened before (see wp:X1) I am proposing a new speedy deletion criteria.

    X3: Pages created en-masse by a single user, where the community has established broad consensus that the pages are harmful to the encyclopedia, would create significant backlogs in their deletion discussion areas, and the reviewing admin believes that it will not survive a deletion discussion. Once the community establishes that the backlog is cleared, normal procedures resume.

    It is similar to wp:x1, except it can be applied to more situations so we don't have to keep creating new X criteria. X1 would be merged into X3.

    Deletion reasons made under this criteria should contain a link to the discussion where consensus was established, and say "TYPE OF PAGE" created by "USER", to distinguish what situation the pages were deleted in. A list of situations where this criteria has been used should be created.

    Example of deletion message: "Redirects created by User:Example, see discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support that. I should have the full list of redirects soon, which would give an indication of how much this criteria would be needed. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more of a procedural point, but wouldn't this really be an expansion of X1 rather than the creation of a new criteria? TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I made it an X3 is because some deletion reasons currently just say "X1", and you wouldn't know that it was a Neelix redirect if X1 was expanded. It would be better to retire X1 and continue removing Neelix redirects under X3. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Does R3 "implausible redirects" already cover the case where a redirect is a special case of an existing general article/redirect? e.g. 3D unit vector when there's already unit vector Dukwon (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: No. R3 only covers redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. Because special cases are not typos nor misnomers, R3 does not apply in that case. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the creation of a X3 criteria for his redirects, and DAB pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If community consensus is necessary for a case to be added to this, isn't it just as easy for the community to authorise an X number criterion at the same time? I don't think this happens often enough for us to worry about running out of numbers. I can see this being open to the usual misunderstanding that many speedy criteria are. I'm not against the expansion of CSD criteria, but I think that perhaps keeping a specific number attached to a particular disaster one might be easier in the long run than having a catch-all criterion. I may well be missing something. (I know I'm missing my tea, and might see things differently later...) Peridon (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would take longer to get consensus for a new speedy deletion criteria than to get consensus for invoking an already existing one. A perfect example is this discussion. A discussion similar to this would have to take place every time. In the future, someone could just propose the use of X3 instead of creating a new X. We also wouldn't have to create new template every time, we could just use X3 with values. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose creating a new speedy criteria that could potentially apply to any user, but would support X3 being specifically in relation to contributions by Fmadd (talk · contribs). This situation is rare enough that we can afford to take the time to add to CSD on a user-by-user basis. WJBscribe (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose already covered by existing criteria. If a user were creating pages in specific contravention of a ban, WP:CSD#G5 is covered. WP:CSD#G6 is sort of the WP:IAR of deletion criteria as well, if you have a good specific rationale, which is likely to be uncontroversial, G6 should cover it. Especially if a community consensus has already determined that some large block of articles should be speedy deleted as part of a long discussion, then someone could just tag each one as {{db-g6|rationale = <link to original discussion>}} should suffice. I'm already troubled by the existence of the X category anyways, and I'd not like to see it grow. --Jayron32 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment G6 only covers technical deletions, and G5 wouldn't work in this case as the user was not banned at the time the pages were created. Also, X3 would probably prevent more X's being created. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah...WP:BURO anyone? If the community assessment is that the stuff should be nuked, who gives two figs what bureaucratic code is applied to it, just go ahead and do it per WP:IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If the community decides a nuke is in order, then the pages should simply be nuked, and the edit summary should link back to this discussion. On the other hand, if the community decides a manual review of the edits is in order, a speedy criterion to keep everybody on the same page makes good sense. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Didn't we have that discussion already a few weeks back? The reason we use certain designations is that any user can see the designation in the logs and know why the deletion took place. The proposed X3 would mean people had to search for this discussion first. In this specific case, unlike the Neelix one, it would probably not be a terrible strain on WP:RFD if those redirects were listed there instead. We should take care not to create new speedy criteria unless it's really necessary. Alternatively, just nuke all the redirects he created, they are cheap and can be recreated easily. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per SoWhy. -- Tavix (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as an useful criterion for users that are not blocked but created redirects en masse, as nuking is only useful toward indefinitely blocked users with account creation blocked and autoblock enabled. Neelix is an example, but we need to stop users from creating redirects en masse using a new speedy deletion criterion, instead of creating a new one for each of those users. The name I propose for the criterion is R4, because I believe it will be permanent. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate global reverts

    A great number of non-redirect contributions were just reverted out by Primefac, which does not seem supported by consensus above and is contrary to existing policy and precedent. For those arguing that nothing Fmadd did was not a redirect problem, you are very wrong, and this has been a grave error. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Last night I spent the better part of an hour undoing a mess they made with remote control - they moved it to another location, changed 100+ wikilinks to unnecessary redirects, and generally made a mess of things. In every instance I've looked, they've done this. In one instance they changed pair production into Electron–positron pair production, which is a redirect to pair production! I did not find any good reason not to nuke everything and sift through the ashes. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations, that's one of the ones that tipped me something was going on. That one appears to be connected to the problems called out above. Hoever, Pair-instability supernova didn't have anything I see as a problem, he added two perfectly good links (one via a redirect, but a link should have been there from that term, and the other one went straight in to the existing article). So, question: is my watchlist the only two articles with a 50% obvious error rate for a global revert, or was the global revert too aggressive?... Sample size small, but so far I am not impressed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't find the "problems" you're highlighting here as terribly significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 5) Their astronomy work was... less bad than the other stuff. Since I checked them all earlier, I can tell you - every single DAB they created they went in and created 5-10 links to it, regardless of if it even made sense (which it didn't). I found a huge copy-paste page move (which I did fix, by the way) as well as a ridiculous number of anchors placed in the first sentence of the article. Half of their edit summaries were "I don't know what this links to, maybe we can fix it later?". I will not deny that I undoubtedly reverted some decent edits, but I know that I fixed more than I broke, and by a significant margin. If you want to crawl through every edit I made, feel free to make a list and post it on my page, but at that point it's just as easy for you to hit undo as it is for me. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delaunay triangulation which was the fifth most recent thing reverted. With all due respect Beyond my Ken and Primefac, this is not collateral damage. This is clear evidence that "nuke it all from orbit" was the wrong thing to do here. I would be perfectly happy to take some fraction of the 900-plus edits that were reverted and fix them, but the right approach is what we do with copyvios and list them all out and have people take chunks of them and review them. And given the error rate in the blanket reversion, I suggest we do so from a position of undoing all the reverts and then cleaning up the underlying edits, rather than having to back through the reverts the hard way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've pointed out a few trivial errors: 4 out of 900-plus. That's hardly establishing a significant error rate. Also, I can;t believe you're using copyvio as an example of a procedure to follow: if you look at the copyvio area, you'll note that some of those have lingered there unchecked for a very long time, despite the hard work done by Brownhairedgirl and others. Here we have a case that's confined to a single editor, with what appears to be a fairly low error rate from nuking (or at least a significant error rate has yet to be established). Better, in my opinion, to nuke them all, and then fix the ones that didn't need nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those were 5 errors in seven checks; the last 5 reverts Primefac made (time wise) and the two articles I had watchlisted. So my error rate is over 70% on that sample. 4 out of 5 on the last 5 reverts, which are random vs the ones I watchlist (which aren't randomly selected, they're both astronomy/physics related, which I will accept for the sake of argument may have been better done). Maybe we should check some other random set of them, pick somewhere for me to start in the 900 and how many you think is reasonable (5 more? 10?) I am perfectly happy to / will fix those 5 articles, but I want to start doing so after we determine what the global solution is. If we have to undo all 900 reverts I'd rather baseline that than patch a few of them and then have to untangle it after. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • 37, 194, 477, 635, 743. Take 5 edits starting at each of those numbers, examine them, and determine the error rate for those 25 edits. (Don't worry about precision in counting, the numbers are just pseudo-random starting points - any five starting points throughout the sample will do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Going backwards from [4] as there have been updates since my last comments... (apologies, going to create list, then have to get on train, then will check when I get home, so need some time for the details...)
    • First group: [5] this was an inappropriate link, [6] complicated - old link to central processor unit, new link to category of families of CPUs that he created, right answer is probably a new article to explain what a central processor unit family is (the CPU article doesn't now) - neither Fmadd nor the revert actual best solution, [7] new link to redirect to category he created - not obviously wrong but revertable per discussion above, [8] one link replaced three; link to redirect to category (same as prior entry) that was less subject-appropriate than the original three, probably wrong of Fmadd [9]

    two links - first: straightforwards, correct link. Second: created improper redirect, but a direct link to target was appropriate - right solution should have been to direct-link the second instead of via the redirect. Reverts respectively right, (neither), right per consensus, right, wrong/should have fixed instead for 2 halves Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Second group: [10] two links to one link via a redirect into the second link's article - neither way best, should probably be single link to anchor in Matrix (mathematics) where real and complex matricies are defined, [11] new link to the same topic problem as first entry second group - same solution, [12] same as first, second entries, [13] same as first, second, third entries, [14] ah, new problem. Link to redirect (consensus bad) that should have direct linked to a vanchor I believe was appropriate in Addressing mode which was reverted out as part of all of this, so is broken now. four (complicated, should go to vanchor that was never placed instead); fifth should have been direct linked to vanchor that should be replaced (how do we score *that*...?) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third group: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
    • Fourth group: (approx start) [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
      • Plus next one: [25] just because I watchlist it, will not count for 25
    • Fifth group: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]
    (bottom of list) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ll928

    New user LL928 and Fmadd seem to overlap quite a bit. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well spotted. Clearly a sockpuppet. Blocked. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    50504F

    If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... not a 100% match, but I think the early stuff was to get to autoconfirmed. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In a surprisingly display of good faith, I have unblocked them. Talk about being in the wrong place editing the wrong redirects at the wrong time.... Primefac (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Refocusing

    There, at some point here, were definitely some coherent options that got muddled by formatting and a lot of other issues. There seemed to be some general support for mass reversion and deletion, which itself got muddled by bureaucratic issues about creating a new CSD criteria, which then got muddled by specific reversions. So I guess my question to those involved is: what are the options that are still on the table, can we condense those into a couple that have general consensus, and can we decide between them? TimothyJosephWood 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Primefac: can chime in here, but unless I'm counting wrong, it appears to me that all of Fmadd's edits have been nuked, pursuant to the consensus in the sections above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be impressed to find that all 1k of them have been taken care of, but if that's the case, and everyone's fine with it, then I suppose we can close and move on with ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely don't see the consensus to nuke in the sections above. I'm happy if they were all legitimately reviewed, but I doubt that is the case. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus seems quite clear to me, and I applaud Primefac's decision to follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Like BMK I support blanket removal. Those complaining that the removals should not have occurred without weeks of argument are welcome to check all edits and reinstate those that are genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia ever grinds to a halt, it will be because of the navel gazing and pointless bickering that occurs when the community responds to inappropriate contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted about 1700 of Fmadd's (current) edits, and I've been undone about 20 times. An error rate of <2% is perfectly acceptable to me. Due to some (understandable) hesitation (mostly by Tazerdadog) I have not nuked all of his redirects.
    Given the apparently p<0.05 validity of their edits, my guess would be <5% of their redirects would be salvageable. I've taken a couple of days off to clear my head from the "nuke everything" blinders, and will be going through User:Primefac/Fmadd and seeing what could legitimately be kept. Hopefully I can get through this by the end of the week, and I'm thinking something like another week after that if there is no further input I'll delete what's in the "delete" pile. I'm pretty sure I started a talk page discussion and yall are welcome to join in. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be beneficial to hear from @Georgewilliamherbert:, who objected most strongly (but politely) to the nuking, to see whether his examination of the 25 edits I suggested has changed his mind. Certainly, the complexity of what he has reported so far has not changed my mind that nuking was the right option, as opposed to having numerous editors dedicate large portions of their lives to undoing the cat's cradle Fmadd created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ping me @Primefac: when you have the list of redirects to be deleted, and I'll check them over. I wish you hadn't done the mass rollback on Fmadd's edits, but I will acknowledge that consensus might not be with me on that point and it doesn't seem to be breaking the wiki. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tazerdadog, will do. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tazerdadog, Primefac: I'm just gonna say, I think you guys may be in the wrong place, since this seems a heckuva lot like civil editors cooperating to work through a well reasoned compromise. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll notify the media. EEng 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I posted User talk:Primefac/Fmadd#Am I allowed to modify these redirects? about a few redirects in particular I thought were plausible or fixable. I am weakly in favor of keeping the ones I mentioned; because of that doubt, I have yet to update Primefac's list, but I will do so ASAP. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tazerdadog: @Primefac: TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban

    The following is suspicious, but I am not 100% sure that it passes the duck test.

    On 18 September 2016 User:Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories.[31]

    On 19 February 2017 User:2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA started posting to Talk:Electronic harassment, making the same basic point that Jed Stuart was making before the topic ban; that we should treat the opinions of those who believe that they are victims of electronic harassment with the same weight as the opinions of mental health professionals who believe that their experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis. Examples:[32][33][34][35]

    So, do I hear a quack, or am I hearing quacking where there isn't any? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You know if you wore a tinfoil hat you wouldnt hear subliminal quacking.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just took a look at their contributions. SPA-IP which exists only to push an agenda. Largely irrelevant as to the duck test, what they want is unlikely to happen. Continued pushing will probably end up with a block sooner rather than later. From the article talkpage history I suspect they are more likely related to Beautifulpeoplelikeyou who also had a bee in their bonnet about state terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bananas? 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I semi-protected the talk page due to obvious evasion of sanctions. A review of past talk page edits indicates that this will not be in any way detrimental, one month for now and we could make it indefinite without any obvious downside. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Owww 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not me. And that is not the point I was attempting to make. Typical mischaracterization of what I was attempting to say. I am reading that Talk page though and one day you may regret treating me with such belligerence. How many times have I been accused of doing that? I can't be bothered to find out.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you say that 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA is not you I will take your word for it. As for "belligerence", I would not be doing you any favors if I were to mislead you into thinking that there is the slightest hope that your theories will ever be included in any Wikipedia article without you first finding a reliable source as defined by WP:MEDRS to back them up. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not attempting to assert a personal theory. I was attempting to integrate information from the Washington Post into the article and also achieve a more NPOV than an article weighted 100% to not well researched psychiatric opinion in an environment in which many people think otherwise. I was banned from the article on the basis of your and others false accusations and am angry now that I was banned without being given the chance to refute all that.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Call it whatever you want. It is not going into any Wikipedia article without a WP:MEDRS-compliant source backing it up, which the Washington Post article[36] is not. You were topic banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories per this ANI discussion. To your credit, you have obeyed the topic ban, but the fact that you seem to have learned nothing from that ANI discussion tells me that the topic ban needs to stay in place. Of course you can appeal the ban (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community) but any appeal will be rejected until you show some understanding of why so many people supported your topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not the IP was Jed, Jed's actions in this this thread are almost certainly not covered under BANEX. The most recent comment is a blatant attempt to justify the behaviour that led to the ban. @Jed Stuart: Just to be clear, you are allowed comment here to either deny or admit to having engaged in sockpuppetry to get around your TBAN. You are not allowed loudly proclaim that the ban was not justified to begin with and you never did anything wrong, unless you are specifically appealing the ban itself. This thread is not, at least right now, about appealing your ban; it is about whether you violated it by socking. You have denied this accusation. The community will decide whether your denial is credible. But if you continue to violate your ban by discussing it in a manner like above it will not matter whether you had already violated or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri makes a good point. Jed Stuart, I'm not going to ask for sanctions myself, but you should be aware that your last comment was a violation of your topic ban. Take this as a warning and try to abide by it. And please, please try to realize why you were topic banned. I would like nothing more than to be able to support you if/when you eventually appeal it, but it doesn't look like I can from your last comment.
    (I can't believe I forgot to watchlist that page with my alt, so I've been unaware of it as I rarely use my main account these days.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC
    @MjolnirPants: I don't know quite how it works, but I notice your alt acocunt has email enabled -- does this mean you use a different email with your alt account? My watchlist mostly functions to send me email notifications, so I tend to (fallaciously) assume that's how everyone else uses theirs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can get emails sent to either account, but I don't want email notifications of changes on my watchlist. I'm usually watching at least 1-3 wikispace pages in addition to 2 noticeboards, 2 project pages and 1 help desk page. I'd drown in emails if I did that, and I'm too lazy to set up something to handle them for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I wont let Guy Macon goad me into any more discussion of the EH article. How do we clear up whether I am socking or not? I know that people with a similar perspective to mine on that article do often attempt to win that way, but I dont think of doing that as it would be a difficult victory to hold and might even be bad for ones health.Jed Stuart (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jed Stuart: That's the spirit. And (although I don't necessarily agree that this was happening here), if you see someone apparently trying to goad you into violating your editing restriction, a good idea is to politely ask them to stop, and if they refuse then you can notify the admin who closed the ban discussion and ask them to intervene. (In theory, you should be able to open an ANI thread on them, but I tried this before -- it frequently doesn't work.) Obviously goading someone into violating their own editing restriction despite warnings to stop is a blockable offense. You're actually lucky in that you are only subject to a TBAN. With an IBAN it's much worse because even mentioning the username of the person you are banned from interacting is a clear violation that can get you immediately blocked, even if another user is disruptively bringing up their name in an unrelated dispute. In your case, simply saying I don't want to discuss that with you; it would probably be a violation of my editing restriction would likely do the trick, but if you were subject to an IBAN and you said the same thing ... don't ask. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88:I will try that it if it happens again. I prefer polite. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. I just wasn't thinking with my "I wouldn't be doing you any favors if..." comment, which was completely unfair given the topic ban forbidding a reply. I deserve a slap in the face with a wet trout for being such an idiot, and Jed Stuart should be held blameless. It was entirely my fault. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that some users clearly guilty of repeated and flagrant goading were as quick to admit being in the wrong. You are to be commended for your willing contrition, Guy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the apology.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants: I am thinking about why I was banned, and am still concerned that it was based on untruths. I did however learn a lot about how corrupted Wikipedia is at that level. The comments by EdChem at my attempt to get a right of reply were most enlightening no fairness. I will appeal when fairness is valued again and there is less chance of getting a repeat of that Stalinist show trial. Bow to the God of Wikipedia. I still like it though.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jed, you're really going to hurt yourself if you insist that Wikipedia is out to get you. In case you hadn't noticed, WP is made of all kinds. We have liberals and conservatives, social justice warriors and white nationalists, conspiracy theorists and sheeple, atheists and Christians and Jews and Muslims, lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Getting any sort of cabal or conspiracy together out of that hot mess is, even you have to admit, all but impossible. Even getting a group of like-minded individuals together on request is extraordinarily difficult here (and strongly discouraged as a rule). You're heading down a path I've seen a dozen or so editors take, and while each one had a different story of their trip down that path, each one has ended up in an indefinite ban. A well-earned indefinite ban, I might add. Please don't follow them. If you need to take a wikibreak, then do that. But don't shoot yourself in the foot by trying to put motivations on a gaggle of a few hundred nerds with strong opinions on everything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Wikipedia is out to get me. I think I was treated unfairly by a small group of people, and wont be appealing until Wikipedia returns to valuing fairness at that level. Simple thing really, many people have put energy into making it a fair and constructive place. It is truly amazing how much has been achieved. And I see many people though deeply saddened and some furious, not because it is out to get them, but because the good effort is being undermined by corruption of process, gaming the system, POV railroads etc, and I notice that many of those who have tried to change that drift towards something less user friendly have left. Not a conspiracy just a slide in the wrong direction. It will probably come good sooner or later. The momentum for that has been established.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser and Sir Joseph

    Both users are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This is disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017

    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop

    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent

    Firstly, even if the RFC was closed correctly, consensus can change. In addition, the RFC was extremely poorly written and discussed, even among the people commenting there was confusion. There is absolutely no prohibition on me creating a new RFC with a clearer, concise and simpler question. This is a content dispute and you are trying to create a chilling atmosphere where if someone disagrees with you, you will take them to ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See above for the underlying WP:MEAT issue behind this post. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, my post makes it pretty clear that this is a behavioral dispute, not a content one. Second, it was Debresser who worded the original RFC. That is something you need to take up with him. Although after reading over everything again, no one expressed confusion as to what we were discussing. This is a clear example of dishonesty on your part, and alongside your characterization of my post here as an insidious plot to silence dissent, only supports my view that you are unfit to edit in this area.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [37] "One of the worst RFC's I've ever seen."
    [38] "I do agree with you...." Sir Joseph (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give you 105, although it is unclear if it was a reaction to Debresser's OP (again, take that up with him), or the overall long-windedness of the thread. Beyond that, the survey was very clear on what was being discussed, and everybody involved understood that. The issue is moot.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are edit warring. The RFC was ONLY on the Category of Jewish Descent, not on anything else, since the Jewish Descent cat had Middle Eastern descent, asian descent. The RFC was not for any other categories. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth." Did you even read the survey?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet the RFC itself was worded as "I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. " Notice all the "DESCENT" categories? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The wording was "Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose." Nothing about descent. However an RFC with that sort of wording needs to be in a centralized location and advertised properly. I don't know how it was advertised but I don't think one category talk page is a centralized location. The outcome should not be used as consensus for other pages, especially with the close. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN see right above where the RFC was specifically for descent, which is why the whole RFC was confusing. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was advertised pretty well. Even the editors who were active in previous discussions were notified.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant, it was not in a central location so it can't be applied to any other categories. And besides, I stand by my assertion that the RFC is a bad RFC. It should be overturned just for being malformed. The question of the RFC doesn't match the survey and discussions. It is very confusing indeed. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The survey was standalone (in fact, it was a reaction to the sheer long-windedness of the RFC) and the locus of discussion in the survey was abundantly clear. You can't overturn a survey decision because you believe there was widespread confusion (there wasn't) on the RFC, which as you admit, was separate.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    ANYWAY, this is getting off topic. This section is about Debresser and Sir Joseph's behavior, particularly whether they are capable of editing objectively on Jewish descent categories. Everything I've seen from them since the closure of the survey points towards the negative.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard was closed about a day ago as incompletely filed. It could also have been closed because the dispute is pending in another forum, this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, this should be discussed above. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Now moved to below. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be quite honest, The Human Trumpet Solo, you're a highly inexperienced editor, you have only left about five edit summaries in your entire life, and you don't even know how to correctly post a WP:DIFF. This doesn't not inspire my confidence. It seems to me that this is entirely a content dispute, and no amount of wrangling on this noticeboard is going to change that. If people are edit-warring, warn them and report them at WP:ANEW, assuming that you have attempted discussion on article-talk first. If there are any further disagreements, let NeilN and/or Robert McClenon assist in forming a proper dispute resolution protocol in the proper venue(s) (which is not here). Please do not take up more time and space on this board. Softlavender (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am still concerned that potential issues of MEAT, SPA, and possible socking remain unaddressed in this dispute. This is the second (perhaps third) time I wrote this now. El_C 10:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Scope of WP:NOTHERE?

    Would the editing history of User:66.213.29.17 be considered WP:NOTHERE behavior? I am not making any accusations; I really don't know whether this is or is not within the scope of that often-treated-as-policy information page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the questions posed by 66.213.29.17 (talk · contribs) are a bit odd, but I don't think they cross the line, at least not yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how NOTHERE could ever apply to the Reference Desks. Exceedingly few of the questions are related to article editing, ergo few of the questioners are here to build an encyclopedia. Whether the behavior is borderline trollish is another question. Three completely unrelated new questions on three desks within 25 minutes? Are the questions sincere or does the person simply enjoy triggering interminable RD debates for some reason? I'll keep my psych theories to myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's the opposite. WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTFORUM applies to most of the reference desk most of the time. It's a bit like not being a nice guy while in prison. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    May God save the project. I don't know how we'd make it without them. TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usual reason for blocking someone on the ref desk is "disruption" or "long term abuse". "Not here" is sometimes used, but it's a little slippery, as Beeblebrox suggests. The ref desk itself started as a spinoff from the help desk, and both of them (like this page too) are not articles, but not quite talk pages either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I contribute to the Reference desk using an internet cafe in west London. However, when I composed an edit this morning and pressed "save" I discovered the machine had been blocked - for a month. The block notice said the blocker was "Favonian" and the reason given was ban evasion, User:Vote (X) for Change. The last edit from the address had been at 09:17 and it was a correction of a punctuation error in a talkpage heading. "Favonian" had reverted the correction with this edit summary:

    Don't refactor other editors' comment -- especially not when you're community banned.

    This is nonsense - formatting corrections are made frequently and they are permitted by policy. On checking the block log I saw that this was the second block - the IP had previously been blocked by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" at 05:58 on Wednesday. The reason given here was long-term abuse: User:Vote (X) for Change. "Future Perfect at Sunrise" then deleted a clutch of reference desk answers claiming they were provided by "banned users".

    I referred the matter to the management and they will happily confirm that the edits deleted by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and the one deleted by "Favonian" were made by different people.

    In addition, at the time this supposed ban evader "Vote (X) for Change" made the edit this morning I hadn't even left my house. I arrived at Finsbury Park station at 09:45 where the indicator board informed me that the 09:56 service to King's Cross was delayed and would leave at 10:05. Before leaving the train at Kings Cross the driver informed us that the delay was "caused by severe loss of power" (possibly connected to the fact that there is engineering work on the Cambridge line and trains are running no further than Welwyn Garden City). In any event, Finsbury Park is a very long way from west London. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you really want to contribute, you could request having your ban lifted. It seems you prefer to disrupt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of the refdesks

    At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Purposes of the desk the purpose of the refdesks is defined thusly:

    "The reference desk process helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement. If an article that could answer a question is lacking the relevant information, look for a way to work the information into the article. This provides a lasting value to the project."

    Does asking question after question, mostly not questions about about any article and without very little indication that he/she actually reads the answers "helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement"? Are the refdesks there to benefit the encyclopedia, or are they there to be an embedded social networking site? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more appropriate for an RFC, not ANI, but I would say the short answer is that although it is possible and desirable that article improvements could come from refdesk questions, article improvement is obviously not the primary purpose of the refdesk in practice, regardless of what that page says. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we could compel a questioner to acknowledge his previous question before asking another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we could require questioners to ask questions that are in any way relevant to the encyclopedia, and I would completely support an RfC proposal reining them in, and explicitly stating that NOTFORUM applies to Wikipedia, period. This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month and frankly I think it's mostly just silly. I personally don't care how many people might get alienated by the reform, because if those people are not in any way contributing to the project, then their alienation isn't the project's concern. If they do contribute, and their questions are relevant, then it shouldn't terribly affect them anyway. TimothyJosephWood 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No wonder this sounds so familiar. Has anything about the particular user come up on the ref desk talk page? Because that's where it belongs, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again through the list of questions from that user, some are a tad provocative, but nearly all of them, if not all (1) can be answered by appropriate references; and/or (2) explicitly or implicitly suggest where improvements might be possible in articles. Conceptually, that's not at odds with the stated goal of the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothyjosephwood, "This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month" -- did it need to come up here, or did the reporter just overreact? As Bugs says, this one can be handled on the refdesk talkpage. The refdesk regulars usually deal such issues pretty well. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Need? If this editor had been doing this literally anywhere else on the project then decidedly yes, and they probably would have already been sanctioned for it. But for some reason we've decided that the ref desk is somewhere where it's appropriate to ask questions about how to contact an IMDB admin, or talk about how you love gems, and frankly, as long as we have vocal editors, and even administrators who engage in and encourage discussion entirely off the topic of building an encyclopedia, then we can't really expect anything to be done about it, and whether a user there gets blocked boils down to, as far as I can tell, personal opinion on whether they are trolling. For my own part, I think a standard of appropriateness that seems to boil down to "any question whatsoever that can in any way be responded to in a way that includes a wikilink", is a bar that is somewhat beneath the project. But hey, maybe one day I too will have a gratuitous question about my genitals, and there'd be no reason to cough up that co-pay when I know the ref desk is just a click away and happy to help. TimothyJosephWood 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an administrator. Merely a wiki-peon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I stand corrected. I suppose I see you around here enough that I assumed. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User uploading copyrighted videos

    Ju English (talk · contribs · uploads) has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted videos and other materials, either not licensing them or leaving out fair use rationales. The lack of use (not even in userspace) leads me to suspect WP:NOTREPOSITORY. In addition to the CSD warnings, I gave a sterner one this morning, and the user has continued to upload. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another user: Arlindo gomes Arlindo (talk · contribs · uploads) — Train2104 (t • c) 06:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Possible block evasion - Junior De Almeida (talk · contribs · uploads) - see File:Seiren_-_primeiras_caricias.pdf — Train2104 (t • c) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked both Ju English and Junior De Almeida for socking per DUCK pending the conclusion of an SPI case. I am not sufficiently confident about Arlindo gomes Arlindo's possible relationship to the other two accounts to block them for socking. However, I have posted a level 4 warning, which I am guessing will be ignored, on their talk page. The next time they upload a non-free image I will block them. If you think this is the same person feel free to add them to the SPI investigation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suspect the third account of sockpuppetry, it was just another video-uploader to be dealt with. Can you delete the uploads/userpages of the blocked users? — Train2104 (t • c) 17:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 1 week. The files appear to have already been tagged for deletion which works for me. Let the clock run. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ad Orientem: and others: I got a little suspicious when I saw the aforementioned instructional video on how to upload, and went digging around ca-wp. I found this thread on their version of ANI, which links similar issues to cross-wiki WP:ZERO abuse. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Many IPs with KCBS-TV and Paul Magers

    Recently, there was a brief edit warring with me and the adding of Paul Magers which is a KCBS anchor. Although he is an anchor for KCBS-TV, he does not have an article. Only names that do have articles can be put into the article! See the talk page on KCBS-TV for more information. This is a list of IPs that keep adding Paul Magers.

    107.77.209.202, 73.94.201.224, 2605:e000:3d4b:b900:fdd0:844e:8f55:6117, 2601:601:8701:f3ae:d02f:118:ef5e:2e03

    Not every TV station mentions main anchors. I may need to get a page-protection request. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add names that don't have articles, why not? This isn't RFPP, but if it was, your request would probably be declined. El_C 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and WP:NOTNOTABLE ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNOTABLE is an essay about AfD voting. Per LISTBIO and SOURCELIST, individual people in a list must only require sourcing that they belong on the list, not that they are independently notable. In particular, the standards for the anchor being included in the list is no greater than the standards for him being included elsewhere in the article in prose (which he is, twice), and the standards for him being included is simply WP:V (a reliable source must say he is an anchor for him to be included). Especially note the sentence in LISTBIO that says On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable. which would seem to apply here. I found a couple good sources that state Magers belongs on the list, so I will add him along with those sources and post this message on the talk page as well. Pinguinn 🐧 06:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate revision deletion at Beating of Ken Tsang

    On 24 February User:Diannaa, an administrator, amended some content at Beating of Ken Tsang that they alleged had been "copied" from the cited source. The content allegedly copied amounted to the phrases "Chinese state mouthpiece People's Daily" and "sentencing of the seven officers". The administrator then warned my on me talk page for copyright violations.

    I explained on my talk page that I had accidentally reused the two phrases, but did not "copy" them – and considering that I have wrote most of the 24,000 byte article and the rest of it wasn't "copied", I do not consider this a blatant instance of copyright violation. Many other news sources refer to the People's Daily or its subsidiary Global Times as a "state mouthpiece" (i.e. BBC, Quartz). In Chinese the case is known as the "seven police officers case" (七警案) and the phrase "seven officers" is widely used in English media also.

    Anyway, while I reject the accusation of "copying", I accepted the admin's edits. Then this morning I find that the admin has hidden 17 revisions of the page under the Wikipedia:RD1 criterion.

    RD1 cannot apply in this instance. For one, it is not a "blatant" copyright violation. Secondly, the revision deletions remove "attribution to non-infringing contributors", meaning RD1 cannot be used in this case. Citobun (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I can see the names of the editors just fine. Only the revision text was hidden, not the usernames, which if memory serves is the key point here. The text is definitively identical, so copyright concerns definitively exist. Whether a revision deletion for one small paragraph is called for I am not certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cliffmore might need a review

    I'm loathe to "report" someone, but I've got a strange feeling by looking at their contribution history and think some eyes would help. What drew my attention was this edit. Please look at the images in question. This change is bordering troll territory.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur that there seems to be a pattern here. I'll leave the user (who recently blanked his or her talk page) a note. El_C 08:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a rather rubbish choice of infobox image, but I've seen worse. How about Kay Burley? Cliffmore may have thought "This image of Madeleine Albright is better because it's more up to date", which is a common line of reasoning with infobox images. Overall, I don't think that the edits by Cliffmore were vandalism, although they may have been unhelpful.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    S/he is replacing official images with ones that are either unflattering or where the image is positioned to appear as if it's viewing the article. Subtle, I know. El_C 08:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox images are a notorious trouble spot. I'm not a great fan of the official portrait of Hillary Clinton because of the wide eyes and forced grin, but this is how politicians often appear in their official photos. With a famous person, there will usually be many images to choose from on Commons, but the best policy is to ask on the talk page before changing the infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I told the user. He is to use talk pages from now on. El_C 09:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can remember when we were having near daily revert wars over the infobox image in Michael Jackson. The more high profile the article, the more important it is to discuss a proposed change on the talk page and get a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a different type of situation, where the image selection is used as a provocation. El_C 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to help out and update more recent photos of people since all of the people in question have aged very much since their current photo was taken. Pretty obvious - not a troll. - Cliffmore
    Please use article talk pages to propose changes to images from now on. El_C 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant misuse of WP:AIV and Twinkle by new editor

    User:Vnonymous has demonstrated time[39] in[40] and time[41] again[42] that they do not understand correct procedure for warning users, when it's appropriate to use Twinkle warning templates, or using WP:AIV to report vandalism. Administrator intervention is needed, as the editor does not understand the responsibility involved with using tools such as Twinkle, as shown in unheeded warnings such as this[43]. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's filing inappropriate reports, maybe someone could point him toward the Counter-Vandalism Unit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. Also, pointing the user to Wikipedia:Vandalism and helping to educate them on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism would be helpful as well. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah Except they are not responding to inquiries regarding their edits. Other editors have already tried. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the user is responding to messages and edits made on their talk page. I do see one message on the user's talk page here regarding a revert to vandalism that he didn't warn the editor for, but I don't see any others nor do I see any notices about bad reports left at AIV by the user. Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: I'd be willing to mentor the user in fighting vandalism, if they agree to be mentored. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ThePlatypusofDoom - EXCELLENT!!! Right on, dude!!! This is the exact solution that we need here; it'll give mentoring to the user and help them to learn and become experienced, and it'll address the concerns reported here. Vnonymous, what do you think? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the late response, as I thought I had already added this comment. I questioned the motives of above said editor on an questionable AIV report they left. They failed to respond to that, the request on their talk page left by User:L3X1 regarding template warnings, as well the ANI notice I left regarding this case. Checking their editing history, I see they are still active, yet they do no respond to any pings, talk page notices, or attempts to notify the editor of questions about their editing. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: I agree with you, and Platypus's offer is very much appreciated, and your elation thereat is understandable given how rare such offers are around these parts, but ... you should probably tone it down a bit. The above really looked to me like sarcasm on the first and second read-through and the only reason I didn't call you out for it was because I put far more brainpower than should be necessary into figuring out that you were sincere. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) My most sincere and humble apologies are owed to anybody who may have misinterpreted my previous response above as sarcasm in any way. I give you my promise and my assurance that I sincerely meant every word that I said above and was not trying to belittle or engage in mockery. Hijiri88 pretty much hits it right on the head -- offers to mentor and educate other editors like this (even if their intentions are questionable or even seem to be in bad faith) aren't common around here, and I guess it's sad in a way that giving ThePlatypusofDoom a well-deserved shout-out for doing this may have been interpreted as sarcasm or belittling at first glance. However, it was not; ThePlatypusofDoom made a genuine offer that I honestly felt deserved genuine gratitude and a "high five", and my response above was me giving him that well-deserved gratitude :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello everyone. I first want to say that Boomer Vial's first link won't load for me, it brings up the editing form. I also wished to comment on my uw-warn that I gave Vnonymous. In my anti-vandalism efforts I tend to dislike when other editors haven't warned the offender, as it makes a successful AIV less likely, and takes up a lot of my time going through the suspect's contribs checking to see if they have vandalised before.[1][2][3][4]. I even templated myself![5] If the user in question is making bad AIV reports, would placing a uw-AIV on their talk page be correct? It certainly is strange that the user would continue edit and ignore everything on their talk page, unless he feels that it doesn't not require his attention. Thanks L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgar181&oldid=767436540
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamtt9&oldid=766211841
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epinoia&oldid=760755177
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IdreamofJeanie&diff=prev&oldid=766211930
    5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:L3X1&diff=763934636&oldid=763934562

    L3X1 Apologies about the bunk diff, I mixed up the order in which the links were supposed to be posted, which are to be included with the relevent diffs provided above. Here[44][45] are the correct links that I meant to post. Looking at it now, the AIV cases seems to be more of an mentality of "I don't like your edits, so I'll report you to AIV under the guise of vandalism". Thank you, L3X1, for noting the strangeness in their disregard of the most recent posts to their talk page, in particular the ones regarding questionable edits on their behalf. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 188.68.0.130

    User 188.68.0.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous edits by adding, unsourced, same name edits to various organisations detail. This is clearly vandalism, which I have reverted and warned IP - but IP keeps re-inserting. Suggest a block and further warning. Thank you.David J Johnson (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block: Accoding to the IP's contributions, it states clear that it is repeatedly posting unnecessary content, mostly on the TMX Group article. SportsLair (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP appears to be same person as 24.140.238.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), exactly same "edits" with same name wrongly inserted. David J Johnson (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP is now using 95.85.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the same vandalism. David J Johnson (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More ip reported: @37.200.67.62:. please protect all stock exchange articles as he use different ip to vandal. Matthew_hk tc 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to have gone stale, report at WP:AN/I if vandalism starts again, if it is targeted at specific pages try WP:RPP. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment by user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS

    Admin intervention asked for and provided: 1. that warning by jps came out of the blue and is unwarranted. I suspect it's a cumulative kind of thing, jps having taken issue with some of Chris55's article edits and comments on the talk page; the matter of the ape ("it is very similar") does indeed smack of OR, but that doesn't warrant a "final warning". jps obviously could have chosen a more effective, diplomatic, and collegial way to express their concern. 2. there is no need for any admin action, besides, perhaps, a keen eye on the talk page and possibly involvement with an AE case. There is no harassment here; "feeling threatened" by an editor giving a warning is not harassment. Chris55 is also reminded of the basic truth that jps does not have administrative tools. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am feeling threatened by this user who has given me a "final warning" of blocking for placing a picture on a page with this edit. Since the picture is very similar to a number of photos published in the scientific articles cited in that section I can only interpret his action as trying to enforce the removal of the photo (which he has done) by bullying. Chris55 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has been warned a number of times about their editing with respect to WP:ARBPSCI. Since this is a matter relevant to arbitration-imposed discretionary sanctions, the correct place to discuss this would be WP:AE. jps (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth
    • I'm sorry, but what? Cue article saying: Most primates naturally walk on two feet when wading in deeper water...and cue image of A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth which is almost verbatim from the image description from the Public Library of Science, This adult female gorilla in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, northern Congo, uses a branch as a walking stick to gauge the water's depth So... exactly what part of this was original? Or are we just knee-jerk reverting and templating with a level four warning for an apparently on-topic image that apparently faithfully reproduces the information from the source? TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The original research bit is that the picture has nothing to do with proving/disproving the AAH. Its just a gorilla wading. Likewise the source of the picture is nothing to do with AAH. Its essentially using a picture of an ape in water to lend credence to the AAH. The 'not completely out of scope' bit I referred to earlier was that it is directly in a section about primates wading.. and the picture is indeed, a wading primate. Personally I wouldnt have used it, its the sort of lazy 'look here is a picture of someone/thing doing it! it must be true!' more suited to tabloids than an encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I gotta say that while I'm not expert on the evolutionary history of primates, to give someone a "final warning" for this, which is by no means OR in any sense of the term, is wrong. There may be other valid reasons to not include the image in the article, but this is WP:BRD stuff, not WP:AN/WP:BLOCK stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}
    So is there an actual diff where the user claims this picture proves something, or is that just a blatant assumption of bad faith? TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is (justifiably in some cases) in short supply at the AAH article at the moment. There has been a recent influx of the lunatic fringe. (See Fringe noticeboard and elwsewhere). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm going to take that as a no, that there actually isn't a diff where the user claimed this picture proved something. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've added no other content wrt that picture. I just happened across it on a Smithsonian site on the same subject giving credit to Wikicommons. Mentioning the stick was purely in the interests of accuracy but it's irrelevant in the context. Chris55 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That you have the audacity to continue to argue that your original research is worthy of inclusion in an article under discretionary sanctions is amazing. If I see you continuing, I will be recommending some sort of remedy from WP:AE.[47] Yes, clearly on the same page of...threatening to take someone to AE over a picture. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I don't see any indication that you and Chris55 are "on the same page now" (if that were so he wouldn't have filed this ANI). I do not see any indication whatsoever of any attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. I do see that you escalated the confrontation on the user's talkpage after you issued the final warning: [48]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would point out that an ip, possibly jps, has once again removed the picture after it became the subject of this complaint and was restored by an admin. Chris55 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well as I have been mentioned.

    I mentioned in my ANI that this user has a long history of abusing other users. This is not just about this one incident (and I note this is going the same way as the last ANI against this user "but this is only one incident, we cannot block for one incident". It is not about one incident, it is about a pattern on behavior going back years. So this user is not going to get any real meaningful sanction and will go away with this attitude expressed here "expect me to resist you in Fringe articles quite often. You're not the first editor who has insisted on such a philosophy, but I pride myself on surviving where many of the rest of them have left or been shown the door". He does not think the rules apply to him (that is clear form my interaction with him) and that he treats ANI's (and AE) as another tool in his pseudoscience. Frankly this is a joke now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose block

    Clearly rejected. Seems that jps has been a bit of a m:DICK but understands it. A proposal for a restriction on user warnings might be more likely to fly. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I propose a block of no less than six months for 9SG.../jps.

    1. The user already has a block log as long as my arm, including I count four indeffs.
    2. It's been all of two weeks since they were last brought to ANI over the 14th stupidest edit war in recent memory.
    3. They are, as far as I can tell, reliably reported here almost monthly for something, usually some form of incivility.
    4. They clearly don't give a damn, and no one with a block log like that needs or deserves yet more final warnings, on top of the ones they've already ignored.

    I struggle to find a user who's been given more WP:ROPE by the community, and I'm all ears if someone has a better example, but otherwise support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Timothyjosephwood, I assume this is for 9SG.../jps? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Clarified. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Whilst the "final warning" on Chris55's page is clearly excessive (and jps really needs not to do that again), I would have removed the image myself as it does veer towards WP:OR. As the image detail says, the image is there not to illustrate that an ape can happily wade in water, but that they can use a tool - a stick - to help themselves do so. Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth. Use of the image without context does present itself to the reader as "Look, an ape wading in water, this backs up the hypothesis" - which it of course it doesn't. A warning (which has already been given) is enough here. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How you get original research out of the image is beyond me, and as far as I can tell is basically the same thing as saying we should remove the image from Chiropractic#Treatments, because showing a chiropractor and a patient clearly somehow indicates that it is an effective medical treatment. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth." That's not what the journal article says: the ape waded all the way up to her waist. Only then did she go back out to get a long stick to poke the area in front of her, to either test the firmness of the swamp floor or measure depth beyond that point [49]. Chris55 points out on his usertalk that "Similar drawings/photos are given in all the scientific papers cited (e.g. Niemitz, 2002, Niemtitz, 2010, Kuliukis 2011) but are copyright. That one happened already to be in WikiCommons." [50]. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Without context, the image is still useless. As would any image of a hominid in water. We know that hominids are not totally averse to water, that brings nothing new to this pseudoscientific theory. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is... actually completely irrelevant, even if there wasn't an entire paragraph of context, which there is. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that paragraph, apart from one sentence (the one about bonobos), doesn't actually have any relevance to the image. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I do completely agree that if you ignore the parts about apes wading in water, the image of an ape wading in water is completely irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's clever. Well done. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose jps overreacted badly with their final warning, Chris55 overreacted badly bringing it here, and this makes three for three bad overreactions. No blocks needed for anyone; this discussion stands as enough warning now as to the folly of overreacting.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This has been a long-running issue, across several of their line-noise account names (Just why does an editor have to keep renaming themselves to stop their username being obvious in history logs? Hmmm.). Also see what must be the 13th stupidest edit war, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216#globalsecurity.org, why globalsecurity.org needs to be banned as a source because globalresearch.ca is a bad site. This editor's attitude to others here is just unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose six-month block, but ... jps clearly overreacted, and some sort of sanction might be warranted. As to the edit in question, in my view, in a section titled "Wading and bipedalism", it's appropriate to show an image of a wading biped, so I've just readded the image with a slightly different caption. To which edit, jps has responded on my talk page by suggesting that my edit was "pointy". Paul August ☎ 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And he's right. I'd revert you myself, but I seriously can't be bothered with this nonsense. We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User has had 9 different usernames in 5 years. The last four have been 20-character random-character gibberish. I think this is both UAA territory and evasive, and I suggest a ban on usernames moves and a recommendation that he choose User:Jps and stick to it. I have no comment as yet on the block proposal, but the usernames alone are quite a red flag and problematic. Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:UNCONF this is not a block-on-sight username, you could try WP:RFC/N if you like. I've never heard of a restriction on renames before, and since they did them all properly all their contribs and their block are intact, so nothing is actually hidden, although their block log is an ungodly mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    K6ka said "this is likely the last time we'll be accepting another username change request from you" at the move request (permalink). That sounds reasonable to me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a triviality, its a long term patter of disruptive editing, but either way is fine with me. It's not like there won't be another ANI thread on him in a few weeks. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If something is presented that deserves a long block, I'll totally agree with it. There simply isn't anything here, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This user consistently removes content or makes changes to the AAH page without prior discussion on the Talk page. This involves content which has been on the page for years and was not previously contested by other anti-AAH wiki editors. I second the request to have him blocked please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hardly think you're an impartial judge of article editing on that topic. Your "anti-AAH" editors are more often than not trying to follow WP:FRINGE. --NeilN talk to me 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well of course you would, being one of the proponents of this pseudoscience. I think we'll stick to the opinions of those who aren't involved in trying to insert this type of content into an encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A warning template (more so a final warning) is clearly excessive and not very conducive to discussion. But if we issued six month blocks every time someone posted a warning template that someone objected to, we would rapidly find ourselves out of editors. Personally, I think warning templates for the most part are a bad idea. They are often interpreted as a threat, and sometimes they are merely an empty threat, as in this case, since there was nothing particularly sanctionable about the image in question. Warning templates in edge cases like this lead to conflict escalation rather than resolution. This is a content dispute. jps, don't add any more warning templates, unless you really think repeating the behavior could actually result in sanctions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • TBH, the purpose of the warning was supposed to be indicating that my next stop was/is going to be WP:AE. We don't have a template for that, I tried and failed to find the closest one. jps (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Although 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS seems to have taken the wrong tack here (and he's admitted the error right above this comment, and he's given a reasonable explanation for it), his efforts fall well short of anything that could be reasonably called harassment. Deli nk (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To be clear, my proposal here came in the heels of Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin, which is about the variety of flippant dismissal I've come to expect. Since they've defaulted on one of their two perennial ways of avoiding sanctions, missing the point while apologizing, as we saw in December's episode, (the other of course being ignoring the thread completely as in January's episode), then nothing will surely happen and we can probably just close this and move on with our lives. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why bother, it will only be overturned like every other ban. Frankly this user is never going to be punished, and is going to only get worse as they come to think they are more important then anyone else. This kind of BS will drive users away, as JPs seems to be quite proud of having done in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed editing restriction

    I propose the following:

    user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, aka jps (noting in passing his habit of changing username), is indefinitely banned from placing any warning above level 2 on a user talk page, and from placing more than one warning in respect of any user for any one content dispute, and from opening more than one noticeboard thread in respect of any single content dispute, with the sole exception of 3RR notifications at WP:ANEW.

    I think that balances the obsessive behaviour leading to the issue with the need to protect the project by not placing excessive barriers to managing simple edit warring. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I request that I could also open WP:SPIs when I see suspicious behavior, or are those considered something different than a "noticeboard thread"? If I can file SPIs, I am happy to abide by this restriction whether this proposal passes or not. jps (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he is not going to get a block, so what other solution is there, apart from a slap on the wrist and a solemn promise to behave until the next ANI, when the whole process will be repeated, with the same exoneration's and promises to learn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at this point in time. Either jps fixes the battleground behavior or gives us enough ROPE to actually do something. At the moment, though, we barely have enough to tie the knot. I do have a heavy metal ruler that yall can borrow in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative Proposed editing restriction

    A ban on posting any warnings. A ban on making any pseudoscience edits without first agreement on talk pages. A final final final warning on making PA's. A ban on any further user name changes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I am missing something, up till this point I have said there will be no agreement on action. This is my first proposal here. Could you please provide the diffs for me asking for agreement on anything else?Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asking for four different editing restrictions. Admin A likes options 1 and 3, admin B likes none of them, admin C likes all of them, and admin D thinks that 3 is a crock of shite but likes the rest. Which (if any) are put into place? I'm not saying you can't propose all four measures, I was just questioning the need to have such a different range of proposals in one motion. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I misunderstood. The problem is this user has been banned, they have been warned (Finally, at least three times) they have been given a gentle slap on the wrist. And seem to think that they will always "win". There needs to be a clear and unequivocal message that no they do not have special privileges that mean they can do what the hell they like. I am trying to craft a proposal that covers all their malafactions. The other proposal will not (and does not) do that. Frankly I have no idea what will really work beyond some kind of edit ban on topics and talk pages. This is an attempt to achieve something close to that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, this kind of gratuitous piling on, combined with some nonsense accusations, is seriously frowned upon by administrators and others. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)7[reply]
    No. I'm not doing this song and dance where we try to craft out a restriction that requires its own table of contents, and try to haggle for the best sanction we can get. If the community doesn't support actual sanctions, then they don't. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually like the ban on further namechanges. The nature of the names, compounded by the changes, is just annoying, and if it's not designed to create awkwardness for people trying to ping you or find your page to post on, etc, jps (I actually can't be arsed to create a ping, arghh), then I wish you'd explain what it is designed for. I've read the explanation on your userpage and am unimpressed. ("I prefer to be judged on the quality of my contributions rather than the name of this account." Bah.) I'd actually welcome one more change, to a name that is possible to remember and spell, and then no more.
    That said, I strongly oppose any kind of editing restriction. I completely agree with User:Black Kite's sentiment above: We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality.. Or banned, or otherwise impeded. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Springchickensoup disruptive and not engaging in consensus building

    A range of problems are still apparent despite >3,500 edits over three months and lots of editors attempting to give feedback. All of this is pretty disruptive.

    1. Deletion of article talk page content. Described simply as "edit"[51] [52] which Ghmyrtle picked up. Mass archiving of talk pages then followed at articles which didn't need archiving,[53] thus blanking talk pages; also directing the bot to wrong articles [54], [55]. Mutt Lunker questioned these actions [56] but had an inadequate response,[57] and they didn’t clear up the mess (deleting links to archives rather than restoring talk page material).[58])

    2. Repeatedly using uninformative or false edit summaries. Advice given back in December [59] and again in February by MusikAnimal [60] but quick return to summaries like "edit" [61], [62] and "update".[63]

    3 Not signing comments on talk pages (not including proper details or including the details of other editors), I raised with them in December [64] but it is still going on [65] [66], Springchickensoup even going back to remove their details [67] and responding with hostility, e.g. Talk:Dunoon. I raised this with this editor[68], so did PamD[69] and then me again.[70]

    4. Edit warring rather than BRD. This was happening in December [71] but is still going on.[72]

    5. Persistently adding inappropriate or non-existent categories. I raised this in December [73] then January [74] [75] but this has continued [76]

    6. Failure to discuss. One instance of Mutt Lunker raising issues led to being taken to ANI in February Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#.28Moved from AN.29 - Inappropriate behaviour. Feedback given by Kendall-K1 was scorned [77] then an odd report filed at UfAA [78]. After offering advice J3Mrs was also rebuked.[79] Springchickensoup’s talk page's history has been blanked of criticisms several times, e.g. 23 Feb 2017[80], 5 Feb 2017[81], and 18 Dec 2016[82].

    7. Repeatedly adding navboxes which do not relate to the page on which they are placed, e.g.[83], readded [84] and [85]

    8. Unconstructive editing of infoboxes, such as distance of miles to two decimal places, or location by centimetre. Raised by Jellyman [86], PamD[87], Twiceuponatime[88] and others offered advice too[89]. Again the response was hostile and evasive.[90]

    Some of this was also raised at WikiProject Scotland Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Enthusiastic.2C_prolific_editor.2C_but... but Springchickensoup hasn't posted there. In December I brought this to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Springchickensoup hoping for some engagement, but the response was unco-operative and included a groundless revenge complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:drchriswilliams_Now_being_confrontational_and_warring.. It feels like we're running out of things to try. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I endorse Drchriswilliams's summary above. I had no dealings with Springchickensoup until earlier today, when I posted[91] on their talk page about problems with categories which I had encountered while working through Special:WantedCategories. Then something twigged with me that there might be more of a history, so I looked at the user talk page's history and saw lots of deleted content. That turned out to be mostly attempts by other editors to raise problems, and usually being dismissed quite rudely.
    I noted that Chris had made the most recent attempts to engage, so I posted on Chris's talk[92] that it looked to me that there was some sort of there is some sort of NOTHERE/IDHT/COMPETENCE problem. I followed that up with a brief summary[93] of the issues I had seen. Congrats to Chris for doing the spade-work of putting this together.
    I want to believe that this editor means well, but I see only occasional glimmers of an ability to work consensually, and that is a pre-requisite for editing here. There is a very big problem rate with these edits, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND hostility to other editors makes things uncomfortable as well as unfruitful for those who do try to engage.
    AFAICS, this adds up to a huge net negative. Springchickensoup has already left behind a lot of messes for others to clean up, and unless some brakes are applied, the cleanup list is only going to grow.
    At a minimum, I would suggest some community sanctions, such as: 1RR, requirement to use informative and honest edit summaries, civility warnings, and a requirement to use dispute resolution mechanisms. I wouldn't oppose a block, but am inclined to try a little WP:ROPE first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that I also concur with the above assessments. (Apologies if this repeats some of the points made in the post immediately above as they were evidently being drafted at the same time.) This new user is highly active and clearly has much enthusiasm for the project, but only if absolutely on their terms. The bulk of their considerable number of edits are poorly expressed and drafted, do not conform to MOS, are poorly organised, poorly sourced, non-notable or actively - if often unintentionally - highly disruptive. It is understandable that, as a new editor, their level of ability in editing is limited but they have shown utter contempt for any advice or constructive criticism offered to them by numerous other editors. As noted above, they routinely leave misleading edit summaries, have made significant attempts to obscure critical talk page threads and have brought two vexatious referrals here to ANI in regard to criticism of their editing. Their unwillingness to desist from disruptive patterns of editing, coupled with their huge edit rate has tied up much time and effort of other editors in checking, reverting and vainly attempting to provide feedback, advice and criticism. I fear there is still much of their work to be checked, amended, corrected or outrightly reverted or deleted. They may have made some positive contributions but overwhelmingly they are a significant drain on resources, due to their behaviour. This user's enthusiams could be an asset to the project but after several months without showing an iota of willingness to accept the good faith of others, the point has been reached where it has to be indicated that they can not expect to behave like this and be allowed to continue to participate here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to help this editor on Dunoon for some time, tidying up, pointing out that section headings need proper formatting, and that we write in complete sentences, etc. I've now been included in their general vituperative remarks about destructive editors - ie those who apply Wikipedia norms instead of letting this editor do their own thing. It's getting tedious. Their editing is enthusiastic but unskilled, and they don't like getting advice or help. Mileages to London expressed to two decimal points - their response when I said that whole miles was enough precision was "As for being over-precise, again just nonsense, no distance on Wikipedia is precise as the points the measurements are taken from are not fixed point." which seems like WP:IDHT rather than an editor willing to listen to more experienced helpful editors. See also Talk:Dunoon#What.27s_missing for hostile response to a suggestion on how to improve the article. PamD 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just worked out how I ever got involved: this version of Dunoon, 22 Nov 2016 after Springchickensoup had made a vast number of edits, must have shown up on my notifications as linking to a page I'd created, almost certainly a dab page: it's massively overlinked and looks quite spectacular if you've got dab page links showing in orange as per gadget! PamD 22:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had little interaction with Springchickensoup but have found him confrontational and bizarre. He brought me to UAA with a charge I didn't understand, something about being dead or being three different people, and did not notify me of the discussion. Nothing came of that. None of my interaction with him amounts to anything deserving any kind of sanction, but together with all the stuff reported by Drchriswilliams, some of which I observed but did not participate in, is troubling. I can't really think of what a reasonable response might be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I'd seen Springchickensoup sooner, and I'm sure several people have tried to help them, and yes, their stuff is going to need further cleaning up. But their last edit appears to be db-usering their talk page on Feb. 24 after blanking their user page, so it looks as if they are gone. I did my best with one of their articles and then left a friendly message on their talk page, in case they think again, but I suspect they're gone and that this section is therefore moot. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for offering them some friendly advice. I see you also cleaned up some of the problems at Coylet. Springchickensoup had been approached about these problems already- I raised galleries with them and pointed them towards policy [94] weeks before they created that article.
    While they were involved in two discussions at ANI in December they added the db-user template to their talk page [95] then added a pointy rationale [96] and was promptly offered an explanation about why it would not be erased.[97] At that point they posted a message suggesting they had left, placing a further scornful message on their user page [98] which replaced one from a fortnight before that was also rejecting community input.[99] Springchickensoup returned 23 days later and was immediately adding problematic categories again [100] and then continued making edits at pace. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiThugs on Ahmad Mohamad Clock Incident

    (non-admin closure) OP blocked for 31 hrs. Kleuske (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WikiThugs are trying to obstruct editing on that article, while concealing the fact of that obstruction. They are also repeatedly using their power to 'comment out' discussions that expose material they don't want to see discussed. They are also using threats of blocking to intimidate people who object to their malicious actions. If you want them informed, the staff will do that. I don't know how to. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question is asking for a boomerang; they have repeatedly leveled unsupported speculative insinuations and outright accusations of criminality against a minor child, in the face of repeated warnings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have learned that "boomerang" has come to mean, effectively, on WP as "Retaliating against a person FOR THE SPECIFIC OFFENSE of complaining about other editors' behavior, regardless and without considering the actions of those other editors". That seems to be coming true here, too. And if "blocking" keeps an editor from continuing writing on the WP:ANI, that amounts to further malicious obstruction: What kind of insane system would not only block a person from editing an article, AND block him from editing a Talk page, and STILL AGAIN block him from engaging in a complaint process HE HAS NEVER MISUSED? 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One of many possible examples: here the user describes the article subject (a child) and his family as "terrorist wannabes" - violating BLP, NOTFORUM, RS, SOAPBOX and half a dozen other policies and guidelines. Simply hatting and redacting has not worked, so it's time for this user to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you are pretending that there is some sharp and distinct line between discussing a subject, and discussing the article. I have repeatedly complained about misconduct BY YOU on that article. You ignore it, except you try to conceal it. And you are writing into your own words a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We tried to educate the user about our living persons policy (especially when involving a minor); about observing civility and avoiding personal attacks; about how Wikipedia is not a forum; on how neutrality relies on citing reliable sources and giving them their due weight. All for naught thus far. El_C 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you didn't do that. Another editor merely referred to WP:BLP, but did not apply that policy SPECIFICALLY to the article in question, and not to my comments at all. As if you thought it was somehow self-evident, or that your buddies would back you up without further discussion. Well, maybe you were right in thinking that? Congrats for helping ruin WP. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I did do that. And didn't even mention original research... El_C 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP is clearly WP:NOTHERE and needs a block. IMO the talk page posts need looking at and possible R/D's - though it would take some sifting through. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 31 hours for disruption. It's clear they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and almost anytime anyone starts with "Wiki bullying" almost out the gate, nothing good is going to come from it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Johnpacklambert

    Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering WP:BEFORE [101] [102] [103], has recently nominated a large number of sport-related articles in the same vein. The vast majority have been closed as Speedy Keep or Keep or on their way to it, due to the appropriate notability guidelines and/or GNG not being considered. Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored [116] [117] and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" [118] [119]. Clearly the editor intends to continue this sort of disruptive behaviour and I would request some sort of warning be placed upon him to cease and desist. Not directly related to the issue of sports bio AFDs, but unfortunately has a track record of deleting any attempt to discuss his editing on his talk page rather than engaging in discussion which makes it difficult to address this without escalating the issue. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user also has a habit of ignoring questions to him in the AFD discussions he's started (or participated in). Recent examples are [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127] and [128]. Similarrly, questions on his talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [129] and [130] Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also concerned about this user's AfD nominations and contributions, which have become increasingly spurious, and at times seems to lack any type of research or basic source searches to qualify deletion. In addition to the examples above, see this AfD discussion (full disclosure: I contributed to the discussion), where another user stated that the nominator and JPL "need remedial lessons in how to run a google search". The manner in which the user has been repeatedly asked to discuss valid concerns about their contributions on their talk page (diffs: [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139]), but simply deletes the posts using edit summaries such as "delete rubbish" (diffs: [140], [141], [142]) does not inspire confidence, and I view it as disrespectful and insulting to refer to valid concerns by multiple users as "rubbish". North America1000 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that present, ongoing discussions regarding this user are occurring at User talk:Magnolia677 § Topic from User talk:Johnpacklambert and User talk:PageantUpdater § JPL, again. North America1000 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's time some restrictions or sanctions were levied against JPL for his abuse of AfD. There are a number of disturbing things here:
      1. He's a volume editor, nominating articles faster than the community can assess or fix them,
      2. There are a disturbing number of "clear misses". I'm talking articles that almost no one in the community would ever consider deleting. Articles where a quick perusal of sources necessitates a keep vote.
      3. His editing patterns suggest contempt for certain vocations rather than actual adherence to GNG or to specific notability guidelines. Here, he announces disagreement with certain guidelines. If you're going to nominate articles at the clip he does, you need to understand and adhere to GNG and specific notability guidelines.
      4. There's pretty clearly IDHT when he ignores or deletes comments telling him to stand down.
      5. The last round of mass deletions resulted in a gentleman's agreement where he agreeing to not mass-nom in exchange for not being sanctioned. He's violated said agreement.
    pbp 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ctl-Alt-Del. JPL has a habit of doing something like this periodically. It's tedious and timewasting, but the storm usually passes fairly soon, and then all goes quiet again for another 6 months or a year. So please can somebody within reach just reboot him in safe mode? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't always agree with JPL, but I don't think he needs to be sanctioned. I think he is a good faith editor who disagrees with some of the notability guidelines or tries to push the limits of them on cases where the community isn't willing to play ball. Let him know that the community asks that he refrain from mass nominations and be done with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hasn't that been done before? Part of the problem, is that the community has been trying to engage him, but he ignored comments/questions on AFD pages, and ignores question on his own talk page. When really pushed on his talk page, instead of engaging he blanks. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which achieves precisely nothing. He's already been told that and yet he continues. The issue is not only with the mass deletions - if they were all or almost all spot on there wouldn't be a problem - but with the fact that he is clearly refusing to engage with notability criteria. So if we ignore it as you suggest, this will just happen again in a few months in relation to another topic. It's never ending. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whst everyone is hinting at here and that Drmies has mentioned below if things don't change is a topic ban from AfD. That is a big deal because AfD is a core area of our project. JPL might need to take a break from it for a while, but I would much rather that be his call than a sanction. Based on the actions and some of the comments here I do think he needs to improve, but I don't think a topic ban in necessary yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh flipping heck. I seem to remember a previous issue where JPL was nominating beauty pageant contestants and was at least having a 50/50 success rate. These footballer AfDs are failing badly; whether one believes they are notable or not, they pass our current requirements. Advice to JPL: just stop it, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is precedent for the community telling even very experienced and large contributors to this project, that if they are not willing to abide by the policies and guidelines, then they can not continue to edit. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • JPL usually brings a deletionist mindset to AfD, and his contributions (both noms and !votes) often come across as lazy. It's dangerous to the 'pedia when an editor habitually pushes for deletion without giving the article in question sufficient consideration. It's also troubling that JPL has demonstrated an unwillingness to engage with those who are concerned. Lepricavark (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will try to respond better to comments in the future. However it is often hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative. I am engaging with notability criteria, despite the false claims otherwise. There are huge long lists of what makes a footballer notable, so long lists that one line articles with one internal team source other survive. It is hard to be willing to engage when some of the posts are so insulting and rude.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • John Pack Lambert, your effort is appreciated, though I note that you take back what you gave immediately by blaming other editors. If that effort fails, however, do not be surprised to see a proposal for a topic ban from AfD participation, which I will support. That area is already contentious enough. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you appreciate my efforts then why would you ban me?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read more carefully: if that effort fails. There comes a time when effort isn't enough and we start talking competence. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, your comment below, where you indicated you looked at the guidelines after these nominations, is indicative of...well, you figure it out. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • It indicates human fraility. I not only read multiple times through the long list of professional leagues to make sure that Farukh Abitov had not played on any, I also read through the long descriptor of what qualified as an international competition to pass the notability guidelines. It does not come out and say "if the person has been on a national team they are notable", and the sourcing and information as I read it did not seem to indicate to me that they had played in any games that met the description given in the notability for football description. I will admit I was wrong in this determination. I am trying to be calm in my consideration of this issue. I am sorry for blanking my talk page with an overly quick caustic remark. However it seemed wiser at the time than getting into a discussion on my talk page that was likely to be even more heated. I would point readers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Smith as an example of the very combative arguments sometimes thrown against legitimate and well reasoned attempts to nominate an article for deletion. The general tone of such make it often feel that the best course of action in creating an AfD is to create the AfD and never read it afterword. Especially when they result the way the one on Rosalie Smith did, which was in delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    *PageantUpdater has also engaged in canvassing to try to get more participation in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • CommentI am not the only person who was not fully aware that Kyrkystan's national team was playing at Tier-1 competition level. This caused a lot of discussion on my talk page back and forth. There is an extremely long and complex list of Fully Professional football leagues, and I have consistently tried to review it when making nominations for deletion. I have tried to find the least combative way to respond to comments left on my talk page. Sometimes that is just blanking them out, and letting the discussion on the article in question run its course without saying anything else there. It is very hard to patient and calmly read through multiple attacks on the level of time spent studying a matter. This is even more so the case when PageantUpdater speedy keep voted on some of my hockey nominations with a false assertion that a particular league gave automatic notability for playing, when I had read the explicit guidelines in the notability for hockeyplayers guidelines that explicitly list the leagues that grant such, and do not list that league at all. I will admit I should not have used the term rubbish, but I was frustrated with the harping on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am sorry for my mistakes. I now realize that playing on a national team is generally a sign of notability, although it is sometimes hard to tell if they were at the adult national team or a non-qualifying junior national team. I will seek to fully understand this question before acting in the future. Another issue that has come up relates to players in the Phillipine Basketball League. In those cases it is almost looking like it might be worth considering revising our guidelines since they do not include that league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope I am not coming off as a jerk with this comment as Johnpacklambert has a long and distinguished career here on Wikipedia, however if this editor is unfamiliar or feels confused over the rules of WP:NFOOTY or the notability requirements of other projects, then perhaps he shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. AFD nominations such as these (see here 1, 2, 3,4) while possibly made in good faith aren't helpful to the project. My suggestion is that Johnpacklambert take a break from nominating articles for deletion and resume when he feels refreshed and feels s/he understands the guidelines better. Anyway that is only my opinion, hope it helps thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish when I had first come on Wikipedia I had realized I could put spaces in my name. Even though the way my signature now appears it has spaces, people seem to ignore this. I know this is a minor quibble, but I am part of the group that think all Wikipedia users should have to sign in and use their real names, and the fact that I do not fully comport to this bothers me. I am not sure that saying anything of substance about the issues of the notability guidelines for footballers will be helpful. I have come to better understand the issue with national teams, and have withdrawn a nomination because of this added understanding. On the other hand there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Allen (2nd nomination) which shows that there are in fact articles on non-notable footballers that I am catching.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd like to know why, for the second time in less than a year, it's taken an ANI discussion to get John Pack Lambert to come to the table and discuss his AFD editing. It shouldn't have to come to this. The exact same thing happened with the previous lengthy pageant deletion ANI in September, where numerous editors requests on his talk page to discuss the issue were ignored and/or blanked and the matter thus had to be escalated. In my view his claim to now recognises his "human frailty" etc etc is disingenuous given he showed zero desire to consider the matter until I started this report and in fact described our complaints as "rubbish". There were plenty such opportunities, such as Rikster's request here on 23 February for John Pack Lambert to withdraw a nomination of an Olympian which was ignored. The sports notability guidelines are not rocket science either, being new to the subject I all but had them grasped straight away, except for a fail with WP:NHOCKEY where I later recognised and quickly corrected my error. I'm also not happy that I've been accused of once saying "I [he] should stop commenting on the internet and go wash toilets" by John Pack Lambert which is categorically false. I know that my language over the pageant article issue wasn't appropriate on many occasions but not once did I stoop that low. I am also consistently being called a "he" instead of a "she" which I somewhat understand given it's not obvious from my user page - but I have corrected him on this before. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that perhaps this discussion was coming to a closure. But at the same time, I see that User:Johnpacklambert is continuing to contribute to AFD discussions, and has even started a new one, in the midst of this; not that anything at first blush seems in appropriate, but I'd have thought that at least stopping new AFDs until people can catch up would have been appropriate, recalling WP:NORUSH. I also noticed commentary he made about this ANI [143], [144] referring to it as "an attack" and an "attempt at revenge for my success in getting so many Miss America contestant articles deleted". I can tell you, that if someone else didn't start this ANI, I was about to myself, and it's neither an attack, nor have I ever edited or even read a beauty contest wiki page; I'm concerned that you see this as some kind of vendetta, when there were several people who shared the concern, some of which have not encountered you before. At the same time, you've justified not contributing to AFD discussions you've started because is it "hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative". And yet, I provided a list of explicit request from you for comment, none of which were rude or combative. You haven't indicated why you didn't respond to them. The list was [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152] and [153]. Also, questions on your talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [154] and [155]. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't seen those diffs [156], [157] previously: more than anything I think this proves that he believes his behaviour has been innocent. I'm not quite sure what all the other posters who commented on his AFDs were supposed to be attacking him in vengeance for but I can assure you, other than establishing a pattern of editing the other AFDs were far from my mind, I've long since given that up as a lost cause for all but a few articles. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I find it amusing that I was accused of WP:CANVASSING (later struck out). All I did was notify some of the editors involved in the AFDs with "Given your comments you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnpacklambert in regards to his sports-related AFDs"... I'm not sure how much more neutral one can get. On the other hand, JPL alerted three editors by calling this disturbing, an act of revenge and an attack. I'd like to ask you which is more disturbing? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And intimidation as well. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep trying to be calm about this, but PageantUpdater is the guy who once said I should get off the inerenet and go wash toilets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said anything of the sort and I find that accusation utterly disgusting. I challenge you to prove it and if you are unable to I believe you should be banned for making such an egregious accusation. And how many times do I need to tell you that I am a she not a he? Why do you persist in calling me a guy? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not very far above she denied that she had ever said that, and tried to offer some evidence.[158] Do you have evidence she said that? She also objected to your mischaracterizing her gender. This goes to the root of the problem I think - you are not paying attention (assuming you are not doing it deliberately). Nfitz (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick search [159] indicates that you (JPL) were the only one to have ever said this in the history of the project. Nfitz (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the comment was a direct quote. I should have been clear it was a paraphrase. That being said, since it was not said by PageantUpdater, it does not really matter. However it was a paraphrase, of a comment that meant the same thing but used other words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry. I confused this editor with someone else. That was a mistake. However I had done that confusion some time ago, and it colored my perception of the attacks that were being thrown at me. With the notion in the back of my mind that she was the one who made that comment, which I sincerely apologize for suggesting she made, it caused frustration that caused me to know it was best not to respond to a comment from her. I also did not see the statement on the person being a she. I wish I was better at saying things right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Back in the August nomination also brought by PageantUpdater she said "I will be the first to admit I haven't always handled myself very well in this situation - I've said some things that weren't overly polite". So she herself admits being rude to me. The attempt to characterize nominating a few footballers for deletion because I failed to understand fully what was and was not a Top Tier international participation by the football teams involved as being the same as the issues involved in discussions over the nominations of beauty pageant contestants is just plain inaccurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Sorry, JPL, but the issue kinda is the same. In both cases, you nominated a whole lot of articles for deletion in a very short amount of time, and many of them were "clear misses", articles that would never have been AfDed if you took a few minutes to read them and a few more to read policy and guidelines. You've essentially admitted that you nominated a bunch of footballers before fully reading and understanding the footballers' notability guideline. That's bad. Very bad.
      2. PageantUpdater (or anybody else) saying something you don't like doesn't excuse your actions. Especially when you often give worse than you get. Witness your struck-through comments above.
    pbp 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing I have said above is meant to say that I was wise or prudent or acted in the best way in my nomination of the articles of footballers for deletion. I see now that the bar for international play and national team membership is lower than I thought at first. I am not sure there is anything I can do to help this situation. I really hate my inability to show sincerity in typing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have already mentioned above, here. You still clearly fail to understand what the issue is. It's not so narrow as you failing to understand what is and isn't a Tier 1 football competition, it's that you took on a subject matter you were not familiar with and went on a nominating spree without doing appropriate research to see if your nominations were valid. I'm a football fan and even I didn't know what a Tier 1 competition was, but it was pretty easy to find out. Going beyond that one specific AFD though, there are at least ten other examples of you nominating articles which quite clearly meet the notability standards, and that even when numerous editors tried to get you to slow down and reconsider your nominations you refused to withdraw the nominations or address the editors' concerns and continued on regardless. You have a pattern of being quick to judgement, as evidenced by the accusation you made about me which was clearly false, and which I had already told you was false - and I daresay by your bringing up my comment about my behaviour as if it is some sort of new thing to sting me with, when I myself had already admitted it openly here. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not simply the notability of international players that was off. JPL's nomination of Juan Pablo Andrade showed a complete lack of research into the subject as there were two English language sources already listed in the article that showed he had played numerous times in a fully professional league to pass notability guidelines. Kosack (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I haven't had any knowledge of or interaction with John Pack Lambert prior to the three articles on basketball players that he recently nominated, but after learning of his long history of noncompliance and his overriding unwillingness to adjust his editing behavior – or even to take meaningful responsibility for why he is the subject of an ANI, as seen in these very comments – I agree with several users above that we've reached the point where some sort of sanction that restricts his access to the AfD process is necessary. The repeated recidivism and dismissal of other editors' legitimate complaints about his anti-collaborative editing posture are very troubling. This is far from being merely a recent problem. João Do Rio (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have admitted I was wrong in some instances. I have said I will try to do much better in the future. I will point out that nominating an article for AfD is inherently a collaborative process. It brings the most scutiny to the article. There are other avenues to seek deletion that are much less collaborative. This is not to say my acrions in doing so we always fully thought out. It is to say that calling such nominations a non-collaborative effort is higgly questionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi all, thanks for all of your input in this discussion but I feel the issues have been well addressed enough already. All the issues and concerns of John Pack Lambert's editing have already been voiced and the editor has apologized multiple times already for these instances. Whether or no John Pack Lambert changes his behavior is up to him, that is not something I or anyone else can change. I suggest per WP:DROPTHESTICK that people stop with this complaining of this editor unless it is new information. Many editors with long and dignified histories on Wikipedia are taking part in this discussion and it would be a great shame if any of them had ill feelings or stopped editing because of this discussion. Anyway that is just my opinion thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate

    AFAICS, there are two problems here: a) JPL not doing enough WP:BEFORE on AFDs, b) JPL opening too many AFDs too fast.

    These two problems are inter-related. The speed of operation detracts from JPL's ability to scrutinise the articles, and the lack of scrutiny helps him work fast. So it's chicken-and-egg, and it doesn't matter which is at the root of it.

    Slowing down John Pack Lambert's AFD-rate will also help the community better digest whatever he does nominate.

    To keep things simple, I suggest starting with a limit of 1 AFD per day. That is, JPL may nominate at AFD a maximum of 1 article in any given calendar day, determined by UTC. If JPL, wants to nominate a group of articles in one discussion, they must refrain from any further AFDs for the same number of days as the count of articles nominated.

    The precise number could be reviewed upwards or downwards in future. But one per day means no more days like 26 February, where JPL started about a dozen AFDs, including about 5 or 6 inappropriate footballer AFDs. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose This is an unreasonably low participation limit. An extremely indeoth well reasearched and fully vetted fD nomination can be done in an hour or a little more and that involves extremely well researched. I admit I acted too rashly on some of my football related AfDs. I admit I should have studied the issues in more depth. I promise to in the future seek to better understand any and all articles before I make an AfD nomination. I think creating anexplicit participation limit especially one that is so low is just plain unwise. For one tging this nomination ignores the record from my contributions back in November. There were some days that month I made quite a few deletion nominations that were well thought out, made with unquestioned understanding of the issues at hand and resulted in deletes. Formal limits like those proposed here are overly burdensome. I have been responding to each ping put on my account for the last few hours. I have been seeking to better understand our inclusion policies. I know some people look at my actions as pleading for another chance but I have to say I think it is worth giving another chance. For one thing the footb a ll nominations were made with a clear desire to understnd the scope and breadth of the meaning of fully professional leagues. I was trying to engage with the issues at hand. I have been drying to respond to every ping on my comments made over the last several hours. I think it is much better to allow editors to demonstrate a true desire to abide by the rules than to create overly restrictive limits on their activity. I think such a very soecif never ending and overly binding ban is just not reasonable. I am really, really sorry for reacting so defensively at times. I am trying to be a less contentious contributor. However a fixed limit of one AfD per day is just way way too low. I have shown an ability to create more than that that meet or exceed any demands for comprehensiveness in a day. I am the first to admit I should have acted more wisely with the football AfDs and not been so quick to take offense at my nomination being called ridiculous. I do not think a limit of one AfD per day is at all reasonable. I really think I should be given a chance to show that I have internalized a desire to do better before action ro put such stringent limits on my editing is taken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • JPL, that all sounds well-and-good, and I am sure that it is sincere ... but the problem is that this is far from being the first time that you have gone on an ill-considered AFD splurge, and far from being the first time that you have eventually given never-happen-again promises at ANI. It is now clear that the community's patience is being exhausted.
        So I proposed this as a more modest restraint than the outright AFD ban which others seek, and as one which would give you the opportunity to come back in a few months and demonstrate that you had been learnt how to use AFD responsibly. So this is giving you another chance. I don't think that unrestrained AFDing is a viable option right now; I don't see the support for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that there are no restrictions in participating in other AFDs, or even PRODding articles (which might be a better option for some of the sure-fire ones such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Allen (2nd nomination). You can also always ask another editor to AFD an article - it's easy to see in a particular project which editors frequently AFD articles. I suppose bulk prodding can be a problem, but at least it's a lot easier to undo, and wouldn't create as much work as all the AFDs - and bulk prodding the wrong articles a lot could well up in a trip here. Nfitz (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Would've suggested the same thing myself if BHG hadn't. Would also consider it JPL's "last chance" to participate productively at AfD. pbp 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as I think this is much more reasonable than a full topic ban, which I was afraid was going to be proposed. It will allow JPL to still participate in AfD, but also address the community's concerns. I would suggest that it be stated that JPL is free to appeal to AN at some reasonable time for the lifting of the restrictions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - with the ban to be reviewed after 6 months. I think a 1 AFD/day limit is reasonable so that JPL can better concentrate on the required "Before" activity when proposing an AFD; and that he has the time to collaborate and respond to comments, questions and discussion during each AFD. Evidence of prior research and collaboration during AFDs can be provided after six months to request a lifting of the ban. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as CactusWriter observed, this ban will enable JPL to focus more closely on each of his nominations. JPL should also be admonished to cut out the canvassing and the bogus accusations. Lepricavark (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This sounds reasonable to me. Some sort of restriction needs to be put in place; we've heard the "I won't do it again" back in September and clearly we can't hold him at his word. The fact that he refused to discuss it or show any sign of understanding there was a problem until it came to ANI still needs to be addressed in my opinion, I believe it negates any supposed contrition he has that he is only accepting the problem here and now. Describing this ANI as an "attack", "vengeance" and "intimidation" only reinforces this. I'm not sure how it should be done but some sort of Insistence that he engage with concerns other editors have brought to his talk page, instead of blanking or ignoring it, would be helpful. And I would also appreciate some sort of recognition here (ie not by JPL) that the behaviour towards me - blanking my messages by calling them "rubbish", the false accusation here, the wording in the canvassing etc - is unacceptable. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: As a completely involved party, on the surface this appears to be someone badly unfamiliar with the procedures of this website. At worse, this might even be some kind of prank. A lot of the protestations, claims of innocence, and pleas to other users to "support their cause" [160] are very reminiscent of other past problems we've had with some big time problem accounts (like this one, for instance). Fully support a ban on AfD activities until the user can show they know how to utilize the feature and perhaps also if the account can be verified as a legitimate editor and not an account specifically created to cause problems in this area. -O.R.Comms 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the above, though I would suggest that a flat one nomination per day rule would work better than balancing additional nominations with extra days of 0 nominations. Failing that, I would suggest flipping the standard - if JPL wishes to bulk nominate 5 similar articles, then they should do so only after 5 days of no nominations. Front-load the skip days, so to speak. But that all might be overly complex. My suggestion to JPL is to engage with other editors and work on better understanding our inclusion policies by discussing those policies, not by engaging in trial and error with the AFD process. There is no deadline - if no one else is nominating the articles that you would be nominating (but for the restriction), then perhaps waiting a day isn't going to hurt anything. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support - Mass-nominating over 60 articles at AfD in once day (on February 26, 2017) is beyond extreme behavior and begs the question whether those actions were part of some strategy to "right great wrongs" on Wikipedia, which is not what we are here to do. This user has also mass-nominated around or above 20-30 articles at AfD in one day several times over the last year or so...so this isn't new behavior at all. Also, it's been said many times that AfD is not cleanup - so that's not a valid defense for this kind of behavior at AfD.
    The fact that this user has also basically attempted to canvass several other users about this "attack" (in his words, not mine) AN/I thread indicates to me that just about anything said by this user here in this thread that appears "contrite" is likely an act now that they've been "caught". IMO, it's past time that this user's behavior at AfD be sanctioned in order to stop this kind of disruptive behavior in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I feel like Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. I have interacted with Johnpacklambert on hundreds of AfDs, particularly on biographies of rap musicians, and my impression is that he has an excellent grasp of notability guidelines. User:PageantUpdater left this message on Johnpacklambert's talk page where she flagged what has come to be known as the "inappropriate footballer AFDs". The first link in her comment regarded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov. Mr. Abitov's AfD was a speedy keep, though I shake my head to see why it was "speedy", and how Johnpacklambert was in any way negligent or vexatious with his nomination. Have a look at this subsequence discussion about Mr. Abitov's notability, which ended up on my talk page. What I found most disturbing was that PageantUpdater seemed to have voted "speedy keep" only because Johnpacklambert had initiated the nomination (see this discussion). Next, I ran "Johnpacklambert" and "PageantUpdater" through the Editor Interaction Analyser just to get a random and typical example of one of Johnpacklambert's deletion nominations. The second AfD in the list was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Addis, where he wrote 13 lines of text to support his AfD. How is this a sloppy editor? In my opinion, Johnpacklambert has chosen not to write articles about butterflies and sports cars, but has instead chosen to do tons and tons of AfD's, the dirtiest job on Wikipedia. In doing so, he has dashed the dreams of hundreds of aspiring rappers and beauty queens (and angered the authors of their articles), but he has also, in my opinion, very much strengthened the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magnolia677: I think it's inaccurate to paint this just as a feud between PageantUpdater and JPL. JPL's talk page history is riddled with numerous other editors asking him to stop his behavior at AfD. Abitov was closed as speedy keep because a lot of other editors other than PageantUpdater voted "keep" or "speedy keep" with clear, policy-based reason. As for Kristi Addis, despite JPL's nomination being long, the article was still easily kept, because, even though the nomination was long, it still didn't get an adequate grasp of the relevant policies, nor of the article's sourcing. pbp 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. These sports-related articles were/have been in large part unanimously voted to be kept, taking me out of the picture the result would be the same. As for Magnolia's accusation that "PageantUpdater seemed to have voted "speedy keep" only because Johnpacklambert had initiated the nomination"... this is a gross misunderstanding and one I have already clarified a number of times. I couldn't sleep (unrelated) and spent half the night researching sports leagues and players so I could be confident in my votes to keep or speedy keep. Certainly not all votes were speedy keep, only those where there was notability clearly established that JPL had plainly overlooked - others where my vote was based on GNG were voted !Keep. I even voted !Delete on one. Yes I looked through his nominations, because once I'd read two or three it became obvious to me that others were likely flawed as well and needed addressing. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov was closed as a Speedy Keep because it was clear that the article fully passed WP:NFOOTY. The discussion and its closing had nothing to do with the fact that John Pack Lambert nominated it or the editors who took part in the deletion discussion, rather just per WP:SNOW because there was obviously no point in keeping the AFD going when every body felt a speedy keep was the way to go. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Looking through his recent edits and comments, I think Johnpacklambert wants to do the right thing, though it appears he can get carried away. I don't think this has to be a particularly long restriction. And there's lots of ways to continue to participate in a similar manner to what he has been doing. He can still comment at AFD. He can ask other editors to AFD articles that he identifies. He could even Prod articles (which might save everyone some time, assuming they are arguably not notable). I'm a bit concerned that this might demoralize him and drive him away from the project, as there is value on much of what he does. But it doesn't have to be that way. Perhaps with less AFDs, he'll have more time to participate in the discussions he's already started, which makes it easier to learn from them (and we all learn from these discussion that we start). Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The article Farukh Abitov falls far short of what is expected for a BLP. There doesn't seem to be a good objective reason to give football players a free pass in this regard as compared with other professions. Compare, for example, James McCown – a far better sourced article about someone who is long dead, which is still having to justify its existence. Andrew D. (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is merely an opinion on the policy. You might disagree with the policy but that is not the issue here, and regardless of your opinion on it, that is what the community has agreed upon and what the AFDs currently should be judged upon. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Farukh Abitov is a stub. There's nothing in there that is factually incorrect. It's referenced. It very clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The key issue that Johnpacklambert failed to apply WP:BEFORE, which requires that D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The simplest of searches would have confirmed that he had many appearances for the Kyrgyzstan national football team easily passing WP:NFOOTBALL. But if was all about this article, we wouldn't be here. There have been many, many recent AFDs - and this is one of the better ones to tell the truth - and likely why Johnpacklambert raised this particular one in his defence, as it was referenced - unlike several other, where the references to prove notability were already in the article. Any individual AFD wasn't terrible. But the sum total of them, many not being very good, with the consistent lack of research, following WP:BEFORE, and then ignoring any issues raised in the discussion is why we are here - and why he's previously been here at ANI. The comparison to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McCown doesn't work as McCowan clearly fails WP:SOLDIER, and one has to rely on WP:GNG, which is harder to research and establish. To be comparable, McCowan would have had to have passed WP:SOLDIER but still nominated at AFD because the nominator didn't understand WP:SOLDIER despite having been in previous AFDs where WP:SOLDIER was clearly explained to him. Nfitz (talk)
    Farukh Abitov is notable, but to say the article "very clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL" is disputable. This discussion shows that determining if Abitov's team met the notability standards was not so simple. I'm not convinced this was in any way a bad faith edit by Johnpacklambert. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was such a great nomination, why did so many people go the other direction so quickly? pbp 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Magnolia677 the issue isn't whether John Pack Lambert is making edits in bad faith, its whether the editor understands WP:BEFORE and the notability requirements of the articles that are being nominated for deletion. If s/he and/or you disagrees with WP:NFOOTY or the notability of other WikiProjects, then the issue should be raised at the WikiProject's respectful talk pages. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Magnolia677 - He had 15 caps for his nation. Unless you know nothing about international WP:FOOTBALL, it's very clear that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Johnpacklambert has been editing for over a decade, and has contributing AFDs in the football area for months. In particular he AFDed 18 articles on August 15 and 16, 2016. In particular see - it's exactly the same thing. 15 appearances for his nation (the Solomon Islands national football team). (In the other 17, he claimed they didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL because they hadn't played professionally - but all 17 had and were kept - we've had examples of that as well this week). So not only is he familiar with the project, not only has he encountered this criteria before, but he ALSO was reminded of this on February 21 days before he nominated Farukh Abitov for the exact same thing! The point is, that he doesn't follow WP:BEFORE, he doesn't understand the criteria he is using for nomination, and he doesn't learn from his mistakes (or does he not read the AFD discussion after he nominates?). I don't think it was a bad faith edit. But it's still Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Nfitz (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is full of cases where the nominators get it wrong. Farukh Abitov would not be considered adequate for most other types of BLP and I am far from convinced that it is based upon independent and reliable sources as it mainly seems to rely upon a self-published fan site. It is of sufficiently poor quality that any patroller might nominate it. Sanctions are therefore quite inappropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I am a little hesitant to support this proposal as John Pack Lambert has a long and distinguished history here on Wikipedia and has been acting in good faith, although the editor also has a track record of nominating articles for deletion in a hasty manner. While this debate has been heated and at times personal it is important to remember that actions such as e.i. topic bans or restrictions are meant to help the project as a whole and not WP:PUNISH. I think BrownHairedGirl and Nfitz have said it best, by limiting John Pack Lambert to one AFD a day the editor will have more time to observe WP:BEFORE and less likely to make hasty AFDs. If in future John Pack Lambert has shown that he will be more careful and responsible with his AFD nominations then by all means the editor should have their full rights restored. Which ever way this is resolved I hope people take it in good faith and not personally. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I never said the leagues were not fully professional. I said they were not top tier leagues. At the time I was under the impression that a player had to have played in a league that was top tier and fully professional. I have since come to realize that is not what thezstandard is, but it is what I mistakenly thought it was at the time and it was what I was arguing. My most recent nominations have all focused on people who did not play in fully professional leagues except one where I clearly made a mistake. I am trying to hold hope that there is a way out of this draconian clamp down. One point, the claim above that finding sources that show a person played in games for a national team is not enough. They have to have played in games that are rated at a certain specific level by FIFA. The very wording of that section inplies that we need evidence of more than having been part of the national team. If being a member of a national team was defaylt enough to be notable that secrion of the description would be a lot better. I read the long desciptor of what games were needed to have been played in bedore nominating Abitov and from what I could tell at that point he had not played in such games. I admit that I was wrong. As I admit that I should have tried to engage in discussions more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (sorry). I really wanted to not add further commentary here, but the amount of spurious nominations is too excessive. Per this AfD discussion, as well as others, such as the one I linked in my comment above (link), it comes across that this user does not have a significant comprehension of WP:N and does not engage in any source searching to determine notability, instead simply basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles. In the discussion at the first link in my comment here, it has become obvious that the article was nominated for deletion solely based upon the state of sourcing in the article at the time of its nomination. The rationale provided was "One source will never be enough to pass GNG" (link). However, per WP:NEXIST, a part of the main Notability guideline page, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. I tried to explain this at the deletion discussion, but the user does not seem to comprehend this, replying to my comment with, "In general thegeneral notability guidelines trump sport specific guidelines. So the fact that I was aware of the notability guidelines for sports can not overcome the fact that the general notability guidelines are not met with one source." (diff). I can understand this type of error being made by a new or relatively new editor, but an editor with a high rate of AfD nominations and !votes should be aware of these basic parameters of WP:N. Topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's right there on the main WP:N page. North America1000 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support I would have supported and out-and-out block, though I can see this as a reasonable compromise. Also, I feel that this restriction should not be revisited for at least 1 year, given the long history at play here. John Pack Lambert's AfD antics have cost this community countless precious man hours, and have driven productive editors off of Wikipedia. Some of the stuff going on here is bordering on WP:NOTHERE territory. JPL, if you truly want to improve your working knowledge of the notability guidelines, I'd recommend that you take a step back from AfD nominations altogether, and instead start working from the other end - find articles that are currently sitting at Afd and start trying to source and "rescue" them. You can gain a better grasp of the relevant policies and guidlines, as well as discover how to better evaluate sources when you do this type of actual encyclopedia editing, as opposed to scatter-shotting a whole bunch of serial drive-by AfD nominations. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think thos line from the notability guidelines for baseball players needs to be considered "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." I probably should have posted that before things got out of hand. I probably should have posted that instead of calling other statements rubbish. My one other thought is that I have on occasion gone above and beyond to try and keep editors here. That I can demonstate. In rhe specific case the article on the foriegn minister of Mongolia had been nominated for speedy deletion. I overturned it, brought in some sources and thanked the fairly new editor for crearing it. I probably should hunt down the diffs, and it would help if I could remember said foriegn ministers name. However it did happen and would not take too much effort to dig up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Lets stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support – My thoughts on this matter are essentially the same as those of Ejgreen77. João Do Rio (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Reading this thread and following the diffs, I am beginning to be concerned about JPL's competence to be involved in AfD at all. I suggest at least a six month hiatus before this can be appealed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've seen John Pack Lambert's name around, but I don't believe I know him. Nevertheless these statistics, and the list of articles nominated in just the past few days I believe indicate that he's somewhat gone off the rails in regard to deletions. I think a throttle is called for, especially since his rate of the community agreeing with him is only 46%. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19

    Move along, folks. IP has stopped edit warring and has thus staved off a block. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At the article Bar Keepers Friend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the IP user 184.145.42.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is engaging in disruptive behavior. Their initial edit added an {{advert}} tag and blanked the external link section (EL section is composed of an official link and two news articles that could be incorporated into the article). When that was reverted, they then did wholesale blanking of content, including well sourced material.[161][162] Their argument on their talk-page that the official link is promotional - as well as stating "Feel free to report me or whatever"[163].

    I suspect this will eventually reach 3RR teritory; but given the user's responses to comments on their talk page as well as prior behavior by this same IP- I chose to report it here now to see if someone else can get through to the user before blocks are necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has been notified ... and while typing the above, the IP blanked the same content again.[164] --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Blanking"...is that what it's called when you remove unreliable sources from an article, and then have to remove the content that relies upon said sources? I implore anyone to see the diff and decide for themselves. Also, please note that I informed Barek of my intention to nominate the article for deletion, and asked them to be more careful in reverting numerous edits in one fell swoop because they disagreed with one or two.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article is never going to be deleted at AfD, and you're removing material that ... well, some of it is clearly sourced and some of it is not so great, but you're removing it without a rationale, so I've reverted you, and you're at 3RR now, so leave it for discussion please. Black Kite (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there's certainly some poor-quality content that should be cleaned-up. But that didn't justify blanking large sections. On the IPs talk page, they didn't seem interested in discussion - although in hindsight I should have pointed them towards WP:BRD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thank you for taking the time to respond to this report. The underlying issue at-hand here is the fact that you're making repeated reversions to the article and in a back-and-fourth fashion with others. This is called edit warring, which is not allowed. Instead, editors are expected to engage in proper dispute resolution and discuss the issue on the article's talk page and come to a consensus. This is what you need to do... you need to discuss this dispute here and come to an agreement. In the meantime, please do not make further reversions to the article. Doing so is disruptive, and you can be blocked for this... which is something I'd really rather not do to you... okay? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you can just have a look at the article itself? Specifically, with regard to notability and verifiability of sources. I read the previous RfD summary, which was closed by an account found to be (if I've followed the thread correctly) a prolific sock puppet. I'm trying to make Wikipedia better, while others seem more interested in preserving the status quo. Further, Barek was only too happy to revert numerous edits in a go, while specifying they only had a problem with one or two. It's also interesting to me that Barek preferred to assume I would 3RR rather than assume good faith. Might that be because of the nature of their reverts???184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you're trying to improve Wikipedia and make good choices and decisions (this is why nobody is blocking you), and that you're frustrated over this situation. If you start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the concerns you have with the sources cited in the disputed content and why you believe they're unreliable, and ask everyone involved to weigh in - the best decision regarding what to do (if applicable) will be reached and as a group of people working together. Remember: We're all here to improve Wikipedia just like you are. We need to collaborate, interact, discuss, and behave towards others knowing that we're all on the same team and wearing the same jerseys. If we fail to do this, coming to a decision that best reflects the content of the article to readers will be much harder, which is one of the main principles in which Wikipedia operates and grows :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the sock-puppetry of the closer relevant? Would any editor have closed that AFD differently, based on the discussion? Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In this context, the closer of the previous AFD doesn't change the fact that consensus was a clear keep. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Below is a facsimile of my reply to Nfitz from my talk page, for context.
    "For one, the user that closed the case last time was found to be a prolific sock puppet (20+ accounts, by their own admission). For another, the sources were a mishmash of the company's own website and "business-friendly" local media. Finally, if anecdotal evidence matters (it shouldn't, but did seem to in the previous AFD, so...), I've heard of every single other cleaner mentioned in the article...but not the one in the namespace. Please don't assume status quo is status correct. Like, did you look at the article? The AFD? Any references? The relevant WP policies??? I've spent the last hour and change doing exactly that, and I implore anyone who cares about keeping WP free of promotional material to do likewise. I, an inexperienced manual editor who has to flail around to get even basic things done, should not have to lead experienced editors (and admins!) around by the nose to prove my case. It's all there in black and white. Does anyone care to look?"
    After that, Nfitz more or less accuses me of being a sock puppet and said I "just want to argue" [165]. Thankfully, Jbh did care to look at the article, and came to the same (painfully obvious, IMO) conclusion. I hope this puts to rest the spurious allegations levelled against me.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I've warned the user for edit warring on Bar Keepers Friend. If the reverting continues, I'm comfortable with blocking the IP for edit warring and knowing that the user was warned first and allowed an opportunity to correct the behavior. I'm going to hold off in the meantime and keep an eye on the user's contributions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the article has been at AFD before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend. This was a unanimous well-attended keep. There's no reason to think the outcome would be any different now, AFAIK. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you so much! It means a lot to me, given how other editors have deigned to treat the matter without actually considering edits and intent. I cannot believe Bar Keepers Friend wasn't deleted the first time around, and though I certainly don't speak for User:Eric Corbett (the former "Malleus Fatuorum" from the edit history, who proposed deletion within a month of the article's creation in 2009), I suspect that ed. might have been similarly incredulous at their deletion tag being unceremoniously removed without discussion. Cheers.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:184.145.42.19 Discussion after closure

    • The messages left for Admins involved in this debate at about the same time also seem to constitute personal attacks. See [166], [167], [168] and particularly [169]. On the other hand, his last two edits, may have been a retirement from Wikipedia [170] and [171] - so perhaps not worth doing anything. Nfitz (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that, BMK, and I closed another thread for it. I don't believe in short "attention-getting" blocks, but if this whining continues (after what appears to be a farewell shot below the belt), yes, there will be a block. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued Edit Warring by User:Xenophrenic after Expiration of Block

    Admin: I withdraw my proposal, It was too soon for taking this to ANI. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xenophrenic, after being blocked, barely escaping a topic ban at ANI and having a second ANI report opened about him, has continued to edit war on articles related to the topic that got him banned. User:Fram, the administrator who blocked User:Xenophrenic, told User:Xenoprenic to "leave this category and anything related to it alone". User:Xenophrenic's contributions reveal that he has not only ignored this administrative injunction, but has flagrantly disobeyed it. At this time, I would recommend that we proceed with a topic ban on all articles related to atheism and religion, broadly construed, so that User:Xenophrenic does not waste the time and energy of any more of Wikipedia's constructive users.

    User:Xenophrenic has been notified of this report on his Talk page.--Jobas (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jobas: Diffs please. Claiming with a link to an archived thread that's quite long but shows fairly limited support for a TBAN that the user "barely escaped" a TBAN, and claiming with no diffs that the user is edit-warring, is not helpful. Nor is showing a diff of an admin who blocked the user encouraging them to edit other areas (contrary to what you appear to believe, admins are not allowed unilaterally impose topic bans on editors, so the advice is not binding). Their block expired a week ago, and they have made a bunch of edits since then. I'm seeing a fair few article edits (including some reverts) and some talk page edits. The reverts are mostly one per article, it would seem, which makes the edit-warring claim somewhat questionable. Apologies if I am reading this wrong, but if you don't provide evidence it's not my fault if I go looking for evidence for you and can't find it wihout excessive effort. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    聖 WP:EW, says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"
    While User:Xenophrenic emptied a Category:Persecution by atheists of all of the articles therein As stated by the administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) admonished User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request), again before his last block he emptied the category without to discussing it; the CfD ended in "no consensus" and User:Xenophrenic was in the process of being topic banned for his actions. His edit summary stated: rvt insertion of unsourced, so I reverted some his edit pending the current discussion initiated by User:John Carter that covers keeping or deleting all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution.
    Now after a week of being blocked he keeping making the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned without to discussing it, as you can see here, here, here, here, here, here. What I suggested in Marcocapelle talk page was: "There is a current discussion about rename and purge initiated by User:John Carter that covers the renominate all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution. it would be prudent if Xenophrenic participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter instead of keeping edit warning", So instead of keeping removing the category and edit warning or revert, I guess he should participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter and wait till we got clear consensus, but the problem he ignore to wait the result of the current debate and take unilateral side. Thanks and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jobas: Those edits all come from different articles. Even if they are all reverts (and they don't appear to be) they can only be edit-warring if he made reverts to the same articles previously. Reverting new edits once is perfectly in line with WP:BRD. And pointing out where other users disagreed with his edits previously also is not evidence of his disruption. You should stop acting like having x number of users disagreeing with someone makes them "wrong" or counts as a de facto TBAN -- for all the evidence you have provided, the two users you have named who disagree with Xenophrenic are tag-teaming with each other and with you, and are just as worthy of a TBAN as Xenophrenic. Above you say the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned -- you really need to familiarize yourself with the difference between a block and a ban before proposing bans. And the longer you refuse to provide evidence of disruption, the less likely I or other users will be to support any proposal you make. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Jobas: By the way -- you may not be aware, but I am subject to an IBAN with one of the users you mentioned in the above post. If you could verify what I am referring to here and refrain from bringing them up in your responses to me, it would be appreciated. As I stated in another thread currently visible on this page, I have little patience for users who try to goad others into violating their own restrictions. I am assuming good faith at the moment (with regard to this issue -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with regard to whether Xeno has been edit-warring), but if you continue writing like you did above after I have requested you stop I will be forced to ask someone else to request you stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some advice needed. Fact is that the CfD discussion was closed as 'no consensus' implying the content of the page was restored to status quo ex ante. Fact is that the restore has now been unilaterally reverted, obviously by means of 1 revert per article. Now what? Should User:Jobas revert these changes and wait until User:Xenophrenic re-reverts them for the second time so that there is evidence of an edit war? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: "No consensus" means just that -- no consensus. Making edits that run contrary to what some users said in a no-consensus discussion is not edit-warring. Refusing to discuss said edits and continuing to revert regardless would be edit-warring, but all I'm seeing here is one user with a seriously flawed understanding of TBANs trying to propose sanctions on a user for violating a hypothetical TBAN that they are not currently subject to, and making non-EW edits that he doesn't like. It's becoming increasingly difficult to believe that Xeno could be the cause of whatever problem might exist here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a pretty indirect answer, I'm just assuming that the direct answer is yes. By the way you've made it perfectly clear that it's currently too soon for taking this to ANI and User:Jobas may better withdraw this case for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: It was not closed as "no consensus", it was closed as "no consensus - with caveats". There was no consensus in terms of a concrete next step, but the close explicitly stated 'I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy.' and 'as given, the current title is frankly original research.' Presuming that Black Kite did not intend to retain original research, as would be the case in a typical "no consensus" close, Xenophrenic was right to remove the original research pending discussion of renaming the category. The only reason he appears worse in the sense of edit warring is because Eliko007 joined Jobas in restoring the category. Eliko007 is an WP:SPA, the majority of whose edits are to present the same edits/arguments as Jobas (or, perhaps it's more accurate to say, to argue against Xenophrenic -- I don't know; I'm not making a socking allegation here). Removing the category was the right call. Xenophrenic has been rather aggressive in some ways, but hasn't had an SPA reverting to offset the edit warring allegation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: There you go -- I learn something new every day. So Jobas et al. are the ones editing disruptively, and trying to force out a user who is undermining their disruption and being perhaps a little uncivil while doing it.
    @Jobas: I am this close to proposing a WP:BOOMERANG for you (read: TBAN from all articles related to religion, broadly construed) following this. I have looked at a couple of your other edits unrelated to this, and they seem like, at best, we could do without them (OR -- in fact edit-warring -- to imply that Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians, implying without a source that one of the reasons there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis...). If you withdraw your frivolous and unjustified proposal below, this thread will likely be closed as withdrawn or be archived and fade into the either, but I can't honestly see this working out in your favour at this point.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Acutely my edit here it doesn't claims "Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians", the edit acutely compares between Singapore Christians and other Christian communities around the world, there is no mention in any place of non-Christians or other religions. And the edit in Estonian article it was quote of reference (World and Its Peoples: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Marshall Cavendish. p. 1066.), and it doesn't claims "there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis", What the quote from the source said "This is in part, the result of Soviet actions and repression of religion". And the only mention in the quote about German occupation was "Many churches were destroyed in the German occupation of Estonia". Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doy.
    No, you added the claim that Christians are more likely to hold university degrees than adherents of other religions. Not only is this not accurate to what your source said (post-secondary =/= university), but it is clearly cherry-picked and clearly biased (the statistic is actually all-but identical for the Hindu and irreligious communities in Singapore). Regarding the Estonians edit: apologies for the misunderstanding. I looked at it in a rush and it looked like you were adding a massive chunk of text to the body. It still wasn't a minor edit, though -- please do not mark such edits as minor again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    God, I'm such an idiot!
    @Jobas: So are you refusing to withdraw your proposal? Your above comment completely ignored the substance of my request and replied exclusively to my parenthetical clause.
    If you post here again with anything other than My proposal is not supported by evidence. I apologize for the disturbance. I withdraw my proposal. then I think a boomerang will be in order, and I'd be willing to guess that others would agree.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban for User:Xenophrenic on articles relating to Religion and Atheism, Broadly Construed

    No support for such a sanctions, initiator has withdrawn their proposal. Blackmane (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin: I withdraw my proposal, It is not supported by evidence, and was too soon for taking this to ANI. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: Despite being blocked and almost topic banned in his recent ANI discussion, User:Xenophrenic has once again proven himself incapable of learning from his mistakes and seems to be wasting the precious time of constructive editors on this encyclopedia. He blatantly ignored the order of an administrator and continues to edit war on the same things that got him censured in the first place.--Jobas (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jobas has withdrawn this proposal. I've taken the liberty of striking it for him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not see any evidence above. Fram may have provided advice, but there is no requirement that such advice be followed, and certainly no requirement that it be followed "broadly construed" and indefinitely. Is all the indignation concerned with keeping Category:Persecution by atheists on articles like Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania? That kind of tagging-by-category is a very grubby form of POV pushing—does anyone really imagine that the Head Office of Atheists decreed that a particular religion be persecuted? Funny how the article does not mention anything to do with atheism that I can see. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jobas: Just to be clear what I meant by my most important point above and below: admins aren't allowed impose "orders" without prior community consensus, and ignoring/"violating" such "orders" is not sanctionable. To demonstrate how silly this is, I would ask why, if you think Xenophrenic already was subject to a TBAN, you would be proposing the same TBAN again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pending some evidence in support of the claims being being made. I find it difficult to believe that an editor who has only made one revert per page over the course of a week has been "edit-warring", and the lack of evidence (combined with an apparent lack of understanding of how TBANs work -- admins can only unilaterally impose bans when discretionary sanctions are in play, and even then only when the subject has been clearly warned that discretionary sanctions may be applied) makes me very suspicious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This page is, as far as I'm aware, not entitled "keep posting the same thing over and over again until the editor I don't like gets topic banned". And that's coming from someone who was critical of Xenophrenic's editing the last time this tiresome issue got dragged into view. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - after being blocked, barely escaping a topic ban at ANI - I see as much support for a topic ban for you, Jobas, in that thread. You've continued the edit war, too, and after a close explicitly called the category original research (ergo, obviously, not appropriate to restore until renaming is sorted out). and having a second ANI report opened about him by an SPA who is either following Xenophrenic or following you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    How much harassment is OK?

    Harassment is never OK, and let me just point out that this is where it seems to start. In other words: IP, I think we've had enough snark out of you. Plus what Hijiri88 said, which I won't have to copy since he already said it. And Andy Dingley. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Nfitz just will not stop. Of 11 additions (so far) to [an AFD page], five (arguably six) have been personal attacks. I'm not even gonna bother with diffs. It's all on the page.

    Is this de rigueur? Do very experienced editors ever actually get taken to task for "wikihounding" a newer IP editor? Or should I just eat it and pretend it's chocolate cake?184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, I admit 1 or 2 may have veered into rudeness, after having suffered the same, and that shouldn't happen. However, for the most part, this seems to be retaliation by this frequently blocked user for my participation in the just-closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19 case, just above. As far as I can tell, this user considers any disagreement with his overbearing and overstated positions as a personal attack. A quick review of his talk page edits, show case after case of unnecessary sarcasm and aggression. Examples are: [172], [173], [174], [175] and my personal favourites [176] and [177]. Perhaps I should just ignore it - but the combination of such rudeness and arrogrance I find intolerable in a group project like this. I mean, really, who tells other editors to fuck off and calls them motherfuckers? Indeed, how much harassment is OK? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your off-topic, ad hominem points-scoring is hardly worth a reply. I've done my time, so to speak, and now you're the one calling names. And you admitted it. I'll let the record speak for itself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, putting aside the small matter of my feelings, is it usual to pollute a WP project page with such...let's call it frivolity? Kinda screws up the whole thing in terms of readability.184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is it usual to reply endlessly on an AFD to everyone you disagree with? Which so far would be everyone else who has offered an opinion on whether the article should stay or go. The only opinion that hasn't been commented on is your own. Just state your opinion, and wait for a week. If you've got a valid point, such as an inappropriate reference - sure. But to criticize someone reappearing to the debate after an absence of 5 years - really? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're the snark police, you should do a better job policing yourself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no such harassment from Nfitz, and even where they admitted they may have veered a little on the rude side, that still doesn't constitute as harassment. On the other hand, I see plenty of uncivil behavior from the IP here, and I would propose quite a lengthy block for them based on their block history—three blocks within the space of two days back in January, even managing to have both email and talk page access revoked—and that they clearly haven't learned their lesson. This report is purely out of retaliation because of a personal beef they have with Nfitz. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait ... this is the same IP that, two sections above and four hours before opening this thread stopped edit warring and [...] thus staved off a block? @Drmies: Can you tell them to stop bludgeoning, making bogus accusations of personal attacks and opening frivolous ANI threads like you and a few others already told him earlier today to stop edit-warting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I was uninvolved in the previous edit-warring at Bar Keepers Friend, and only came into the ANI discussion above to point out the previous AFD, that the close was good, and the obvious futility of resubmitting it. Nfitz (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The user finally got it--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mark Linton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an experienced user specializing on articles in wrestling. Today, I discovered Souled Out (1997), created by him, clearly copied verbatim from elsewhere (Google gives enough hits). I speedy deleted the article and posted a notice at the talk page of the user. In the meanwhile I noticed that I was the fourth user warning him about copyright violation, and his reply to the previousl three users was always that he needs time to expand the article. I figured out that he possibly copies the text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, and left another notice explaining him that the attribution is necessary even in this case. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article verbatim, which I speedy deleted. He went to my talk page and left the same notice about necessity to expand the article. I asked him where the text is coming from, to which he did not reply. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article for the third time, still without an attribution. I am hesitant to delete it again or to block the user for copyright violations, since he clearly means well, but does not seem to get the point. May be someone can try explaining the point to him more efficiently. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We had some more exchange at my talk page which unfortunately did not help me to convince the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted some more information on this topic on his talk page. Hope that helps. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: I placed my comments at User talk:Ymblanter#Souled Out (1997), and have now cross-posted my comments to the user's talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated vandalism from new user Scrape2000

    ROPE, schmope. Blocked indef, garden variety VOA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Scrape2000 (talk · contribs) is currently making a nuisance of him/herself. Batternut (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE is getting close. They've a warning and nothing since, so let WP:ROPE take its course. WP:AIV should be adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing/harassment by User:MatthewTardiff

    USER BLOCKED
    User blocked indef by Someguy1221 (non-admin closure). Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user constantly reverts correctly sourced edits out of spite because he doesn't like them, as well as grammar/spelling edits made by myself and others simply because he doesn't like the person who made the edit. Not only that, but just yesterday I saw him threaten somebody and claim that his family has "connections to the FBI and the CIA" and that his family "could have somebody's computer seized immediately", simply because someone posted on his talk page asking about why he continually reverted somebody's edits. He quickly deleted it afterwards, but it's still visible on the edit history of his talk page. Myself and others have constantly asked him to stop his disruptive edits but all he does is say "he's still learning Wikipedia" or threaten the user in question. Thanks. --TDOldSpice (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2017 (GMT)

    Doxxing threat right here: [178]. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WOW. Ok, Matt can have his editing privileges back when he can adequately explain that edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ongoing IP inserting unsourced claims despite challenges

    (non-admin closure) Blocked for a month. Kleuske (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    180.145.138.96 (talk · contribs) is constantly inserting the same unsourced claims into the same articles (Doraemon (2005 anime) and Doraemon the Movie 2017: Great Adventure in the Antarctic Kachi Kochi despite constant reverts and challenges and having previously been given a 72 hour ban for doing so. The includes in sections tagged for requiring more references for existing content. The IP has changed within a range previously (possibly too large for blocking) but here we have a pattern of edits all under this individual IP Trying to get temporary protection has been problematic because it's been turned down before for not enough incidents despite there being a clear pattern after previous protection expired. It's also quite clear that this hasn't stopped them from just trying again later.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 1 month. Apparently they did not take the hint from the last block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock with talk page access revoked

    I just upgraded a checkuser-block on the range, 95.49.0.0/16 (Orange, in Poland) to lock out talk page access due to ongoing abuse on User talk:95.49.125.4. Any admin is welcome to change the rangeblock back such that it allows talk page access if they are willing to monitor and deal with the abuse. Similarly, any admin is welcome to change the rangeblock back and revoke talk page access for just that IP address, though obviously the vandal will then just hop to the next address. And I won't object to admins adjusting the block any other way they see fit, keeping in mind this is a checkuser block by DeltaQuad (who I'm about to notify). --Yamla (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yamla: To be clear, it's a rangeblock had some assistance from CU, not a CU block ({{rangeblock}} vs {{checkuserblock}}, therefore normal admins can modify it. Either way when I saw my IRC notifications this morning, I was going to revoke talk anyway. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kinnonmaniac

    Indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Obviously NOTHERE - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Chocolatebareater

    Not sure if User:Chocolatebareater is in breach of the rules or not to be honest. He has created a whole bunch of rugby league player articles that fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. After they're PROD'd, he removes the PRODs without explanation, resulting in a copious amount of AfD's needing to be opened. I have asked him to consider reading RLN again and to not create the articles, but this has so far been ignored. Recent articles created: Callum Field, Gabriel Fell, Liam Marshall, Josh Eaves, Matty Lees, Josh Gannon, Jonah Cunningham and Ben Morris (rugby league). I would appreciate a more experienced editor taking a look and/or advising please. Cheers – skemcraig⊗ 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, didn't realise I had to give a reason. The reason for all of them is that they are in Super League squads, and so play for professional teams. Chocolatebareater (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Which as I've already told you, does not entitle them to an article. They need to make an appearance in Super League, the National Rugby League or the Challenge Cup in order to pass WP:RLN. Also, you don't need to give a reason to remove a PROD, but I believe you didn't because you knew or suspected your articles failed RLN. – skemcraig⊗ 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I don't need to give a reason then why are you complaining? Also, when you've nominated pages for deletion the discussion has been evenly split. Chocolatebareater (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm "complaining" because you're creating a copious amount of articles you clearly know fail RLN as it stands. The only people !voting keep are you and a few editors who mistakenly think a contract with a pro club passes RLN when it in fact, does not. – skemcraig⊗ 20:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't clearly fail the criteria as there is debate over whether or not is does, and the votes are fairly equal. Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While the debate is ongoing, RLN must be applied as it is now, and no these [179] [180] [181] are far from equal, two of the keep !votes on the latter are actually from you! – skemcraig⊗ 21:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already apologised for that I didn't realise I had already voted. The Murray and Egodo discussions are evenly split. Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "evenly split" – skemcraig⊗ 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3-2 is even, and if you count my duplicate votes one is 3-3! Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocolatebareater: An apology isn't as effective as going back and deleting your second vote. You can't vote twice in a deletion discussion. Also, neither are evenly split. On Murray, four out of six people want it deleted. On Egodo, three out of five have voted delete. Keep in mind that I am an uninvolved editor with no interest in sports, and I am telling you this. DarkKnight2149 21:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep in mind I'm a new editor. I tried to undo the edit but it wouldn't let me, told me it would conflict with another edit. Chocolatebareater (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    {EC} Egodo is 4–2 in favour of delete, Murray is also 4–2 in favour of delete and Bent is 5–1 in favour of delete! – skemcraig⊗ 21:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't realise the nominator counted as a vote. Still not a whitewash though! Chocolatebareater (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This might be more complicated than it first appears. The issue seems to be about WP:RLN and the notability guidelines for Rugby League Football being more stringent than Rugby Union Football or Associated Football. Most of the new articles would pass under those standards. This gets into the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Discussion of WP:RLN, the ongoing proposed new replacement of WP:RLN at User talk:Fleets/sandboxWPRL notability, and views of opposing editors. The AFD discussions that have taken place are not one-sided, and none have been closed that I can see. Perhaps @Fleets: has some perspective on this. I'd also factor in that the season is about to begin, some of the articles are for players that may well meet WP:RLN shortly. Perhaps the solution is sorting out WP:RLN rather than sanctioning users at this time. Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would welcome changes to WP:RLN regarding players who play for fully pro clubs that are in the Championship (rugby league) and League One (rugby league). The Super League players in question though have not yet played and to assume they soon will would surely be a breach of WP:CRYSTAL? I should have mentioned to User:Chocolatebareater that s/he has userspace/sandboxes to create articles away from the mainspace until they're ready for proper articles though. – skemcraig⊗ 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I've have not seen that discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Discussion of WP:RLN, I will take a look now. – skemcraig⊗ 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Chocolatebareater: What about the many warnings and messages you have received? From what I can tell, you rarely ever leave edit summaries or respond to other users. DarkKnight2149 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I've missed something I haven't received any warnings, and I have responded to other users, both on @Fleets talkpage and one WP:RLN. As for edit summaries, this will be something I will try to do more of, although it was fairly obvious that the edits were removing the speedy deletion. Chocolatebareater (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't slam new editors even after a few mistakes, maybe try to carefully teach them instead. Chocolatebareater and I have had a brief talk page discussion, and he or she seems genuinely interested in doing well and mixing in with Wikipedia. Maybe one of the Rugby editors could colab with CBE, either on an existing page or one that they are trying to get to stick. Now here they find themselves up on some kind of charges. So Chocolatebareater, as I've mentioned before, please endure the climb up the Wikipedia hill, ask questions as you've done in this section, and have fun. It gets better. Randy Kryn 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully support Randy Kryn's proposal. Even as a veteran editor, I am fully aware of the learning curve that Wikipedia has. After observing the discussion as an uninvolved editor, I don't believe that CBE is being intentionally disruptive. Pairing them with an experienced editor would be a great idea. DarkKnight2149 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I do not believe Chocolatebareater should be blocked or anything like that. I would like him/her to realise that policy like WP:RLN cannot be simply ignored because you don't like it. I don't think any sanctions are forthcoming, but If any sanctions at all come from this ANI discussion, it should only be as far as Chocolatebareater being barred from creating anymore player articles until they agree to follow the RLN policy as it stands. – skemcraig⊗ 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks but I'm not sure I'm cut out for this editing lark. I have tried to make a positive impact, and have certainly not purposely broken any rules. Hopefully I have done some good during my brief time editing. I wish you all the best in editing in general and coming up with new guidelines for rugby league players. Cheers. Chocolatebareater (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocolatebareater: If you want to leave, there's nothing we can do to stop you. But if you want my advice, don't let one misunderstanding stop you from editing if that's what you enjoy doing. Also bare in mind that there are a number of other Wiki sites that are much more lenient than the mainstream Wikipedia, depending on which best suits your interests. DarkKnight2149 22:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    {EC} Try and read the guidelines and policies as you come across them, take other editors advice etc.. and you can be "cut out for this editing lark" as you put it. I'm only a newbie myself after all and still learning all the ropes. Rather than early retirement from the Wiki, maybe consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league instead? – skemcraig⊗ 22:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Chocolatebareater, right now, without answering, go to the article of either your favorite Rugby player or the article of the best Rugby player in history (who I wouldn't recognize from Adam) and make an edit in or near the lead. Find a word that you can improve, or add a comma, or make sure each sentence flows well and explain the information or concept. Imagine thousands of readers reading that page, and your edit both improving their experience and their overall understanding of the topic. There are some edits you will remember for years, and add the page to your watch list to make sure good edits have a chance of sticking around. And if you really want to leave, at least make that edit you'll remember. Randy Kryn 22:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 82.7.125.216 / 81.104.12.193 edit warring

    The following editor who goes by the following IPs: Special:Contributions/81.104.12.193 and Special:Contributions/82.7.125.216 is engaging in a protracted edit-war on the Lisburn and Hillsborough, County Down articles. Their edits violates the long-standing manual of style for Ireland articles provided at WP:IMOS.

    The original editor to revert them, @Daithidebarra:, tried to engage with them on the talk pages here and here to which the IP ignored. Daithidebarra also left the IP several talk back notifications at User_talk:81.104.12.193 so the IP knew of the discussions.

    I also detailed precisely the manual of style in use and how the IPs edit-summary arguments held no weight at Talk:Hillsborough, County Down, to which the IP has obviously ignored.

    The IP had been given a warning and final warning at User_talk:81.104.12.193 back on the 17th to which they have also ignored.

    Mabuska (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • one edit in two different articles in 2 weeks is edit warring? I'm more concerned that you referred to this edit [182] as vandalism in a warning on the users talk page[183]. It's a difference of opinion, sure. But vandalism? Looking at Hillsborough, County Down, editors refer to this name as "a fact". However no reference or source is supplied. The link to the 1661 name is dead. Instead of going back and forth over the name, why not just add a reference to it? I assume that's easy enough to find, given that ga:Cromghlinn (Contae an Dúin) exists. That should end the discussion, unless I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Swann

    One issue 1: Page protection endorsed as permissible within WP:INVOLVED. On issue 2: Nergaal raises a content dispute which should be (is being) resolved on the article talk page. No need for this thread to continue as a duplicate discussion venue, and nothing else here presently requires admin tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I just protected Ben Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because of an edit war prompted by one user who keeps reinstating material suggesting that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory might be true, and that Podesta may indeed therefore be implicit in child abuse. This is a pretty straightforward WP:BLP issue, IMO, but since I have been working to point this out to the user I'm bringing it here for review. I rathe rhoped that this bullshit story would no longer be a problem for us, but apparently it is. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I appreciate Guy requesting this review. I agree that the page protection was appropriate but I don't think Guy should have been the one imposing it (or threatening a block) since he was plainly involved in the dispute. I could be mistaken but I'm not aware of any sort of BLP exemption to WP:INVOLVED. Admin tools shouldn't be used as a trump card to win a content dispute, regardless of the righteousness of one's position. Ok, I'll leave it at that. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider:

    In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

    A straightforward BLP violation such as this one would, I think, fall under this provision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with BMK. The difference between protecting to avoid BLP violations and watching like a hawk to justifiably revert them is the difference between the dry and swampy road leading to the same destination. TimothyJosephWood 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, looks a good call. Alexbrn (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I have some clarifications please?

    If I understand correctly, this has started from this edit. I provided on the talkpage a fairly detailed reasoning which to me seems to have been ignored by all parties, including the threatening admin. It appears to me that there are other editor(s) that try to make other edits, and several editors, including this admin seem to think that I am that party or that I am defending that party. I would like to point out that the introduction of the whole subject uses the exact wording I put in the article, not the current wording used (see Pizzagate conspiracy theory). Why am I being threatened again when I am pointing out the impreciseness currently in use? Nergaal (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, it appears to me that this admin is in a haste to stop any discussion even in the talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "a fairly detailed reasoning which to me seems to have been rejected by all parties". I fixed that for you. Pretty much everyone understood your reasoning and rejected your argument. We do not present facts as attributed opinions. We certainly wouldnt even remotely consider doing so regarding child abuse and living people. You have stated your position. It was rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gatorsfan25

    Gatorsfan25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Has been warned many times. Keeps adding incorrect information and WP:CRYSTALBALLING on commentator parings for sports articles. The parings will be announced in the summer! ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Though recognizing that sports commentators are often retired athletes who have lost their trim, I hope it hasn't come to the point of literally paring them, at least not on camera. Could get messy. Less radical approaches such as Weight Watchers or Slimfast would be my recommendation. EEng 09:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide WP:DIFFs to show where he's doing this instead of making us do your work for you? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you were supposed to notify Gatorsfan25 that you've started a discussion concerning him. I have done so. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [184], [185], [186], [187], [188] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another one[189] ACMEWikiNet (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And more, more, and more. [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195]. Might be a KileBogart sock. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    An problematic IP

    Can you guys take a look at this IP's edit history, because this IP had been blocked twice for disruptive editing. Because this editor or editors keep linking phrases that don't need to linked, edits like this to music related articles, I know that most of the IP's edits are not considered as vandalism but my problem is when this IP edit a article, it brings no new content at all. Just go to articles like Hurricane Chris (rapper), I think this editor is using this article as a sandbox.

    I have reported this IP to other administrators about this issue recently to Laser brain and Oshwah, but I didn't get a quick response. This IP just recently made these edits [196] [197] at the At. Long. Last. ASAP article. Look, I hate being the boy who cried wolf here, but my problem is the IP has made too many grammar mistakes, and most of the changes essentially only contributed to corrupting the language and added nothing to the content. I don't understand what the user was trying to achieve. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. I was busy and missed your message on my talk page when you left it. Sorry about that, man :-/. I'll look into this and get back to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So I do see what you're talking about, but what I don't see are recent attempts to discuss the issue directly with the user. The last warning was left on February 20th. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: I know the last warning was left on February 20th and I should have left a very recent warning to the talk page, but the reason I didn't leave a warning because most of the edits to other articles recently didn't seem disruptive to me, so I didn't bother, but realized now, I should have. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TheAmazingPeanuts - It's all good, dude. This is why these noticeboards exist - to make sure we're doing the right thing :-). If attempting to warn or help educate the user doesn't go anywhere, and if the edits in concern continue -- let me know and we'll go from there. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption and personal attack by user MarnetteD

    MarnetteD removed a thread from WT:RD apparently on the basis of past edits which MarnetteD (and some others) consider trollish behavior. I had and have no opinion about the past behavior, but I reverted the removal because it's improper to effectively ban an editor from the reference desks based solely on past behavior. In other words, trolls should be given the opportunity to change their trollish behavior, and there is nothing trollish about the removed thread. MarnetteD re-reverted, referring to me as an "enabler". I re-reverted, citing WP:BRD and requesting MarnetteD to seek consensus for the removal. Once again MarnetteD re-reverted, this time escalating to calling me "loser". The removal stands as of this moment. For brief further reading, see User talk:Mandruss#Nothing like it.

    This complaint is not about the merits of the removal, which are not really a matter for this page, but about the disruptive refusal to seek consensus for a disputed edit—disputed in good faith by an established editor in good standing (WP:DE)—and the personal attacks (WP:NPA) against said editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, there have been issues with an LTA trolling the reference desk with blatantly racist, degrading, and offensive questions in the past. I would understand that MarnetteD removed this reference desk question believing it to be another such disruptive post. I will also agree that the back-and-fourth reverting of the post should not have happened and a discussion should have taken place. If you reverted the removal believing the question to be legitimate, then it should have stopped there and a discussion should have been started by MarnetteD if there was a disagreement. MarnetteD - calling someone a "loser" and an "enabler", although not nearly as insulting or serious as the numerous edits we've both seen editors refer to another, isn't okay to do. You should always respect one another regardless of the disagreement at-hand. While I'm tempted to refer to these as just "pokes or prods", they are personal attacks no matter how big or small you look at it. I think that you two just need to shake hands, and discuss the matter with one another. I see no reason to take action so long as you both agree to do so :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I see that BrownHairedGirl placed a 24 hour block on you for the edit warring and the personal attacks you left in your edit summaries, MarnetteD. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond to this ANI report and discuss your side of the issue here. If you file an unblock request with the promise to not continue the edit warring and with the promise to refrain from any further personal attacks (and, of course, if BrownHairedGirl doesn't object to this) -- I will grant your unblock request. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, I have restored the disputed thread, subject to consensus to remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: This is a case of edit-warring by an experienced editor who twice used edit summaries to make personal attacks, and followed that up with more incivility in a discussion on Mandruss's talk[199]. I think that MarnetteD's explanation would be better made as an unlock request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl - I was not aware of the talk page discussion that followed - thank you for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate your response and your input. While I absolutely do not condone personal attacks and edit warring, I do support the principal that blocks should only be made for the duration that puts a stop to the problem; If someone experienced such as MarnetteD makes an unblock request with the promise to stop the disruption, I see no reason to deny the request. However, you are the blocking administrator and I will respect and honor this and leave the decision in your hands. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Thanks. I agree that blocks are preventive rather than punitive, so if MarnetteD makes an appropriate unblock request with appropriate assurances, then of course any admin should feel free to unblock.
    I just don't think it would be appropriate to unblock without those assurances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I am not interested in "punishing" anybody or "teaching them a lesson". Although I strongly object to the PA, my main objective was to get MarnetteD to seek consensus for the edit, and regrettably an ANI complaint was the only recourse left. If there was a better way I'd be interested in learning about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that anyone who elects to be an "admin" – and is upset when called "enabler" and "loser" – should first consider growing a thicker skin. Get over it! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody is upset here, Gareth Griffith-Jones. Ignoring the other concerns expressed here... the bottom line is that we have policies regarding how we interact and collaborate with one another; they clearly disallow making personal attacks or engaging in similar behavior with others -- it's one of our core principles. Experienced and long-term editors (especially administrators) are expected to know and understand this policy and follow it. We are to treat one another with respect and we are not to threaten, name-call, intimidate, or make personal attacks towards one another. Period. Editors who do so repeatedly can be blocked for this. I also don't fully understand your response here. The person that the personal attacks were aimed toward is not an administrator, and the editor explained just above that his intentions were not to punish or retaliate to the behavior. Did you take time to read through the entire thread? What exactly are you trying to say here? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're edited by Floquenbeam to remove names or one of the favored few, from whom we routinely see far worse. Then you can be as obnoxious as you wish, all is swept under the rug. --Drmargi (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're what??? EEng 16:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon. You know exactly what, and who, I mean. That special little group with their cadre of followers who cry "CONTENT CREATOR!" as a means to say, and do, anything they damned well please while teflon-ing out the occasional block. --Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal redirects to Donald Trump

    A blocked user Kingshowman has a new hobby of using socks (the last one was The Grand Puppeteer) to create redirects from offensive items such as Pussy-grabber-in-chief to Donald Trump. The socks repeatedly create at least some of the redirects. Would it be possible to create an edit filter disallowing non-autoconfirmed (possibly not even extended confirmed) users to create redirects to Donald Trump or redirects to redirects to Donald Trump (to avoid subsequent rectification by a bot)?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My initial thought is that I don't see a problem with creating an edit filter like this (although others may disagree - I welcome their input). I'd just leave it at the non-autoconfirmed level; an edit filter disallowing accounts from doing so unless they're extended confirmed seems unnecessary (again... others might disagree with me). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the article is already subject to ARBAP2 and blue locked, it's not much of a stretch to allow only extended confirmed editors to create redirects. Blackmane (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a filter sounds sensible. DarkKnight2149 13:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have created Special:AbuseFilter/843 which trips any user less than 500 edits creating a redirect to Donald Trump - it's not enabled yet but any edit filter manager who can see a clear consensus here should switch it on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirects shouldn't be judged on their notability, but on their functionality. Do you really think that someone putting "pussy-grabber-in-chief" into the searh box does't know that name of the party, and could go to that article directly? Of course they do, and that makes the redirect POV and a BLP violation at that. We're an encyclopedia, if the phrase catches on in a big way and gets a lot of use in hte mainstream press (120 Google News hits is a dop in the bucket), we could have an article on the phrase itself, how it originated, and what it's based on, but a redirect is just making a POINT. (And this is from someone who prefers that the man's name not be mentioned in my household.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that functionality should be the primary criteria, but I'll stick with the point that anyone who uses it knows exactly where it's going, so it has no de facto functionality at all. But, we can agree to disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ... thus I support enforcement via filter, just to be clear. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though I'm not convinced that it's either very POV or BLP given his own words. However my mistake is applying Notability - and yes, as a functional re-direct, I see the issue. Gosh, and I hadn't realised we had a Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording article - these are the times we live in I guess ... glad I don't edit much in this topic area. Hmm, and there's a Pussygate redirect to that ... which is at least a convenient short-form for a search Nfitz (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect to everyone, are we really debating whether "pussy grabber in chief" is an acceptable redirect? I have to agree that it serves no function, aside from potentially provoking certain users (side note: did you know that the URL "Loser.com" once redirected to the Wikipedia Trump article? Politics these days...). DarkKnight2149 14:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) There have been both sillier redirects and more serious ones in the past that have had to have discussions. It comes up as a BLP issue occasionally because a plausible and reasonable search term (really the only real criteria for a redirect - will this help people find the correct article) is not necessarily BLP compliant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are. I never thought I'd see a day when a clear misogynistic bigot and arguable white nationalist was elected in any G8 nation. So it's no wonder that we are now considering such filthy terms. Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:R#DELETE #3 --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it might be true, but that doesn't mean the redirect should exist anymore than Skin Wearing Momma's Boy should redirect to Ed Gein. I don't think anyone will search for "Pussy grabber in chief" while genuinely looking for the Donald Trump article. DarkKnight2149 16:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic AfD

    AFD has been semi-protected to stop the disruption and allow the discussion to continue smoothy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just drawing attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ozee. All of the "keep" !votes are by single purpose accounts, new editors, and IP editors (one of them voting more than once). Strongly smells of conflict of interest, paid editing, socking, and/or off-wiki canvassing). An admin to referee this one would be helpful. First Light (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semiprotected the AfD page for 3 days; this should allow the discussion to proceed with less disruption. Lectonar (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! First Light (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)t[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    False date changes by 47.137.198.138

    Blocked. It has been recommended that all of the IPs edits be looked at and potentially reverted. (non-admin closure) DarkKnight2149 13:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP has had a long sequence of changing details, mainly dates, in articles. Not all of these changes are amenable to online checking but whenever you can check, they invariably turn out to be false. See [203], [204], [205], [206], [207]. They sometimes change the date in a reference to line up with the change in the article text as in [208], [209]. They have been warned several times and have not responded to Herostratus's enquiry: Noyster (talk), 13:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked a month. All the IP's changes should be looked at and probably be reverted. --NeilN talk to me 13:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Break enforced by Yunshui. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

    May some admin look at the case of @Nihil kumar:.Creating non-notable clear copy-vio articles--all from the same website.Was blocked for 2 weeks prev for same reason(here).Was advised to take a break from creating articles, a few days back at here but they seem to have continued at the same spate.Winged Blades Godric 14:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Contentious editing by User:D.H.110

    D.H.110 has engaged in contentious editing over the last month, and when challenged, simply removes the notices and warnings from their talk page. See diff of most recent warning from EvergreenFir, which D.H.110 removed without acknowledgment just as with the previous warnings (1, 2, 3). D.H.110's most recent unsourced edit of the Cisgender page was made after being told by two different editors that the source cited did not match their edit. The "anti-SJW" statement on their user page also calls their neutrality into question. Funcrunch (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, by removing a warning, they are acknowledging it. They can remove warnings from their page without comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but it's also the extent of the warnings over the short history of this account that I'm bringing attention to. Funcrunch (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I was only commenting on the talk page warning issue. That in itself isn't a problem, but the edits I would agree are starting to look WP:NOTHERE-ish. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the problem here? Discuss it on the talk page, that's what they're for. This would be a weak complaint at ANEW, it certainly doesn't belong at ANI. Nor is their blanking of messages any reason for complaint: they are allowed to do that, and even if you find it irritating, they are allowed to do that. It is incumbent on anyone posting to ANI to check first that what they complain of is actually an offence against wiki morality.
    Maybe they should be critiqued instead for the dreadful phallocentricity of their username, even if they do present as a 'vixen'? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained above, my reason for posting to ANI was not just about the talk page blanking and not just about the edits to the Cisgender page. It's the history of contentious editing over the month of this account's existence. Funcrunch (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing WP:NOTHERE, I'm seeing an opposing point-of-view. Some edits are quite neutral. Just as many of us are probably biased in one direction, others may be biased in the other direction. This doesn't mean that their contributions aren't valid - and different viewpoints will ultimately lead to a stronger project - what one person sees as NPOV will differ from another. Presumably even a member of a very right-wing organizaiton has a viewpoint, and is welcome to contribute, as long as they abide by the same rules as the rest of us. The user has only edited cisgender thrice, ever. And what they are trying to add, doesn't seem to be entirely unreasonable to add, if phrased correctly. Instead of just deleting the reference they are trying to add, why not rephrase the text around it more neutrally? For the innocent here, what does DH110 refer to? Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not just talking about the Cisgender page; I wouldn't have brought the user to ANI for only those edits. Contentious editing also happened on Buzzfeed (1, 2) and Black Lives Matter (1, 2) with multiple reverts despite being invited (on the BuzzFeed edit) to discuss on the talk page. The only talk page D.H.110 has edited to date appears to be their own. It's not a matter of having an opposing point of view, it's a matter of proper sourcing and cooperating with other editors. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw those; but not much else. Those were both the month before last. No indication they aren't learning from the edit comments. I think this WP:BITE applies. Doesn't seem to be edit warring. On the surface the edits all seem quasi-reasonable. They aren't doing any damage. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot one more example: Also blanked a sourced section of Gender binary as "unverified", and did not respond to invitation to discuss on talk page. Also, this is the first day of March, and February is a short month, so "the month before last" makes these edits sound longer ago than they were. Regardless, I disagree that "they aren't doing any damage" (obviously, or I wouldn't be posting here). Funcrunch (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it so annoying when people delete a referenced section because they don't agree that the reference cited actually supports the claim?
    This is not ANI material. Discuss it at talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gender binary is a bit more concerning. But it's the only time they've ever touched the article, and it was January. Their more recent references have been a bit more constructive, and have had references. All the edits I've checked, that gave me any concern on POV were very quickly dealt with on the pages in question. The edit summaries for both their edits and reversions look good. I'm not sure I'd get along particularly well with the editor in question, but I don't see any issues other than POV; I'm a little concerned that reference isn't being added to cisgender in one form or other. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Doxing by Special:Contributions/144.13.183.111

    Users being reported:

    Please see

    For a similar prior case, please see Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime in the ANI archives.

    K.e.coffman (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't involved in the last ANI case, but looking at those diffs, it looks like the user was posting those links as they actually pertain to the Wikipedia article discussion. I don't think this is necessarily an obvious deliberate doxing, even if it isn't necessarily right (though I have no experience with this editor). The Reddit page does discuss Wikipedia. DarkKnight2149 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it doxxing when anyone can visit the page and see you admit it? http://i.imgur.com/gcWwCwi.png 144.13.183.111 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Regardless of your intentions, unless they have posted this information on Wikipedia, you need to stop with these links. Read WP:OUTING. DarkKnight2149 16:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I suppose, what then about the comments he makes encouraging other redditors to make accounts then label anything they don't like as dubious, so I assume it gets removed? That sounds sort of like raiding/brigading, and I was wondering then who or where should I post that to? 144.13.183.111 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the reported users I´m putting those edits the reporter linked above in words: A link was left on my talkpage, I said it should be posted not there but the respective discussion where it was inserted (the link itself by me as it was forgotten to be linked). Then I tagged the reporter and another user whose talk page was linked in the respective reddit page. I didn´t make any definite claims that the respecive reddit user is the same person and therefore don´t think that, as far as I am concerned, I was involved in any doxing. Also, unlike the said-to-be similar case, my account is in no way made to take out grudges which my contribution history clearly shows. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=768073006"