Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 394: Line 394:
:::*The proxy is blocked. So what is the point of that comment? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
:::*The proxy is blocked. So what is the point of that comment? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
::::: I think I explained that pretty clearly in the post you're replying to: [[WP:PROXY]] does not suggest that someone's comments/!votes should be struck because they were editing through a proxy. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite (that their contributions should be presumed valid, assuming its not vandalism or block evasion). If I have missed some guideline/policy that says otherwise, please point it out to me - if not, and in the absence of an SPI/admin finding that the IP ''is'' HughD, then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15&diff=768589794&oldid=768586400 this] should be reverted, the IP should be allowed their !vote, and people should not be removing their comments. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
::::: I think I explained that pretty clearly in the post you're replying to: [[WP:PROXY]] does not suggest that someone's comments/!votes should be struck because they were editing through a proxy. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite (that their contributions should be presumed valid, assuming its not vandalism or block evasion). If I have missed some guideline/policy that says otherwise, please point it out to me - if not, and in the absence of an SPI/admin finding that the IP ''is'' HughD, then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15&diff=768589794&oldid=768586400 this] should be reverted, the IP should be allowed their !vote, and people should not be removing their comments. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::Editors here seem to be confusing [[WP:BLOCK]] with [[WP:BAN]]. They are two different things. The open proxies have been blocked, but there's no confirmation that the editor using the IP has been banned. Comments by banned editors may be removed. Comments from merely blocked editors should not be. [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 17:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


== User:Eruditescholar ==
== User:Eruditescholar ==

Revision as of 17:02, 7 March 2017

    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

    User:Johnpacklambert

    Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering WP:BEFORE [1] [2] [3], 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. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored [16] [17] and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" [18] [19]. 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 [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and [28]. Similarrly, questions on his talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [29] and [30] 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: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]), but simply deletes the posts using edit summaries such as "delete rubbish" (diffs: [40], [41], [42]) 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]
    If your contrition were sincere, would you not withdraw your nominations such as [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodrigue_Akl]? Jacona (talk) 15:37, 7 March 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 [43], [44] 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 [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] and [53]. Also, questions on your talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [54] and [55]. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't seen those diffs [56], [57] 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.[58] 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 [59] 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" [60] 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]
    • Comment on opposes. The opposes above by @Andrew Davidson and @Magnolia677 are thoughtful and worth reading. Thanks to both editors for posting them.
      I have a lot of sympathy with the points they make, particularly that AFD places too much weight on topic-specific guidelines such as NFOOTY. In particular, Andrew Davidson was right to point out that the idea that football is special and so should be exempted from the general notability guideline is very much a point-of-view. However, even that is an understatement. The topic-specific guidelines in WP:NSPORTS are all headed with a bolded sentence that topics inthat field "are presumed notable if". Note that word "presumed", because it's crucial: it does not assert notability; it just creates a disprovable assumption. This is spelled out very clearly in WP:GNG:
    "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
    Sadly, some editors wrongly treat the subheads such as NFOOTY as a sort of trump card which exempts the article from WP:GNG. And this tends to be endorsed by non-admin closers, so we have a steady flow of AFDs based on a misrepresentation of the guidelines.
    JPL is challenging this, and is right to do so: the guidelines support his principle.
    But the problem is that the way he does it is wrong, and timewasting.
    If JPL wants to challenge the mistaken use of NFOOTY etc as a trump card, the he needs to make sure that his nominations are based on the in-depth analysis required by GNG. He needs to actually disprove the assumption, and that takes a lot more than one line.
    If JPL does fewer AFDs and makes a better job of them, he is more likely to succeed in reducing Wikipedia collection of permastubs which will never amount to more than glorified list entries. And other editors will avoid having to waste time on AFDs which are inadequately prepared. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If John Pack Lambert or any other editor for that matter want to challenge WP:NFOOTBALL that's well and fine but it should be done on the WikiProject's talk page or other appropriate settings, not on AFDs. I don't believe the editor was intentionally trying to do this but this might possibly fall under WP:POINT. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Inter&anthro: please will you re-read what I posted? It is all about the guidelines as they currently stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I must partially disagree then, none of John Pack Lambert's recent football AFDs even gathered ONE delete vote. I also do not understand Andrew Davidson's qualm with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov. Sure the article is a bit lazily written and it is a stub, but it pretty comprehensively passes WP:NFOOTY. A goalkeeper who has played 15 full matches is certainly notable in football standards, and the result of the AFD is a clear indication of that. Also there were other AFDs that were closed by an admin so I don't understand this animosity with this admin-closure business. Either way this is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose -- Wikipedia is drowning in promotional spam and non-notable BLPs, and penalising an editor for AfD contributions is counter-productive. Separately, I did not find the beauty pageant fiasco to be a correct description of JPL's contributions. Most of these articles were either redirected or deleted, and I believe the AfDs brought this area to the community attention, so many more editors have started nominating such articles; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – if the afds are valid let others have the enjoyment of listing them. Moreover JPL will be released into more varied activities. Oculi (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, at least as written. AFDs initiated by editors who do not comply with WP:BEFORE are pestilential, and editors who do this regularly should be sanctioned. But that's a separate issue from the rate at which JPL initiates AFDs. Right now, the AFD tool shows that about 75% of the AFDs he starts are closed with delete outcomes.[61] That's a more than acceptable rate. If the complaint is that JPL is too fast and accurate, that should probably be rejected out of hand. That said, the number of deletion discussions JPL initiated on February 26 is greatly excessive, by any reasonable standard. Any repetition of that spree should be grounds for topic bans of increasing duration. But singling out one user for indefinite penalties merely because they stepped on some overly sensitive toes, while allowing other users with similar patterns of misbehavior to escape scot-free, is not appropriate. We ought to make a commitment to systematically enforce WP:BEFORE, which is incorporated by reference into the WP:AFD page. If we're not willing to do that, we shouldn't be targeting editors for draconian editing limits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:The afdstats are masked, as in some projects, he is doing very good. But as soon as he ventures into, sports, topics for example, he's running a lot closer to 10% than 75%. And it's not 1 AFD, it's many at once. Followed by more a few days later, ignoring all the points that were made earlier. It does though all seem to be in good faith. Is there any way to subset those afd stats by project?Nfitz (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: In these three (see 1, 2, 3) AFD nominations John Pack Lambert nominated them with the rational that they failed WP:NFOOTY. If he said they failed WP:GNG as stated above he might have had a point (I'd disagree but that's irrelevant). The problem is that all three of those and many more of the AFD propositions well passed the WP:NSPORTS requirements, and it the mass of nominations that this user makes that are a problem. There is no rush or need for 20 to 50 AFD nominations a day that this user is known to make. If John Pack Lambert where to take more time maybe he could form better AFD proposals and arguments or maybe he wouldn't nominate articles that articles on logic or failing guidelines that they actually passed. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - My experience with this user at AfD is that he is following guidelines. John Pack Lambert recently nominated an article about a footballer for deletion and was quickly accused of not following WP:BEFORE by other participating editors. However, I did several searches and found no signs of "significant coverage" of the subject. I didn't take it as a disruptive nomination, and if anything lead to minor improvements in the article (and potentially the removal of an article about a non-notable subject). Jogurney (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jogurney:It's not about the one article though. If it was just one article we wouldn't be here. If it was about one article a day, we wouldn't be here. It's 20 a day (some days at least), with the same reason they won't be deleted that the ones the previous day passed on. This just overloads the project, and ends up using a lot of people's time. If he'd only PROD them, at least we'd spend less time on them. 19:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure why people are !Voting without reading the entirety of this ANI. There are !Votes based on one or two specific AFDs without considering the entirety of the problem and the editor's other behaviour, namely refusing to discuss the issue with editors expressing concerns, blanking his talk page instead of discussing (with the description "rubbish"), pretending to show contrition here while describing this ANI as "vengeance", "an attack", "intimidation" etc, and making false accusations against me. I would draw your attention to the following:
    • Take a look at his history from the 20th & 26th of February - if you don't find that disturbing then I am concerned. Yes a few got deleted but mainly in other topic areas. I don't recall seeing a single !Delete vote in all those AFDs above and there were many concerns raised about him not researching or fully understanding criteria or simply overlooking some really basic stuff. The withdrawn noms only came after the ANI was started, on the 20th User:Rikster2 asked him to withdraw the nom for Maksim Agapov as " He actually does meet the WP:NBASKETBALL standard as he played in Euroleague competition last year. He also meets a second SSG (WP:NOLYMPICS) by playing for the Croatian team in last year's summer games. " ... this was ignored and until 8 days later well after the ANI was started. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in this case because there's enough to still show the AfDs are being closed as delete, exactly with the past bundles of pageant members AfDs, so there's been the stated willing of change in the current number of nominating, which solves it; otherwise still pursuing as wanting to still nominate at AfD and limit the intake by that alone, is simply wanting to take things too far. While I concur a few of the last ones were questionable, there's still the overall helpful participation overall. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I literally can't make sense of your comment. "The stated willing of change int he current number of nominating which solves it"... which solves what? The editor in question is still making a large number of scattershot ill thought out nominations which is exactly what he was encouraged not to do last time, regardless of the no consensus close. Clearly the issue has not been "solved" given his recent history at AFD. The SNOW keep votes are piling up, at least three more since I added that list and it appears more to come given there are a number outstanding with narry a "delete" vote. Of his last 100 nominations], two thirds of the 36 currently closed have been closed as Speedy Keep or Keep. And "helpful participation"? What of his behaviour when others brought to his attention that he was making a number of incorrect nominations, when they asked him to withdraw nominations? Radio silence, and then when the issue was addressed more directly, the posts got blanked. There's clearly no willingness to be helpful and collaborative. This is a pattern of behaviour which stems back long before the last ANI discussion. He clearly is expressing an intention to do what he likes how he likes and will only be curtailed when brought to ANI. If this closes as no consensus (how much longer will this be kept open by the way?) will we have to all go through this a third time when another topic hits his sights? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • He has also recently accused an editor who voted to !Keep of "prejudicing the nomination based on alleged behavior of the nominator without considering the nomination itself." This comes after the editor in question wrote "strong keep article over qualifies WP:GNG which is basic yardstick for establishing notability on Wikipedia on second look nominator of article is currently answering a case on "his Behaviour of nominating numerous articles for deletion without taking time to read reference provided" I'm not sure what part of "On second look" JPL is unable to comprehend but this continues the pattern of assuming bad faith against those who disagree with him. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Nominating a whole bunch of articles for deletion in the same topic within a very short period of time is generally in and of itself problematic, because it puts undue strain on the small community that specializes in that topic to try and save them (this idea is similar to WP:FAIT)
    2. As PageantUpdater notes above, there was a pretty long string of articles that were kept, half of them speedily and many with not a single delete vote. pbp 14:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by what I said there, I would not have started the ANI discussion had JPL engaged in discussion with editors when the issue was first brought to his talk page. It all could have been sorted out amicably. Two tried even before I got involved, and were ignored. I know we have history but honestly I don't actually enjoy this mess and I'd much rather the previous ANI been the end of all of it. However, when I can see the same behaviour repeating itself, I feel it important to bring it to the table for discussion. It frustrates me when I see him acting the victim in similar talk page messages, because to me it reinforces the idea that he doesn't realise that he has done anything wrong - both the AFDs himself and his behaviour in (not!) discussing them. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. User cannot possibly be doing WP:BEFORE if he is nominating 60 articles per day. Not doing BEFORE wastes countless hours of editor time and ends up getting notable articles deleted. I support restriction, and support requiring WP:BEFORE, and support also requiring that he post Template:Friendly search suggestions on the talk page of each article so that he can more easily do WP:BEFORE. I also support requiring him to change his Google-search results-per-page to 100 results per page. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I feel it my duty to participate in community discussions such as XfD, and it is a waste of my time when AfD is being spammed. Just because it is a sub par article, doesn't mean it has to be AfDd NOW.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Softlavender's reasoning. If doing even a simple WP:BEFORE assessment takes a few minutes, then someone nominating 60 AfDs in a day would have had to have spent at least 3-5 hours to do the BEFORE assessment (assuming 3-5 minutes per article). This seems highly implausible and the amount of problematic AfDs seems to confirm it. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The proposal is reasonable and appropriate, especially in view of the long-established finding by ArbCom noted at WP:Fait accompli. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I reviewed this AfD list "Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]". If all these 12 articles were deleted -- Wikipedia would lose nothing. A league might be notable which does not mean that all the league players were automatically notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of all players of all leagues. Notability shall be proven not assumed. To review the articles contents I needed no more than 30 secs to understand their insignificance.--178.221.131.66 (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, you've only made one other edit to Wikipedia, and as is very evident in your rationale, you very clearly don't understand Wikipedia's notability or deletion guidelines and policies. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that [4] to [15] are the links to near unanimous keeps in PageantUpdater's opening statement (this will be less obvious once this is archived). Needless to say, as these were well-attended near-unanimous keeps, the mass nomination of these players is disruptive. If we want to change the way we evaluate notability in this topic area, there has to be discussion and consensus in other forums first. Nfitz (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz Bear in mind that some of the listed articles ([4] - [15]) are no more than two lines articles about some local athletes almost unknown to the rest of world. Consensus is a Wikipedia nonsense legalizing opinions of just a few and imposing them to the rest of world.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender Anonymously I've made hundreds and hundreds edits. My ISP changes my proxy IP randomly, therefore this IP is one of many IPs I used. I'm not impressed by your understanding of the deletion guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is in dire need of people like Johnpacklambert.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'm afraid you have learned little, if anything, about Wikipedia's notability or deletion guidelines and policies. Here is the quotation from the OP you copied, with the AfDs actually linked (which you failed to provide): "Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]". — Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, do not waste my time. I cannot learn much from two sentence long articles and from people who voted to keep such article. Neither of the voters ever improved the articles they voted to keep. As I mentioned before, the consensus rule is meaningless per se and in 99% manipulated.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I initially felt very negatively towards these sanctions, but time has worn on, and while JPL expressed contrition for various things above, including AfD'ing articles of players on national teams and the Phillipine Basketball Association, his contrition seems to be very superficial as he has done nothing to rectify the mistakes he admits he has made. If he believed these were mistakes, if his contrition were sincere, would he not withdraw nominations such as [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodrigue_Akl], who was both on his national team and the PBA? As this discussion has continued, I have come to believe that JPL is not hearing, and is just annoyed that we're slowing down his progress in rashly deleting articles without being bothered by WP:BEFORE or by concensus notability guidelines he doesn't like.Jacona (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [74] [75] [76] 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]
    • I don't like the outcome that User:Chocolatebareater is chased away from the project. His crime was creating 12 new articles for rugby players, that though well referenced and a lot better than many new player creations, might not (or might depending on differing views) be notable. I don't like this at all. We need editors like User:Chocolatebareater, who was working in good faith, but still got treated to generic talk page notices, and then brought here and subjected to WP:BITE. I'd be much happier to see him creating more new articles, perhaps to fill in some red links for fully professional squads. Or improve some of the existing articles. No, I don't like this at all. I'm not sure how the project has been improved by this whole thing. Please come and contribute again! Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope the irony of you accusing me of BITING Chocolatebareater isn't lost on you. (FYI, you're now biting me as I came here in good faith to seek advice and guidence in dealing with an editor creating multiple articles that fail notability guidelines, requiring copious amounts of AfDs!)
    Anyway, clearly I'm not cut out for this editing lark either and like Chocolatebareater, I'm outta here! Frankly, I viewed myself as a volunteer and I had only the best interests of the project at heart. I don't need to be bashed for trying my best as a volunteer. Best of luck to everyone here and keep up the good work making this the biggest and best encyclopedia on the web. Skemcraig (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the irony isn't lost on me. To be honest, I hadn't realized you User:Skemcraig were new to the project as well. And you came here in good faith - and did do everything right. I'm sorry for biting. Your edits have been valuable, and I don't want to lose you either. I wasn't trying to criticize you, so much as lament the situation that lead to User:Chocolatebareater leaving. So please stay. Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither Skemcraig nor Chocolatebareater should leave the project, as they are both good faith users and new users are Wikipedia's greatest resource. However, this discussion is getting too reminiscent of WP:TANTRUM for my taste. DarkKnight2149 16:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic tangents
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I see your point, though a little love doesn't hurt. We've seen month-long love-ins when long-established admins have "resigned" after a block, didn't see anyone reference tantrum then! Nfitz (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nfitz, "a repressive humour-impaired regime"? No, we have not seen month-long love-ins, and I don't know what you mean with "resigned". I think you are going for levity here, but it's not taking off: this has the air velocity of a dodo. Next time try making a joke at your own expense, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies My odd and dry sense of humour will always get me in trouble - it certainly got me my previous block.
    • The meaning of my comment was that I've seen a lot of people running to say nice things to Admins who put up a resign notice, before coming back to the project.
    • In my edit comment I made a joke about it being a different rule for admins. I then put a smiley to make sure no one thought I was being anything but light-hearted in my edit summary. But then to make sure that no one missed the smiley, I made a joke about the smiley, referring to my previous edit a few minutes earlier in the "POV Pushing in Conservative Articles" thread.
    • By "resigned" I mean a resignation from Wikipedia that was short-lived - putting it in quotes meaning they didn't really resign.
    • "repressive humour-impaired regime" plays off my comment in the other thread about the state of politics in the USA, and the old meme that Americans don't get irony.
    • I could diff you a month-long love-in that I recall - but that seems mean-spirited given the one I'm thinking of, is of an admin who frequents here.
    Sorry, it just doesn't work very well, when I have to explain the whole thing! Humour always seems to be a dangerous thing here - that discussion we had about a type of pudding this morning was in my mind innocuous humour. Clearly others saw it differently. I wonder if there's some regional differences to the reactions. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skemcraig, please note that we value your contributions here highly, and hope you will stay. Please also note that per WP:PROD, a PROD can be removed by any editor with no explanation at all. If after the removal you still think an article merits deletion, your options are either tagging it for WP:SPEEDY deletion, or nominating it at AFD. While notability guidelines can be frustratingly ambiguous, unfair, or open to interpretation, we do have processes here to try to make things as fair as possible for all editors while still preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia. Best wishes, and I hope you return. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempted 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]
    If I read it correctly WP:POSTEMAIL refers to private communication that accordingly lapsed into the public. But if I´m not mistaken reddit is not private but instead has public access altogether. Which, even considering the hinted admission of being the same person, would mean that still no private information had been posted over here but just public material that by its content is directly related to wikipedia and the discussion. Which I think should make it fully valid to be posted in said discussions ... GELongstreet (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with most of what you are saying. Though one thing that should be noted is that, even if the user doesn't mind Reddit users knowing about their Wikipedia account, the same might not be true vice versa. This is a tricky situation; an administrator's opinion is definitely needed more than ever. DarkKnight2149 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, I think you should avoid posting any more links until this has wrapped. DarkKnight2149 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Most importantly, the real identity of any person on Wikipedia or any other website is an open question, we don't know if the person posting on reddit is an impersonator or not; part of the reason why WP:OUTING is so important is that, since we have no real way to confirm someone's real identity, it is wrong to link a Wikipedia account or IP address to a real person because there's no way to know if the "evidence" (in this case a person on Reddit) is really that person. We needn't get into all of that here. We don't make excuses "but they admitted it off-wiki..." etc., because we don't know if they actually did, or if someone is just pretending. A bad idea overall to even acknowledge it. --Jayron32 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if they are not the same person, why would they make this complaint saying that they're being doxed? Also in the link they mention asking someone to make an award that the user in question has given himself, and these are all at least from over seven months ago so this person had to have been impersonating them for quite a long time and have been hyper specific about it if they are not the same. But still what about the calls to Raid pages? 144.13.82.132 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous incident was subject to WP:OVERSIGHT which means that even admins can't compare this to the diffs from then to see if this was a similar incident to explain why K.e.coffman might have thought reporting here was best. At the same time, if these are similar, the fact that the previous edits by another user have been suppressed is a good sign this probably shouldn't have been posted on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    Off-topic arguing and content dispute. DarkKnight2149 21:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Not to mention the user in question has blanked entire articles multiple times before to the detriment of the Military History Group. 144.13.82.132 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that I've been accused of "vandalism", "deletionism", of conducting a "misguided de-Nazification campaign", being "anti-German" (alternatively, being from German wikipedia), plus other offenses up to, and including, "McCarthyism" and "book burning" (see: discussion at MilHist Talk page) :-). The two editors being discussed here, one of them an IP-hopping anon user, find my editing problematic and disagree with it. If they both feel strongly about my "deletionism" and "vandalism" then the appropriate venue to discuss it would be at his noticeboard, not on Talk pages: User_talk:GELongstreet#Deleted_Page_and_About_K.e.coffman. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I had to go to work and I am on a different computer, now care to address the calls to edit pages based purely on emotion made by the reddit account in question, flippant attitude towards other Wiki members? Not to mention that if it is really you like you seem to imply by this Doxxing complaint, that is shows your very ovious bias towards articles and pages you have blanked, changed, or otherwise removed and that the Military History group have had to fix? And with the Dagger article why make a redirect to a page that holds no information about said object whatsoever? 144.13.82.132 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that the "appropiate venue" for a discussion should at first be the project talk page without need to involve the admins; hoping that a concensus could be found, that the other project members would speak up (several did) and that certain parties would stop their, in my opinion, biased unconstructive editing and use their proven abilities to do something useful. That's why I began the original discussion over there. The reddit stuff if just a continuation of that and therefore was posted there, too. The content of the reddit-stuff clearly shows that my hopes for that discussion can only be reached partially ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: do something useful, please see: User:K.e.coffman#Contributions. Re: SS Ehrendolch, this article has been tagged as lacking citations from April 2015. The IP might also want to source the Meine Ehre heißt Treue article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So instead of finding some/rewriting to add some in you blank the page entirely? Also care to address the other things Mentioned in my post?144.13.82.132 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    also said page makes only one reference to a SS dagger with the saying engraved on it, not the specific dagger, which, why does it not deserve a page? 144.13.82.132 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought this report was about whether or not doxxing occurred. Perhaps we can stay on topic and keep the content disputes elsewhere? DarkKnight2149 21:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have oversighted some material discussed in this section. Anyone who continues to play games to see how close they can come to doxxing will be blocked. I think some oversighters might have blocked already, but I will do so only if it proves necessary. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: You may also want to delete this. DarkKnight2149 20:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: SANCAN112

    I'd like to propose that the current block of two weeks for this user be upgraded to indefinite under the basis that they are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. They've now been blocked twice for unsourced additions and uncivilized behavior/personal attacks, and it's clear to me that they will not change their ways. Thank you in advance for any feedback. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many, if not most, of their edits seem to be constructive contributions unless I'm missing something. Certainly a couple of bad days there though. First block was 2 days. Second was 2 weeks. Presumably if it happens again, it will be longer, or indefinite. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't have a long history, which makes the two blocks worrisome. However, rope probably applies here. --Tarage (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the recent behaviour - it's possible that the account may have been compromised. Twitbookspacetube 07:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - They don't have a long edit history. Let the block expire. If they continue to make disruptive edits after that, they will eventually find themselves indeffed and will have no one to blame but themselves. In the meantime, we should keep an eye on them. DarkKnight2149 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor with narrow focus, possibly politically motivated

    Could an experienced admin please look at Special:Contributions/85.60.140.142? He's possibly politically motivated and I'm not sure how reliable his contributions are. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is changing articles of people and changing their nationality from "British" to "Scottish", which in itself isn't disruptive so long as the changes are correct. Do we know if these changes are correct or if they're not? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has conflated nationality and ethnicity in at least one edit summary [77] and moved on to things like this [78]. They're a nationalist battleground editor. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, England, Wales, Scotland and northern island make up the UK. Thus a person can be "Scottish" and "British" they cannot be "English" and "Scottish". Scotland does not have it's own passports.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also many are not "Scottish" not having been born there, but just live or play there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a matter of personal opinion and taste, Andy Murray has publicly declared himself to be British, but Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't dream of being called anything other than Scottish. Calling someone from Northern Ireland "British" is factually incorrect, while saying they are "from the UK" can be contentious and is best avoided, Ian Paisley would have probably been okay about it, while Gerry Adams would have had steam coming out of his ears (to put it mildly). If the IP is running ramshod through articles without getting a consensus for each one, they're being disruptive and can be blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP rangeblock for Suicide of Tyler Clementi

    A very persistent IP hopper keeps posting bigoted and offensive material at Suicide of Tyler Clementi and its talk page. Most recent example: [79], which by the way should probably be rev-deled. All the edits are like that one.

    A few days ago Joe Decker semi-protected the page, which certainly helps, but as the diff above shows, the IP just moves to the talk page, and seems quite determined to keep this up indefinitely. It's probably a bad idea to semi the talk page too, so I'd like to recommend a rangeblock. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've handled the revision deletion, I'll leave the rangeblock to someone who knows more about such things since I don t have access to the rangeblock calculator at the moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Blade. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Has WP:CRD been met? If I was suicidal, I wouldn't want to be coming across those old edits in the revision summary. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are quite right. It would really be best to revdel all the edits to the page by the IP. I see that the most recent one was revdeled a few minutes ago, but there are older ones too. There is also this edit to a user page of an editor who reverted one of those edits: [80], and there may be others. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cleaned out a couple more revisions too, including the one right above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs have been range blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone for the help. I suspect that this person will be persistent enough that the problem will resume sometime after 36 hours. If so, I'll come back and let you all know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem resumes

    And it's a good thing that you did. Just as soon as the 36 hours were over, the problem started up again:

    Those 3 edits have been reverted, but I would recommend that they be rev-deled. And that individual IP has been blocked for 24 hours. But unless this ANI thread is going to become a perennial, I really think that we are going to need a long-term rangeblock. Clearly, this is not going to go away without us making it go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tryptofish, you're going to have to ping the admins who helped before, to get some action. Otherwise I don't think they are noticing this. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the edits were rev-deled just a few minutes after I made the post (and I certainly hope that some admins are monitoring this noticeboard, whether or not they are the same ones as before). I also see that another admin extended the block of this individual IP to a month, with no talkpage access. They just didn't comment on it here. But, for what it's worth, I'm pinging Oshwah, who did the previous rangeblock, because currently only the single IP is blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks against an RFC poster

    Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use is an RFC posted by an IP editor. The RFC is brief and neutrally worded. Editors who oppose the proposed text have posted personal attacks on the IP editor, claiming on the one hand that he is a an illegitimate sock and on the other hand that he is a single purpose editor. @Springee: has had a long battle with this IP editor. Sockpuppet investigations were closed without conclusion. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive). These comments have no bearing on the issue or the content discussion, so I deleted them. I was reverted by @Niteshift36: and I deleted them a second time, with an explanation.[84] My question here is: Are purely personal comments and SPA tags appropriate in a content RFC? Was I wrong to delete them? Felsic2 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As a result of another clumsy revert, my comments have been deleted and the RFC has been deactivated.[85] I don't want to edit war on a talk page, but this is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's no personal attack. The RfC was never properly completed any way, so it's not accidentally deactivated. And I've restored the proper discussion to the talk page and warn Felsic to stop removing others comments from a talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are purely personal comments and SPA tags appropriate in a content RFC? Generally, if the editors had issues with the IP, or suspected them of being a sock, they should have gone to SPI or somewhere like here, not disparage them on an article talk page. Since the IP was an open proxy, and since AFAIK most people use dynamic IPs anyway, having their first edit being an RfC is...well...actually pretty meaningless either way. Even the IP had a lengthy anon editing history, it just as well may have been different people editing on the same IP in the absence of more compelling behavioral evidence.
    Was I wrong to delete them? A lot of times that's an individual judgement call. Even in cases where personal attacks are obvious and even egregious, edit warring over removing them often exacerbates the situation more than the personal attacks themselves. Per guidance at WP:NPA, Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it.
    But at the end of the day, the botched reversion that closed the RfC has been reverted, and I'm not sure there's much needed in this thread other than advice. May want to keep Wikipedia:Help desk in mind in the future, unless you are seeking specific sanctions that require broad community input and/or administrator tools. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SPA tag was wholly proper and should never have been removed. The fact was that was the ONLY article the IP had edited. The SPA tag simply states they've made edits in only that or few articles. Again, entirely proper. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an open proxy. The tag was meaningless. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter if it's "meaningless" or not. It shows the casual reader that it's an SPA. In addition, the tag was not incorrect or inappropriate. There was zero reason for the removal, let alone the repeated removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead. TimothyJosephWood 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gee Timothy, that's a great, unnecessarily long piped link. How about if you link me to the policy or guideline that says it is improper to use it and should be removed by an editor, multiple times. Do you have that? Because refactoring other editors on talk pages has a pretty narrow scope. Until you do have something that fits that scope, the placement was proper, the removal was improper and no amount of "probably" and "should" will change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    m:Don't be a jerk ... no piping. Just for you. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the editor did file an SPI and it was closed without reaching a conclusion. Making the same charge repeatedly, and even routinely reverting edits and talk page posts, seems like a case of casting aspersions, which the ArbCom has disciplined for violating. WP:ASPERSIONS.
    Adding personal attacks, and repeatedly restoring them, doesn't seem like a good way to conduct an RFC. The talk page guidelines WP:TPG, specifically cover this issue and those guidelines say to avoid talking about other editors. Felsic2 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put this another way: An editor editing through an open proxy IP address may (in fact almost certainly given the circumstances) have an editing history unrelated to that IP address. As you cannot prove one way or the other if the editor was solely focused on that subject, you cannot label them a single-purpose-account as you have no clue what their editing history is. An open-proxy IP is not an account. And in fact, by indicating they are a sockpuppet of another user, unless that user is demonstratably an SPA, its an unfounded personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if they only have that history for a day, it's still their history. I can show that IP has only edited that article. They are, demonstrably, a SPA. You can't show they've edited anywhere else. I didn't post the sockpuppet allegation under discussion, but I did post the SPA tag. You can't show that editor edited anywhere else. (BTW, the tag says this or "few other" topics). This is exactly why registration should be required. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin guidance please

    I am really not sure how this situation should be handled, but I am uncomfortable with people striking RFC !votes [86], adding SPA tags [87] (especially when the discussion above shows very little support for that), removing comments [88], and cluttering up an RFC with off-topic accusations of sockpuppetry [89] when there has been no positive SPI and no official determination that the IP is HughD. Is this how we normally do things?

    For context, there is some discussion here where The Wordsmith seems to have been convinced that the IP might be HughD, and there was an inconclusive SPI here but nothing "official" as far as I can tell. Can we get an uninvolved admin to take a look and decide whether or not this IP's contributions are a case of WP:DUCK or a case of WP:AGF? Seems like this needs to get settled one way or another. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The SPA tag has nothing to do with SPI or a sock allegation. There doesn't have to be a finding of anything. It merely shows that the IP has edited in no or few topics other than this one. That is factually correct. None of you have shown it's not true, so put the whip away. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've already (and repeatedly) stated your opinion on this above. But my question involved more than just an spa tag (ie, striking votes, deleting comments, sock accusations), and I'm asking for someone who is not already involved in this dispute to comment. No "whip" here, whatever that was supposed to mean. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whip means stop beating the dead horse. There's no violation or policy prohibiting the tag. So making it part of your "concerns" looks like trying to stack the complaint to make it seem more than it is. (Much like listing a lot of sources that don't address the topic under discussion.) Since you included it, I'm addressing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you always this combative? You're being way more adversarial than the situation warrants, both here and in the RFC. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really want to start making this a conversation about personalities? You can ask that, but when I ask if you understand the issue, you lecture me about civility? [90]Would be happy to discuss your hypocrisy if you want to start discussing personalities. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was a response to your behaviour in the RFC as a whole, and in this ANI thread, not just your reply to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I looked at WP:PROXY and while it does suggest that proxies can/should be blocked, it also says that "while this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Hence the question (ie, is this is a "legitimate" editor or not). Fyddlestix (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I explained that pretty clearly in the post you're replying to: WP:PROXY does not suggest that someone's comments/!votes should be struck because they were editing through a proxy. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite (that their contributions should be presumed valid, assuming its not vandalism or block evasion). If I have missed some guideline/policy that says otherwise, please point it out to me - if not, and in the absence of an SPI/admin finding that the IP is HughD, then this should be reverted, the IP should be allowed their !vote, and people should not be removing their comments. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors here seem to be confusing WP:BLOCK with WP:BAN. They are two different things. The open proxies have been blocked, but there's no confirmation that the editor using the IP has been banned. Comments by banned editors may be removed. Comments from merely blocked editors should not be. Felsic2 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eruditescholar

    User:Eruditescholar has a history of adding categories to BLP's without proof. See 2015 and 2016. This bad habit has reappeared here, here, here and here. The editor has been warned about this several times previously and apologized on his talk page while promising to take greater care. Requesting a long block to prevent more damage to BLP's with uncited ethnicity categories.--TM 23:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This User: TM is a disruptive editor especially on Nigerian-Yoruba related articles.

    @TM If you know nothing about ethnic groups in Nigeria, you don't have to display your ignorance or attempt to use a system to suppress information for readers. We are all here to make Wikipedia a better source of infomation for readers and you shouldn't hinder it or bear your grudges against another editor.

    We've had series of conflicts on this issue over many years and you happen to be the only editor who keeps editing in this manner. Aren't you tired? Eruditescholar (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Namimbia! as EruditeScholar said in the previous ANI's, In the African settings, name actually do mean a lot and it is very very possible to analyse the tribe based on that. And I must add really? Ain't you tired of all this??????? ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very obvious and crystal clear that @Namiba: is "gaming the system" he is standing on the polices of Wikipedia and using them as a tool to quell, repress and subdue information. @Eruditescholar: is a Nigerian, and in Nigeria upon announcement of a Name, the tribe / ethnicity of that individual is deduced/known immediately. That is probably the reason Eruditescholar may forget to, at times back up these claims with citations because to be honest In my opinion there really is no need to do so. notwithstanding, I, as well as every other editor on Wikipedia, including Eruditescholar, understands the essence of citations, a review of the works by Eruditescholar shows he does proper referencing and citations, if he occasionally forgets to reference some parts shouldn't he be pardoned? i say simple warning should do and a Block is not the solution and I would suggest that Namiba focuses on things that he is really sure of and let people with in-depth knowledge of Nigeria, like Nigerian Editors focus on Nigerian related articles, as I feel and can observe that there is a form of witch-hunt or grudge from one party to the other. Celestina007 (talk) 05:05, March 2017 (UTC)
    The problem is even if, we can accept the occasional mistake, this doesn't explain Eruditescholar reverting without adding references when someone has noticed their mistake. Also there's a difference between an occasional mistake and 4 mistakes in about 4 minutes. And besides reverting, Eruditescholar's response when they make mistakes, as shown here, is to complain about other people not understanding Nigerian ethnic groups rather than to either add sources and apologise for their mistake or demonstrate that they were already in the article. The community has not accepted any proposal to relax our WP:BLPCAT requirements for Nigerian people, or anyone else, based on the ability of random editors to tell their ethnicity from their names. So all that stuff is irrelevant. In BLPs, contentious information whether negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable is supposed to be "quell, repress and subdue"d if it lacks references so it's by definition not "gaming the system" to do so. Nigerian people can focus on Nigerian related articles if they desire, and they do so by finding references and adding referenced information. Not by adding information which they just know to BLPs. Other editors are not required to know a great deal about Nigerian ethnicities to be able to check additions by any party because they can check references if needed (or if the references are not easily accessible, ask for a copy of the reference). The only thing another editor really needs to know when it comes to ethnicities is complete synonyms. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: you do a make a plausible argument sir, & I very much understand your concerns, in summary what I'm saying is the mistake @Eruditescholar: makes is to a large extent involuntary, as any other Nigerian editor may make the exact mistake, and i am particular to Nigerian editors as this is a peculiar issue to most Nigerian Editors, it may on the surface look easy to resolve, but I assure you it isn't as easy as it seems, as it requires very serious conscious efforts to overcome and I do understand that Wikipedia isn't exempting nor giving Nigeria or Nigerian Editors any special privileges whatsoever, because Wikipedia's policies are flat and as so applies throughout all articles on Wikipedia irrespective of race/color/Nation.
    Another reason I worry about this particular case is thus; The Given history of the subject of our discussion and his 'accuser', they seem to have a sour history, and I fear one party may be using this platform to settle scores or "try to get back at the other" so judgement should be carried out carefully and with caution so as to avoid any bad blood or personal feelings getting hurt.
    Finally, From my findings sir, there is a "Last chance" policy or perhaps it's called "Final rope" , I do forget what it's called, but I think its a policy used as an alternative to blocking a user, it is said to be a way of giving a user a chance to prove himself/herself worthy, I do believe Eruditescholar deserves this "final rope" I do believe he deserves another chance, rather than be blocked because as stated earlier, any Nigerian editor could have easily made the same mistakes as he.Celestina007 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the editors' persistent warnings and their apparent refusal to accept those warnings (except when faced with the threat of a block as seen in the previous instances this has come to ANI) I feel a block is in order. Otherwise, this behavior will continue and hundreds if not thousands of BLP's will be tagged with an ethnicity category for which there is no actual proof.--TM 12:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose that a ban on Eruditescholar adding ethnicity and ethnicity categories to Biographies of Living Persons is in order, considering: ongoing behaviour in spite of previous warnings; refusal to listen; the strong policies in place in protecting BLPs from exactly this sort of unreferenced claims. First Light (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @First Light: could you kindly read my comments above so you could understand better ? Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, and it confirms my thought that a ban on adding such categories is the answer, rather than a complete block as TM is suggesting. I also don't appreciate your badgering an editor who is only trying to support an important policy on BLPs ( accusing him of "gaming the system," "a form of witch-hunt or grudge," "may be using this platform to settle scores or "try to get back at the other"," ) Better to discuss the BLP policy and why you think Eruditescholar is correct in his behaviour, according to policy—rather than making personal accusations against an editor who is trying to uphold and important policy. First Light (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mention Namiba, I was civil & diplomatic enough to use the word "party" hence, I did not technically refer to him.
    @First Light: I respect the actions of @Namiba: towards developing a Better Wikipedia and of course I also respect you as an editor and your contributions, as my superiors what you say and do means a lot and exerts much influence
    As regards my comments on Namiba "gaming the system", yes, I really do believe so, it doesn't have to be correct, but based on history I have observed, its a postulation I derived which may be right or wrong, also I do strongly believe actions outside of Wikipedia are strongly affecting both editors involved.
    I think your suggestion makes more sense it is preferred to blocking the user. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Celestina007, please place your signature at the end of the last line you write, not on a new line. Helpful hint: if you look at a talk page and your posts are different from everyone else's posts, try to figure out why and how to post like everyone else does. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Guy Macon: okay, thank you so much, Point noted. May i also suggest that you work on your tone as someday you may be addressing an editor who isn't as patient as I am and your current tone may easily be thought as and translated as sarcasm, so henceforth work thoroughly on your tone. And also next time when you are offering an unsolicited "helpful hint" always add a link to the guidelines/ policy page backing up your "helpful hint" because surely every of your "helpful hints" must abide and correlate with a current standing Wikipedia policy or guideline and that way you would really be making a notable and meaningful contribution as providing links would help educate a lot of editors rather than a "helpful" hint. By providing links you would also help in closing up the current and numerous gaps in knowledge.Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can fix it yourself in addition to nannying the poster. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Baseball Bugs: lool oh yes !! he most definitely can help me with that. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Oluwa2Chainz has joined Eruditescholar in the same pattern of editing as well, see here and here. In one edit summary, the editor reverted my removal of the uncited, unmentioned ethnicity categories because "common sense should tell you she's Yoruba".--TM 23:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to confess: I am sick and tired of TM's disruption. In a number of instances, he removed categories that have Yoruba Nigerian ethnicity-related information which he is totally ignorant about, especially when the proof is glaring to me! Even if the proof is not glaring and my editing was wrong, other editors would have corrected it. Many of the biographical articles which he removed ethnic categories from have been in that state for years while other editors edit other areas of these articles in question. Why is he always focusing on the ethnic categorizations? Why is his case always different?? TM really needs to check himself seriously because he is only using my ethnic categorizations as an excuse to get back at me regarding the long-term animosity that has developed between us over the years. It is innapropriate to allow external factors or personal experiences to influence one's editing here. If he has problems to resolve, he shouldn't let it interfere with his editing here! There are many other aspects which need more attention on these biographical articles besides ethnicity. If he is genuinely interested in Nigerian or Yoruba-related articles, then he should improve them in other areas. Wikipedia's rules are mostly general guidelines required for editors to comply and use to provide good information for users. It is wrong to use it to exploit others. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TM: You brought another Nigerian editor User:Oluwa2Chainz to this same ANI discussion? Isn't this a sheer exposure of your ignorance? Please, this has to stop. Enough of all these desperations to fulfill your heart's desire! Eruditescholar (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why any editor feels to impugned my integrity. I simply want to follow the sensible and universal guidelines regarding BLPs and ethnicity categories. It's not personal and I hope the personal attacks will stop.--TM 00:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, if there is no source in the article attesting to the subject's ethnicity then a category listing that ethnicity should not be added. Period. Anything else is original research and blockable disruptive editing if done repeatedly. We see similar behavior with Indian editors trying to discern caste by surname and that practice is stomped on and will not spread. --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NeilN, that was established in both 2015 and 2016 when this same pattern of editing occurred. The question here is what are the consequences? It seems pretty clear from both the edits and comments here that Eruditescholar does not care about Wikipedia policies regarding BLPCAT's.--TM 02:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Namiba: See this. --NeilN talk to me 03:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Darreg is repeating the exact behavior as well, see here and here.--TM 15:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a first step, warn these editors about adding unsourced material and make them aware that discretionary sanctions apply to all BLPs. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's like a spammer asking why I deleted his article when there are plenty more spam articles out there. If an editor's attention comes across an article for whatever reason, they are free to focus on resolving the perceived problems with that article. --NeilN talk to me 16:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to be dragged into this ANI case, can't even understand why I was pinged. I haven't gone through all the edits of Eruditescholar, but in this case, he was spot on. I saw an article through the watchlist I follow and made edits that I believed were not only appropriate, but also factually correct. The woman in question was born in Yorubaland, had her secondary school in Yorubaland, did her university in Yorubaland, was elected as a legislator in Yorubaland, got married into a royal family in Yorubaland. All these were referenced in the article, yet you continue to remove claims that she's a Yoruba politician, even without having any valid contrary argument. I perceive that as being disrespectful to the Yoruba race. One thing I have discovered about WP is that there is a cabal of editors that once you get into their nest, they will continue to haunt you with your own words till they break you. Namiba, you can edit the article as you deem fit. I do not intend to edit that article anymore. My advice to all editors here is don't allow anything break you!, learn to let go. I will not reply to any comment here anymore. Darreg (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darreg: You may not want to reply but I'm pinging you just so you're aware of this response. The problem you face is that Yoruba people defines Yoruba as an ethnic race. This is different from being a citizen of a country or representing a state. Nigerian categories and Mushin politician categories are fine as those can be derived from sources. But ethnicity, as obvious as it seems to you, also needs a source. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Even before this ANI discussion started about two days ago, I have not been as active on Wikipedia as I used to be because of my busy schedule so I ensure that I check what is going on here at least once a day. I would like to see where this ends. TM likes making false assertions to prove his claim like this:

    "It seems pretty clear from both the edits and comments here that Eruditescholar does not care about Wikipedia policies regarding BLPCAT's.--TM"

    I care about Wikipedia's policies otherwise, I wouldnt value the importance of citations. Adding reliables sources is important for articles' veracity but when you can't find adequate sources and multiple information from the article can be utilized to reveal further information for readers, what do you do? Is it constructive to suppress the information due to lack of sources or to reveal it because it is valid?

    If I never cared about BLP categories, why have other editors not reported me on ANI on my numerous thousands of edits I have made on blps since I joined Wikipedia in 2010? The only reason I have to come to ANI is because of TM. I have edited on several blps of ethnicities outside Nigeria including American and British people and I have not had to deal with an issue like this. I am just amused by the way TM keeps lying on me with ease. He tries to cover up his faults in an attempt to reach his goal of keeping me out of Wikipedia for reasons privy to him.

    It would have been better if he keeps editing only on articles he is more knowledgeable about and stay within his comfort zone. He should keep away from editing aspects of articles he is ignorant about. Bringing a third Nigerian editor to this ANI duscussion is even more annoying. In the case of Funmi Tejuosho whose father bears a Yoruba name, has a Yoruba name, was born, raised, educated in Yorubaland and given a leadership role in Yorubaland (one of the few women to be so honoured). What other proof do you need that her ethnicity is Yoruba? Most western editors are probably unaware of the role of names in identifying someone's ethnicity in Nigeria, not mentioning other ethnic determinants. The fact that this ethnic categorization battle has been going on for years means external forces outside of Wikipedia is at play here. Looking at the edit histories of some biographical articles such as Lateef Adegbite, Ilesanmi Adesida, Babatunde Fashola and Mosun Filani some years ago reveals the desperation of the extent he has gone in the past to disrupt Yoruba Nigerian biographical articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eruditescholar: I'm surprised an editor with 25,000+ edits so misses the point of our verifiability policy. Articles are not written for readers familiar with the subject or, in this case, what is a "Yoruba name" and what it implies. As WP:V states, "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Checking does not include hunting down the editor who added the information and quizzing them about Yoruba surnames. It means checking a previously published reliable source. Please answer the question I posed on your talk page. --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eruditescholar is indefinitely topic banned from adding ethnicity or ethnicity categories to BLP's. This topic ban may be appealed in six months at the administrators' noticeboard. [91] --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I was going to propose something similar (not restricted to BLPs) actually wrote it around the same time as the above reply but decided to wait and see what else people said first before posting. The discretionary sanctions avoids the need for all that jazz. Hopefully Eruditescholar learns to follow our WP:V requirements even in non BLPs. BTW, Eruditescholar I actually have some sympathy towards the problem, but as you've been told before until and unless you can change our policies, you need to follow them. And despite my sympathies I won't likely support such a change. It's not that I don't understand how obvious certain things may be, but there are reasons we shouldn't do it even if it is the norm in certain places. BTW Celestina007, I think Eruditescholar's responses here proves the point. It's not a simple case of making mistakes but rather that they seem to think they don't have to follow policies because it's better, but WP:IAR most definitely doesn't apply in a case like this and they've been told that time and time again. And yes, they have been given plenty of chances, including a last chance before. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    POV Pushing in Conservative Articles

    FYI
     – This falls under a discretionary sanctions topic. Requests for enforcement should probably be done at arbitration enforcement. --slakr\ talk / 11:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've talked about it a number of times on AE and Arbcom cases, but this is one of the most blatent POV pushing cases I've seen. Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) is going to Republican articles and adding political talking points to the lead of the articles, generally eclipsing the rest of the lead covering the rest of their lives. This violates WP:UNDUE at the very least but certainly WP:NPOV. He's doing it en masse. Examples: [92][93][94][95][96][97]. This list is not exhaustive, this is just a few in the last day. This kind of blatant POV pushing needs to stop immediately.--v/r - TP 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I know that these types of lede edits (not only by the above user) to put contentious or positioning statements in ledes have been happening with more frequency over the last year or so, just going what I see at BLP/N. It doesn't address the present ANI but I'm slowly developing a proposal eventually to present for how to handle politically-charged articles that links a number of policy/guidelines given WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:DEADLINE among other policies. Most of these types of comments should be only added years down the road after the politically charged arena has tempered down. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:lead: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I have never added anything to a lede that isn't accurate, reliably sourced and reflective of the content of the rest of the article. Could you mention something specific that I've added to a lede that hasn't been? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been copying the most controversial parts of only Conservative articles to prejudice the reader from the beginning in clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. You've focused specifically on issues liberals would find controversial. In addition, WP:LEAD says "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section."--v/r - TP 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Leading advocate of immigration reform" in this edit is quite obviously not borne out by reliable (secondary) sources. TParis, has this editor been advised of discretionary sanctions for BLPs and for American politics?

    And you just did this--inserting a claim based on 538, which isn't unreliable, but it's the kind of site that reports statistics on everyone and thus the argument that this is noteworthy (let alone leadworthy) isn't based on anything but your own judgment. The "ushering in socialism" claim was sourced to the subject's own op-ed piece in his local newspaper (the citation should cite Telegraph Herald, which like Highbeam is not a journal). So no. Opinions become interesting if secondary sources verify that they're interesting; same with mere statistics. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I'm aware of. As you know, I don't frequent the site often anymore. I came across this on my talk page. In fact, now that I've stepped away to put boxes away (moving into my new house), I've realized I skipped a step by not discussing this with Snooganssnoogans first.--v/r - TP 17:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The one example that you gave that I kind of agree with is something that I didn't even add to the lede. The lede of 'David Valadao' has had the disputed text in it before I ever edited the page[98], and I would be perfectly fine with removing it from the lede. "Ushering in socialism" was removed from Blum's page on the basis that Blum didn't write that (except that he did, it's his op-ed). I restored it because the justification was erroneous. The 538 tracking is a good summary of where the politician stands politically. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This IMHO is even worse:
    All/mostly? in a dedicated "Trump" section. I don't recall dedicated "Obama" sections for (D)s, lots of Reps though maybe I'm missing it. 107.77.223.169 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Barack Obama is not a contentious politician among Democrats, and the attitudes of Dem congressmen towards him has never been an issue deemed worthy of coverage by reliable sources. Trump is indisputably one among Republicans. Its' definitely encyclopedic to cover where they stand on him, and every GOP congressman received extensive coverage by reliable sources on what she/he thought about Trump and his policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this just a content dispute that would be addressed by NPOV edits -- addition or removal? I don't see this as a NOTNEWS problem. The content may change over time but the content seems to refer to large acknowledged social or political issues. It's not like they're about last year's Memorial Day parade. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like you can make a plausible argument that these various congressmen's actions in regards to Trump is one of the more historically important facts. Seems like a content dispute to me.Casprings (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is going around to Conservative articles specifically en masse. It needs to stop before it can be fixed. And adding it to the lead isn't a content issues, it's a policy violation.--v/r - TP 17:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Don't worry. I'll do the Democratic congresspeople as well. As can be seen from my history, my focus is primarily on political positions. I wrote much of the Pol Positions articles for Trump and Clinton, and the Pol Positions sub-sections for Kaine and Pence, so this is a long-standing interest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you won't. You'll take the advice of multiple people here and quit this altogether. Find another website to push your agenda on. It's not welcome at this one. --Jayron32 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any specific concerns with the content that I add and suggestions on how to improve it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I agree with the above assessments. This is clearly pushing an agenda, and cherry-picking sources, unbalancing articles, and needs to stop. --Jayron32 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree. Obvious BLP violations and certainly looks like pov pushing. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you give one example of a BLP violation that I've added? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, POV, but I guess POV violations in a BLP article could often be considered BLP issues. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would really help if you'd point to one article and specific bits of content that violate POV to clarify your objections and help me understand where you're coming from. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I find it hard to believe you havent read it after 4000 edits and 2 years of editing, but if you haven't, the problem is rooted in WP:UNDUE.--v/r - TP 19:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are your concerns limited to WP:UNDUE in the lede or are the edits as a whole violating WP:UNDUE? The other editors are not being clear. Either way, I disagree and don't see how they violate WP:UNDUE either for lede or the edits as a whole. My editing is completely consistent with how we did it at the Pol Positions of DT and HRC, and on the Pol Positions sub-sections for Kaine and Pence. I'm not exactly new at this. That's why I'm confused by the reaction above and asking for specific examples. The only specific example that I agreed crossed a line was for content that I did not originally add and would never add. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't know how it was done at those 4 articles. But, as I've been told, we treat each article on its own merits. I imagine those four articles have 4 or 5 paragraph leads which would make adding a paragraph on their political positions somewhat proper weight. But you're going to articles with one paragraph summarizing the entire article and adding another paragraph specifically on issues that Liberals find controversial and would take a negative view on and then adding that to the lead. That's inappropriate. If you want to write a nuetral paragraph on their political positions, giving all positions due weight in the paragraph, and then that paragraph on political positions was then given it's own due weight in comparison to other content in the lead, that would be okay. But you haven't. Not only is the political positions part overwhelming for the leads of most of those articles, but you're focusing on specific political positions that you personally find controversial. That's undue and it's POV pushing.--v/r - TP 20:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I just add issues that I find notable, and most of them strike me as common sense. They are not added to anger liberals. I try to cram as much as I can in the lede but some things just got to go for readability's sake. The stances that GOP politicians have will in most cases be things that liberals disapprove of and conservatives approve of, so if any political positions are going to be added to the lede, they will in most cases be things that some people approve of and others disapprove of. There's no way around that, unless you're advocating for a policy of omitting any political positions that happen to be controversial. So I don't understand the basis of your complaint, and don't think your inferred solution is workable. So far, I have usually mentioned politicians' voting records (as measured by 538 and ProPublica) and their positions on Obamacare, same-sex marriage, abortion, the environment and Trump. If the candidates have an obvious pet issue, I usually add that too, but it's difficult to tell with representatives in the House because they are just so much less visible than Senators or presidential candidates. Foreign policy and the economy are usually too nuanced and specific to summarize in the lede. If there is some controversy that takes up much space in the article, I usually add that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Specific examples re: WP:UNDUE: We interacted on Immigration and crime where you tried to add a sub-section on Fox News and Donald Trump, including an entire paragraph on Nils Bildt. A review of the article and existing headings (and the RFC for those curious) shows the problem clearly. And this shoehorning of "Trump" into the Gaslighting article is particularly inappropriate. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just "tweaked" one of their edits here--we got a bot that autofixes those citation errors, right? I didn't realize that further on in the article they were just refnames--I though, incorrectly, that they were all simply cited twice. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is pretty blatant and widespread POV pushing, and so much so that it's hard to find a recent edit that isn't. I'm not sure if the fact that they appear to think they are being neutral makes it better or worse.
    I believe I first met the user at Jill Stein, and I am currently involved with them at Sebastian Gorka via a request for mediation from another user, where there is an ongoing RfC regarding apparently characteristic issues: content about a current political figure in debatable BLP grounds. They've definitely shown themselves to have a dependable and fairly strong POV on US political issues, which is fine sometimes, but not if they are carpet bombing articles, and especially not when they are editing and reverting in a way that is completely inconsistent with detailed discussion. In my experience, they definitely seem to be a a magnet for heated disputes wherever they edit, almost entirely political articles, which again, is fine sometimes, but not in seldom visited articles on fairly medium/minor federal government officials, and not in a way that is mass produced.
    So having said all that, I totally support as topic ban on BLP articles related to US politics. The user does not seem to understand what being overly cautious and overtly neutral in these areas means, and these are the very articles that we have an elevated obligation to safeguard. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snooganssnoogans there appears to be substantial evidence that you have been engaging in a campaign of political POV editing. Further it appears that there is a strong consensus supporting this conclusion among experienced editors. Given that you were advised in August of last year that the topic of post 1932 American Politics is subject to discretionary sanctions I believe that you are a serious candidate for a topic ban. If you or anyone else on here thinks there are compelling reasons why you should not be topic banned from this subject, I would like to read them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never added anything to the articles in question that wasn't accurate, reliably sourced and would be mentioned on any major politician's article (e.g. mentioning that a politician opposes/supports abortion, same-sex marriage, Obamacare etc.). I have repeatedly asked the users here to highlight specific examples of POV pushing so that I can improve my edits per the suggestions. The only specific example of POV pushing that was brought up and that I agreed with was for content that I never added to an article (the disputed content in the David Valadao lede). The concerns that the users above cite also vary considerably, with some merely asking that political positions not be added to ledes, and others bringing up content disputes from unrelated pages that they happen to be involved in (e.g. me adding reliably sourced content to Sean Hannity, Immigration and Crime, Gaslighting, Sebastian Gorka). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I called out this editor, Snooganssnoogans, for agenda pushing at the Sean Hannity article and get slapped with a warning for a personal attack. Its really time that the project puts a lid on these types of POV editors. --Malerooster (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to have to reluctantly support a temporary topic ban. I have seen that this editor is thoughtful and rational in my interactions with them, and I have no doubt that they are editing in good faith, and hardly any doubt that they fully believe they are improving the encyclopedia with these edits. Indeed, each individual edit seems to be defensible in and of itself. But when looked at as a whole, a pattern emerges. I believe that if left to their own devices, this editor might eventually contribute to the formation of the much-lamented (though hitherto almost entirely fictional) liberal bias of Wikipedia. I think a three month topic ban might be enough to give them time to see how the political articles evolve without their input and perhaps get a handle on how to edit more objectively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note the striking of the above !vote. See my comments in the warning subsection below for the rationale. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each edit has most definitely been defensible. There is no pattern except to bring the politicians's stated political positions into the encyclopaedia. This is how a minimum edit looks like: (i) Add summary voting records from 538 and ProPublica + (ii) for/against abortion + (iii) for/against same-sex marriage + (iv) for/against federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions (v) endorsed Trump or not (vi) for/against Obamacare (vii) summarize positions in the lede. These are the issues that are easiest to find material on and can be written into the articles with ease (foreign policy and economy are more nuanced). I also usually add whatever pops up in recent coverage by reliable sources, but that will differ for each congressperson. Should I stop adding some or all of these? Would users be fine with me editing congresspeople's articles if I do the minimum edit (above) or only parts of the minimum edit? These are all genuine questions, because I believe there is strong encyclopedic value in simply denoting where congresspeople stand on basic issues (something that most of these articles lack). If the editors could come together and agree on what I can and can't add to congresspeople's articles, I would abide by that. Most of my edits follow the formula mentioned above, so it shouldn't be difficult to say what in the formula doesn't belong and what does belong. That's why I'm asking for specific examples throughout this talk. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hang on, I'm trying to ignore foreign politics - but what you just listed as 6 of the issues you added (from your description above) are all clearly right-wing wedge issues - and the first seems very minor. And you've completely ignored more serious issues like economical issues (wasn't jobs a huge issue in the election?) and foreign policy? That just sounds odd to me. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Economy is way too complicated to add for these obscure congresspeople. See, for instance, Jeff Denham's 'economy' On the Issue page[99]. It's both incredibly incomplete and super-specific. The foreign policy issues for these politicians is usually just a list of interventions or trade agreements that they supported or didn't support. If I were to edit foreign policy issues in, it would usually just become a laundry list. So, it would be way too time-consuming for me to comprehensively edit it in their economic and foreign policy philosophies, which in many cases these politicians don't seem to have. For big-shot politicians (presidential candidates and senators), this is less of an issue. For those politicians, you can easily find a reliable source summarizing their philosophy on economic and foreign policy issues. It would, for instance, be a piece-of-cake to find a short and sweet description of Lindsay Graham's philosophy. For a two-term congressman from Iowa, it's going to take way longer. If someone wants to add economy and foreign policy to the pages of these individuals, I strongly recommend you try! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also to clarify: the six issues are just simple for/against issues that exist on the record (so they are easy to find and easy to write into articles), which simply don't exist for foreign policy and economy. Nobody is for/against jobs, for/against war. It's too nuanced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I forgot: A second clarification: Note that the formula above is just the minimum. I do add economic issues when they are short and sweet, and can be reliably sourced. For instance, I have added "X favors a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution", "X favors auditing the Federal Reserve", "X voted against the Stimulus" etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • You just had an election. Presumably you do like other countries, and candidates have websites with all their positions and platforms on it. No one is against jobs, but (here at least) we heard about TPP being a big issue in the election; presumably each legislator had a position on it. Some must be pro-war give the news reports of the US Government looking to start a war with Iran. Abortion (how can this be a real issue in secular advanced democracy - even same-sex marriage as in issue is fading away) - it's not what we hear reports about from the USA, other than fear-mongering from the left wing trying to stir the pot and don't vote for X, because they are going to do Y (even though they never did Y when they were in power in the past in less enlightened times) - I don't see the need to list the opinions on such past issues any more than other issues of the past that no longer create any controversy such as slavery, prohibition, or segregation. I'm sure there's still some politicians out there that support prohibition - but one doesn't mention it. Internationally at least, what we hear about the USA are issues are gun control (particularly automatic weapons), murder rate, drugs (particularly the legalization of some recreational drugs), the prison problems, the 99% vs 1% (the disappearance of the middle class), refugees, BLM, First Nations, pipelines, the rise of white nationalism, Islamophobia/anti-Semitism, Cuba, illegal immigrants (wasn't the billions of dollars for the Wall a big issue there, we heard endless reports about it). Why didn't you pick any of these issues? I'm just trying to understand how you happened to select those issues in particular - as I'm concerned the very selection of which issues, may be NPOV bias. Nfitz (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just to get it out of the way, I'm not American. I do mention some of the issues that you mention, but usually only if they pop up in a Google Search and have therefore been covered by reliable sources. They are not intentionally being omitted. Note that many of these politicians do not get extensive coverage, and it is hard to find their positions on specific issues without looking for those issues specifically. The issues that you mention are definitely relevant. When I contribute in the future, I will definitely google the congressperson's name and also "TPP", "Cuban embargo", "Iran deal" etc., provided that I will be allowed to edit congresspeople's pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll have to spend more time thinking about this - honestly a lot of the edits seem quite reasonable - but there's a lot of stuff to look at. I had assumed you were American; out of curiosity, why the interest in foreign legislators? I guess my joke about geolocking fell flat ... Nfitz (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Difficult to say where the interest comes from (yesterday, I also added content to the [boll weevil]] and Militarized interstate dispute, but it'd be difficult to explain why - something that many Wikipedia editors probably recognize!) but for a short history of my editing on political pages, I started editing on pages related to US politics last summer, primarily as a way for me to learn about the stated political positions of Trump and Clinton but also due to a frustration that the stated political positions of the candidates seemingly did not matter and did not get any attention. So I started editing "Political positions of Donald Trump"[100] and "Political positions of Hillary Clinton"[101], both as a way for me to take notes and to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Before that, I primarily added social science (poli sci, econ, sociology) research to all kinds of pages (I still do). As I grew more and more familiar with editing on US political pages, I thought there would be encyclopaedic value in me adding similar content to Mike Pence and Tim Kaine's pages, and from that point I've edited considerably on pages that are relevant to US politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed all mention of any political positions from ledes I added for congresspeople (some other user mass-removed the rest) as a compromise until this is settled. It would be good if the users here could clarify what content if any can be added to the lede of a congressperson. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not going to be some magic formula or black and white policy. It depends on the size of the article, the size of the lead, and the content of the article. If it's a large article that is primarily dominated by controversies, then a lead dominated by controversies would be appropriate. If there are three or four sentences about controversies in an otherwise length article, no mention is appropriate. You have to use good editorial judgement and so far you haven't shown any. I think you need to get experience editing in an area not under Arbcom sanctions until you figure this out.--v/r - TP 20:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern and will comply: if a political position (or any other content) does not receive lots of coverage in the article, it shouldn't be added to the lede. I know that what follows is erroneous thinking, but the reason why I thought a list of various political positions belonged in the lede was that ca 25-40% of each politician's article was roughly devoted to political positions. The problem with that, and which I now realize, is that no specific political position received inordinate coverage in the article (e.g. took up 15% of the whole article) and should therefore not have been included in the lede. So even if, say, healthcare is an important issue, it was undue to put it in the lede unless that particular position received extensive coverage in the article. Assuming that healthcare, unless extensively covered, was notable enough for the lede was WRONG. I get that now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I modified an edit by Snoogan where he dropped in a reference to Roger Stone being a liar and conspiracy theorist in the lead. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Roger_Stone&diff=768230689&oldid=768230344. But I hope someone can clean up all the rest of the NPOV edits he's made if he doesn't get around to them himself. Jarwulf (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Like it or not, that text is cited to the Washington Post and The New York Times. What's the behavioral issue? We don't adjudicate content discussions on this page. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a matter of him simply inserting information, its the matter he went about it. Try inserting a well referenced story about a Democrat in the lead of every article about mental illness you can find and see how far you get with that no matter how true the story may be. Jarwulf (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentThe OP, user:TParis, seems to have a long term axe to grind here. [102],and admits the problem is getting to him [103]. I think you have clear evidence that his viewpoints about other editors behavior are heavily influenced and differ wildly from other admins. For example, here, he comments on an AE [104] which eventually produced these sanctions on User:TheTimesAreAChanging . In sum, I think TParis has a bias towards believing conservatives are persecuted and this posting should be viewed with some suspicion. Is one way to view these posting as negative to subjects that relate to conservatives? Certainly. But it is also true that these are well sourced edits. Does finding and sourcing of facts in multiple articles equate to a POV pushing or does it equate to doing research in an area that interests you and putting that research into the relevant articles? This seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me that is guided by an admin that has a clear bias. Casprings (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be clear here, do you intend to defend the edits above or are you just here to attack me?--v/r - TP 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that your viewpoints should be looked at in the context of this complaint. You are an experienced admin and have shown clear bias in your views that you admit. That isn't attacking, that is stating what you yourself admit. It is not difficult to believe that you could build an argument that is subjective and dependent on how one views an editor. To me, the edits presented seem to be well sourced and each one is defendable on its own. When taking them together, are they POV pushing? Maybe. Or maybe they are examples of research and integration into relevant articles. However, it is worth noting that the case was presented by an admin with self-admitted bias.Casprings (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh, okay, I see the disconnect. You haven't read the complaint. Because WP:V isn't the problem. WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD is. Besides, self admitted bias is a good thing. Wish more people were self-aware instead of believing they are neutral.--v/r - TP 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose warning for Snoo....s

    It's hard to see these edits as willfully disruptive, and Snooo seems to understand the concerns here. I do not see that a preventive block or ban is needed. I suggest a warning and voluntary compliance. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Snooo seems to understand the concerns here No, they pretty clearly don't seem to understand why this is a form of POV pushing. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Snooo does not seem to understand the concern. Snooo said in this edit that the only POV pushing they can see was from an edit they didn't make. They've described six criteria that they personally find interesting to put in the lead. They admitted that the issues do not get extensive coverage and they've had to look specifically for the issues they personally find notable. This all flies in the face of WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. They have cheery picked which parts of policies they wish to adhere to and have engaged in WP:IDHT behavior: [105][106][107][108][109]. Snooo most certainly hasn't realized yet that WP:UNDUE isn't optional and the material they've added to the lead is inappropriately placed to push a POV. This is highly partisan editing and in contravention to the Arbcom sanctions in place.--v/r - TP 20:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already willingly removed the content that I added to ledes (see also comment above). If adding political positions to ledes is off, I'm perfectly willing and able to comply with that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those "six criteria" were not for ledes by the way, so you should strike that remark. Those six things were the minimum content that I added to the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "If adding political positions to ledes is off" - This isn't the issue. It's not what you added, it's the weight that you gave to it by placing it in the lead.--v/r - TP 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern and will comply: if a political position (or any other content) does not receive lots of coverage in the article, it shouldn't be added to the lede. I know that what follows is erroneous thinking, but the reason why I thought a list of various political positions belonged in the lede was that ca 25-40% of each politician's article was roughly devoted to political positions. The problem with that, and which I now realize, is that no specific political position received inordinate coverage in the article (e.g. took up 15% of the whole article) and should therefore not have been included in the lede. So even if, say, healthcare is an important issue, it was undue to put it in the lede unless that particular position received extensive coverage in the article. Assuming that healthcare, unless extensively covered, was notable enough for the lede was WRONG. I get that now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm striking my support !vote above because after I made it, I saw where Snooganssnoogans agreed to strike the information from the ledes. Since all sanctions are intended to be preventative, I'm supportive of a warning. Note that this thread serves as a quite effective warning, and so I'm ready to concede that there's nothing more to be gained from this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with MjolnirPants and oppose action being taken against Snooganssnoogans, given that (1) he has clearly acknowledged error, and (2) going forward, the issue won't reoccur. Any further sanction would be punitive rather than preventative. Neutralitytalk 22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec x3) I still lean toward support. He has acknowledged his errors in lead editing, and explained his new policy; I do not consider it adequate. He has specifically stated that he will make edits to the body which clearly violate WP:UNDUE. IMO, a political position should only be included if there are reliable sources for both accuracy and significance of the politician's position on the issue. (The issue being significant is not adequate.) He has shown no interest in finding sources for even significance of the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I should add I am still subject to some article restrictions in this area, so it would be best to consider me WP:INVOLVED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edits by S. like that are not a BLP violation because they are sourced and actually do not present anyone in a negative or positive light. This is simply a vote. Yes, things like that are undue in the lead, however they arguably may belong to the body of the page. Telling they "clearly violate WP:UNDUE" is overstatement. This looks like a content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing it once is a content dispute. Doing it en masse in a dozen articles of one specific political persuasion is pov pushing and ANI worth. --v/r - TP 03:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we have Scouts Honor that he's not going to do that again. No need for further prevention. AGF, I would say. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think every single edit like that is defensible. It inserts info that is more important than something already in the same paragraph. Not disclosing tax returns, after promising to disclose them during his election campaign, in the current political situation is extremely significant. Not requesting to disclose them is also significant and therefore deserves inclusion to these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits shouldn't just be defensible. That's the lowest possible threshold for validity. If you have to describe something as defensible, then it is the same as acknowledging that there is significant issue. The rest of your comment contains your own personal opinion and I hope you don't let that influence your editorial decision making.--v/r - TP 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dont be ridiculous. Quite often people have to describe edits as such because the 'significant issues' turn out to be bogus. As it stands from reading this entire thread and looking at the edits above, it could equally be argued that someone who wants to keep relevant information out of politician's of a 'specific persuasion' is POV-editing. I have yet to see any credible argument that a)the edits were UNDUE, b)not adaquately sourced, c)otherwise unencyclopedic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was willing to let this go because Snooo was willing to follow the policy. But if you and My very best wishes chose to continue to defend this behavior, then we can take this to AE and settle it there. There is absolutely no doubt that tripling the size of the lead by picking choice partisan issues in a BLP on conservative only articles is POV pushing. And not stopping with one, but systematically going through dozens of conservative politicans to continue the behavior. If you disagree, you shouldn't be editing in this topic area.--v/r - TP 19:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    )EC)Fine, I will stop responding to your inane argument but only because you have DIRECTLY THREATENED to take Snoo to AE unless we drop it. And since I dont want Snoo to get in trouble for other editors who disagree with you, I am done. But your bullying approach sickens me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a heads-up that I restored the lede to how it previously looked (I thought I had done so for all congresspeople but this guy slipped me by), so you might want to add a different link in your comment above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opinions of the "AE squad" (if you don't know who you are, you should) are pretty inconsequential here, since they're reliably predictable based on the slant of the POV alone. This revert 1) to the POV of the lead, 2) on a BLP, 3) related to US politics, inspires exactly zero confidence that SS understands at all what the issue is, even with an open ANI thread, and with full knowledge that there are people (hi) who are involved in both the article and this thread, and gives exactly zero reason to believe that the same behavior won't continue when people aren't watching. I still support a topic ban on US politics BLPs, and I consider that lenient compared with what would probably appropriately be a well deserved post 1932 topic ban. TimothyJosephWood 13:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're citing article text with solid RS citations, Washington Post and the like. The content may or may not ultimately survive, but what behavioral issue are you suggesting? Also, if you're trying to bring ad hominems in play here, your aspersions would have more tooth if you'd at least attach names to the "squad" you're attempting to denigrate. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm incredibly surprised to see you characterizing that revert as bad behavior on my behalf. There are two reasons for this: (i) The last time that you purposively sought to trim the lede of the article in question, you left the disputed statement ("fringe") in the lede.[110] (ii) In fact, when we last discussed the "fringe" nature of Gorka on his talk page, you said that there was such an abundance of sources that demonstrate that Gorka lacks a "basic level of expertise" that there is no point adding any further.[111] Note that these sources included editor-in-chiefs of flagship academic journals, and some of the most prominent International Relations professors of the last 20 years. Now, you're chastising me for trying to keep a description of Gorka that you believed was so abundantly supported by reliable sources that we didn't need to add any more? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perusing these diffs I see content disputes in multiple articles. I've edited none of them, just commenting on the diffs. The Gorka article lead edit, adding "fringe" figure, is mentioned in the body of the article and multiply sourced. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, it's not only well-sourced, but so well-sourced in fact that Timothyjosephwood even asked me to stop adding sources to the main body of the article because it had been so established by the existing sources that he was fringe that adding any more would be beating a dead horse[112]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I see a lot of arguments that Snoo doesn't agree with the concerns expressed here being used to support the claim that Snoo doesn't understand the concerns and respect consensus. I just want to point out that there's no policy saying that all editors have to agree on everything. Snoo's editing history since this thread was open proves that claim is completely wrong. The case against settling for a warning is basically a giant red herring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think it's important to iterate that Wikipedia does not engage in investigative journalism, either from primary or secondary sources. Wikipedia should not cherry-pick bits of information from passing mentions in obscure venues. Wikipedia should always err on the side of caution -- posting only what is covered in articles, from well-known and reliable sources, which contain significant coverage of the subject. Wikipedia should be WP:NPOV and cover issues to the degree and extent they are covered in WP:RS -- no more, no less. WP:OR should be scrupulously avoided. If readers want muckraking and/or investigative journalism, they should and can look elsewhere. Softlavender (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, the toxic environment in US politics lately, results in blurring the line between muckraking and the sort of pivotal content actively sought by our readers. El_C 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess a part of this toxic environment comes from classifying people (and articles) to "conservatives" and "liberals", as in this discussion. There is no such thing as "conservative article" (a term that appears in the header of this discussion). I do not even know who I am on this scale, and I do not care if other contributors are "conservatives" or "liberals". In particular, disclosing the tax statement (which was a subject of many diffs above) has nothing to do with someone being a "conservative" or a "liberal". All previous US presidents disclosed their tax returns regardless to their political affiliations and views. This is something entirely different. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was drawn to the Jill Stein page a few months back (shortly pre-election) because it has a section about GMOs that needed to be brought into line with community consensus under DS, but not out of any broader interest in the politics. (For editors unfamiliar with US politics, Stein was the Green Party candidate, and was thus very much opposed to Republicans and conservatives.) And I interacted with Snooganssnoogans there, amidst much broader disputes that were going on. I'm having cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile what I saw there with what I see here. There, Snooganssnoogans was one of the more civil participants in the disputes, and also very consistently took what might be considered the more conservative position about how to balance the POV of the page (ie, critical of Stein's left-leaning positions). It just does not make sense to me that Snooganssnoogans would have an anti-conservative POV, after what I saw there. (Maybe pro-Democratic party, I don't know??) I do however have a sense that he tended to make somewhat heavy-handed edits, that looked to me more like un-skillful editing than POV-pushing. Just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang for Malerooster

    As mentioned, the user seem to only be tangentially involved in this notice (about snugglepuss). Please list a separate ANI notice. It may, indeed, be warranted (I make no comment on that). El_C 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Whatever the merits of the rest of this report, User:Malerooster should get a WP:BOOMERANG block for repeated personal attacks.[113][114][115] This appears to be the only way to convince him to follow our WP:NPA rules.[116][117][118] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This note on his talk page is what Malerooster was referring to above when he said he had been "called out". I went to his talk page today because over the last few days he has repeatedly accused other users of "pushing their own personal agenda," simply saying that in lieu of actually discussing the issue. By repeatedly I mean five times in this section alone, as well as other sections of that page. When I asked him to stop, he indicated he was going to keep doing it.
    I had admonished him on his talk page twice previously, in November (User talk:Malerooster#Please change your attitude) and January (User talk:Malerooster#Talk:Donald Trump). Those were for actual name-calling and abusive edit summaries, and both times he said he would stop. In November he was also taken to ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive937#User:Malerooster repeatedly swearing at others. That report was closed without action based on his promises to improve. He actually has improved since then (he rarely calls people actual names any more) but still does the occasional abusive edit summary.[119]
    I am adding this for information. I have no recommendation about what if any action should be taken in his case. I am WP:INVOLVED in this type of article so I function there as a regular user, not an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Malerooster came back from a DS sanction re:ARBAP2 by @Slakr: and started up with the personal attacks and disruptive edits at @Volunteer Marek: linked above in this section and elsewhere at other editors. Editors are trying to collaborate on these difficult articles, and there should be no tolerance for disruption. I'm not familiar with this Malerooster's entire history, but recidivism is not OK. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: May I ask why in the world Malerooster is being brought up here, in this thread? As a WP:BOOMERANG?? Malerooster did not open this ANI filing, nor has he posted more than a grand total of 39 words anywhere in it. If someone wants to file an ANI report about Malerooster, and believes they have adequate evidence to themselves avoid a BOOMERANG, by all means do so (and notify him of the filing), but don't open up a sneaky subthread in an ANI which has nothing to do with him. Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sneaky" is not helpful here. From what I can see, if an editor is going to launch personal attacks and be disruptive, it's not the best strategy to do it in on this page. I might add that Guy, Melanie and SPECIFICO rarely agree on just about anything on WP. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If "sneaky" is not helpful to you, then I'll be clearer: completely inappropriate. Malerooster did not open this ANI filing, did not comment more than 39 words, did not make any personal attacks, and was not disruptive. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What Malerooster did was to write -- in an ANI thread -- "I called out this editor, Snooganssnoogans, for agenda pushing at the Sean Hannity article and get slapped with a warning for a personal attack. Its really time that the project puts a lid on these types of POV editors." This shows me that Malerooster has no intention of refraining from such personal attacks in the future, and indeed appears to be proud of them. He needs to learn that "because I am right" is not an exception to WP:NPA, and that "calling out" another editor with repeated personal attacks is not allowed even if the other editor actually is a POV pusher. I would also note that some of the above comments appear to ignore the actual text of WP:BOOMERANG, which clearly states that "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Nowhere does that page say that the boomerang only applies to the original reporter or that only action on ANI itself will be scrutinized. There are many examples of ANI discussions where someone participating in the discussion ends up being sanctioned without them being the person posting the original complaint or the person who was originally complained about. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to collapse this subthread as irrelevant (off-topic) and misplaced. If someone wishes to open a completely separate ANI filing about Malerooster, please do so. As is, this thread is distracting from the case at hand and is not relevant to it. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her. In fairness, it seems tangentially related to the topic (one brief comment), and if the issues are indeed pressing, probably deserves an ANI notice of its own. El_C 12:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be wrong, but as far as I understand it Softlavender doesn´t want to end the conversation but simply wants it to be made into a seperate ANI case (considering that it is brought up here, too) so that this case can be continued or closed. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Softlavender is starting to edit war[122][123] (2RR, no 3RR violation) in an attempt to shut down my comments. I believe that Malerooster has contributed to the problem being discussed, even though he isn't by any means the major problem. Softlavender has expressed his opinion disagreeing with me, and now it is up to the closing admin to evaluate the arguments and make a decision. It is improper for Softlavender to shut down an ANI conversation about a particular editor after someone else posted an opinion that the editor is part of the problem being discussed. Shutting down the discussion and insisting that I must file a new ANI report right after I quoted the section of WP:BOOMERANG that specifically says that boomerangs are not limited to the original reporter was also improper. I am fine if an uninvolved admin decides to hat the section, but that isn't Softlavender's decision to make. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by User:76.187.251.61

    The IP user 76.187.251.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would not stop disrupting the article List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IP user would not properly cite a proper, accurate reference for the addition as well as removal of content. They are also repeatedly adding in dead links as citation. DantODB (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    According to warnings on their talk page they are also plagiarizing from websites onto articles as well. Looking at their history they seem to be a problem IP. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 00:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The ip user has blanked their talk page and not edited since. El_C 12:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, they're back. El_C 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User continues to remove information with proper citations as well as cherry-pick facts to put into the article. DantODB (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Non sense tags

    Hollyckuhno, keep putting a tags which is he/she used the word biased and not important article as it refers to notable. However I keep reminding him to look at the reliable sources from the article. But he/she seems to not look at those carefully and just put the tags as it refers to what I said on the top. But however here's the discussion where it taken place. [124] Kazaro (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I changed the citation above to a WP:DIFF. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how come it is being considered for deletion? This user would like to remove tags without resolving the issues the tags are referring to. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kazaro has a history of removing maintenance tags/templates on several articles without resolving the issues the tags are referring to.[125][126] I have talked to this user many times to no avail. It seems that this user is immune to suggestions and would rather respond negatively by reverting or talking nonsense. This user has also a history of creating articles written like advertisements with peacock and weasel words, adding unreliable references. This user has also been involved in edit warring in several occasions with the most recent being in last month. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is, he keep putting tags for not reading the reliable sources from the website I provided from the article. He seems to be stalked all of my article I created, click his contributions to see.Kazaro (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And take note's I keep telling him but he's thinking the other way, to just put the articles.Kazaro (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This user does not know the guidelines of Wikipedia. This user insist that a reference from a single source (self-published) is reliable. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident wouldn't have been taken without me, but it seems he keep putting a tags without the administrators. One of the articles I have been created is on discussion, but however he keep putting those tags without reading the article and the realible sources I provided to the article. Kazaro (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is making his/her own guidelines. This user insists that the sources he/she provided are reliable. This user does not edit according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. By the way, why would I track this user when obviously my interest is anything under Philippine media and entertainment? Please look at my contributions history. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2: Given Hollyckuhno's userpage [129], and Kazaro's general contributions [130], it seems that each of them may have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, two different and competing media conglomerates in the Philippines. I'm wondering if an interaction ban might be in order, or a topic ban for each. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also wondering if you have checked my contributions because if you are justifying my capacity as a Wikipedia editor according only on my user page then it is obviously unfair considering how much I contributed for the improvement of Wikipedia. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, a media conglomerate in the Philippines which competes with GMA, which Kazaro seems to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defense, I only edit articles that I am interested in. For example: List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines. Compare the version before my revision and you would know that I am only concern with the improvements of any articles that I am interested. Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear [131] [132] to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, ABS-CBN – a media conglomerate in the Philippines which competes with GMA, which Kazaro [133] seems to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not deleted your post. You have actually deleted mine: "This is another proof, this time a show of GMA Network: [134] Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)" Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have so far removed two of my posts from this thread: [135] [136]. Posting random examples of your editing does not refute the fact that you appear to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, ABS-CBN: [137] [138]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you two have a conflict of interest, please declare it publicly. El_C 11:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So just because I am interested in certain articles I will be blocked even though I have not vandalized or disruptive any articles. Furthermore, how about the many articles unrelated to ABS-CBN that I have improved? As I said earlier before and I will proudly reiterate, I only contribute to articles I am interested. I did not do anything wrong, I did not vandalize, I did not disrupted any articles and I even remove a defamatory statement in one of GMA related article.[139] Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you I have no conflict of interest. I could even disclose my personal information to administrators right away if they wanted. Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not surprised that Hollyckunho is looking at Kazaro's contributions. Let's look at some article creations (only 10 of their 66 articles actually exist as articles, the rest have been deleted, redirected, or were created as redirects in the first place).
    Most of those should be deleted or redirected. And most of them concern GMA, which further indicates that Kazaro is a single-purpose account, and may have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, the network. In addition, the competence level of the editor has not improved over time. I'm not sure what the solution should be, but it could include a topic-ban from GMA broadly construed, a restriction on new-article creations unless they go through WP:AFC, a ban on removing tags without addressing issues, etc. Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to believe Hollyckuhno when s/he says there's no conflict of interest on his or her part—I wonder if the same is true for Kazaro... But regardless, indeed, it is becoming clear that Kazaro has issues of competence that may be untenable. El_C 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think either of them have a COI with these companies, frankly. However, I agree with Black Kite and El_C concerning Kazaro's competence issues and the need to check his edits carefully. For example, I just reduced GMA Worldwide (now at AfD) to one sentence. The entire contents had been pasted verbatim from the company's website. The text when he created Jake Paul [140] is basically verbatim from here. It wouldn't surprise me if most, if not all, of his articles show the same problems. Voceditenore (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering his English skills are very much suboptimal, that would not be surprising. The question is, what sort of sanctions or warnings should be given to the editor, even beyond the cleanup that will have to be done? Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kazaro has, over a long time and a number of articles, failed to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly in respect to verifiability and neutrality. He has already been advised and warned about this many times. Therefore, I think it's time for a WP:CIR block, to prevent further poorly referenced and biased content causing a lot of work for others. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, I think Kazaro's GMA stuff is incidental to his interest in Charlie Macaraeg (whose "stage name" is "Charlie Conte"), a teenage "actor and blogger" who was allegedly on one of their shows. Kazaro's first article was Charlie Conte, (a recreation of a deleted article by User:Charlieconte, who was blocked for the username issue). The recreation was speedied, but Kazaro recreated it again. It was finally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Conte (a very interesting read). Kazaro's next article was the school which Charlie Macaraeg/Conte currently attends, Iao Intermediate School (deleted as blatant copyvio). Kazaro later created both Charlie Macaraeg and Charliesite.org (young Charlie's blog). Given the repeated copyvio issues and the incredibly poorly sourced articles on the other dubious BLP internet "celebs", Kazaro should probably be restricted from article creation and required to go through AfC for at least six months. His shenanigans have already used up enormous amounts of editors' and administrators' time. Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that enforced use of WP:AFC for any future article submissions should be a minimum requirement, if an outright WP:CIR block is considered premature. Softlavender (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The other I'm facing about which is GMA Network Inc. as Hollyckuhno, keep putting the tags into the article. This article has no problem but s/he keeps putting the tag into that article. Kazaro (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hollyckuhno, on that particular article, GMA Network Inc., you've been editing it since November 2011 [141], but have done little to improve it, instead edit-warring to keep multiple tags at the top which have been there for five years. I would personally suggest that you take the time to improve the article, and remove the tags once you have finished. Your English is better than Kazaro's, the issues are not that hard to fix, you are familiar with the industry and the country, and the article is an important one. I personally don't see any reason that you should not assist the situation. Softlavender (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note After I removed the copyvio from GMA Worldwide, I left a warning on Kazaro's talk page [142]. Despite that warning, he has returned to the article and added more copyvio [143], from a different source with spurious references, possibly in a clumsy attempt to disguise what he was doing. I removed it, left another warning and he has proceeded to restore it. He needs a block now. Voceditenore (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore, You have been reverting the article, did you even read the website?, it's different what I have made to that section of article. So thats not the part of copyrightvio, you were referring to.Kazaro (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment below. Voceditenore (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Indef block

    I propose an indefinite block of Kazaro for DE, CIR, repeated copyvio, IDHT, and edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Softlavender, The website is different of what s/he have referring to. It's not part of copyvio. You have to read those to understand what Im talking about.Kazaro (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This most recent time, you copied from yet another source http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/361685/cbb/gma-worldwide-inc-showcasing-the-kapuso-brand-to-the-world, changing one or two words. This is completely unacceptable behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, if nothing else for repeated copyvio despite repeated warnings, three times today alone. Whether it's simply incompetence or wilful disruption is, at this point, immaterial. Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not three times and The website what you have referring to is this [144], which is not part of copyright violation. I have used my own word to type those word on the section. S/he probably dont read carefully. Kazaro (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment directly above. The first time you copied from here, the second time from here, and the third time from here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: The user has since posted an unblock request, which incidentally, I had to fix (he used the {{unblocked}} template)—I'll let another admin attend to that. El_C 00:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term WP:SPA and WP:COI by Suranadira

    The owner of this account is clearly Armands Strazds‎, as Suranadira is the first word of the main article of Armands Strazds. All edits of this this account, created ten years ago, are devoted either to the page about himself (Armands Strazds‎), or the pages about his work (Delta numerals and Rational numerals, or, in a few cases, for pushing his work in other pages. I have nominated these three pages for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds (3rd nomination)‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals‎‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta numerals‎‎)

    It seems that something must be done against this long term misuse of WP. D.Lazard (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These AfDs promise to be exceptionally entertaining. The subject, a "composer, semiotician and computer scientist", lists the following as "influences" in his infobox, so there will be plenty of raw material to work with: Fuxi, Laozi, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Pingala, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Fibonacci, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[1] Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottfried Herder, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Gottlob Frege,[2] Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Noam Chomsky, Umberto Eco, Modris Tenisons, Friedhelm Döhl, Frieder Nake. EEng 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't strike me as a misuse of WP at all... there are some reliable sources in there. Sure, they may need to be reminded of WP:COI, WP:YOURSELF, and WP:OR, but I can't find any evidence of bad faith per se. Even if it is an autobiography, it's an article quality problem. They're just following WP:IAR. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More details about Suranadira's edits: the account has been created on December 16, 2006. Since then they have produced 478 edits (enwiki: 457; commons : 16; wikidata: 5). The contributions in commons are images for Rational numerals‎‎ and Delta numerals‎‎. Among the contributions to enwiki, there are 317 "top edits" in the main space, which consist of (Data provided by X!'s tools)
    The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zime is interesting to consider, as two deleted accounts (user:Strazds and User:Turdus) seem to be two accounts of Armands Strazds. I ignore when these accounts have been deleted, but it seems highly probable that Armands Strazds has created the account User: Suranadira for continuing editing after the closure of User:Turdus. A sockpuppett investigation seems needed.
    In summary, User: Suranadira is a probable sockpupett, which is interested in Wikipedia only in promoting Armands Strazds, absolutely nothing else. For these reasons, I suggest a permanent ban. D.Lazard (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Armands Strazds is the main subject of my studies, I think I can contribute reliable information about him to Wikipedia, and that is what I am trying to do. I am also contributing minor improvements to other articles, where my expertise permits, but I probably not always remember to sign in before doing that. Suranadira (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    D.Lazard, you might want to check again the concept of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. I have NEVER used multiple Wikipedia user accounts. My old account Turdus was automatically renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. After that my username was Turdus~enwiki (or similar). I couldn't sufficiently identify myself with this new username, so I applied for a new one "Suranadira", and was successful. Since then I continue to use for all my edits only this one single-user account. Suranadira (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that there is no sockpuppetry here. IMO, the normal action against a WP:SPA, which is aimed only to unduly push a single living person and his work, should be a topic ban. However, in this case, it could be time consuming to verify that a topic ban is respected. As this account has never been used for other things than promoting a single living person and his work, there is no real difference between a topic ban and a permanent ban. Thus I continue to suggest a permanent ban. D.Lazard (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by rolling IP editor, most recently 83.213.205.149

    An IP editor has been disrupting Lordship of Biscay for months using IPs in the 85.84.118.* and 83.213.*.* ranges, but over the past few days has turned it Up to eleven. Actions include:

    3RR violation (disguised by shifting IP) [147] [148] [149] [150]

    unfounded accusations of sock puppetry (I am accused of being either User:Maragm or User:Asqueladd, though the editor can't seem to decide which): [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] (Talk page of irrelevant user)

    unfounded accusation of editing for pay: [157]

    violation of WP:NPA [158] ("scoundrel")

    violation of AGF (or NPA if you view it that way) [159] ("playing dirty") [160] (same in Spanish)

    and just general incoherent harassment: [161] (and in other diffs already given)

    Prior IP used by the same editor (duck) has been subject to a block for behavior on this and another page just three days ago, but they shifted IPs and made another edit (admittedly, a productive one) within the period of the block. [162] (24 hr block) [163] (edit w/in 24 hr)

    (I have made a separate request for an Oversight action regarding the same IP that I will not detail here.)

    I have tried to get the editor to discuss content rather than editors, to no avail: [164] [165]

    The general disruption at Talk:Lordship of Biscay alone is making a shambles out of attempts at discussion, while the knee-jerk reversions at Lordship of Biscay without coherent explanation (or with incoherent/irrelevant edit summaries in a different language) are preventing page improvement. This editor seems to have gone off the rails. 50.37.115.224 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please give examples of the same person editing from 85.84.118.XX ? I'm not finding any such edits. The 83.213.200.0/21 range can be blocked, as all the edits from it in the last few months seem to be from the same individual, or at least they're certainly disruptive, compare [166]. I've blocked the range for 2 weeks. 50.37.117.209, have you considered creating an account? If you did, Lordship of Biscay‎ and perhaps also its talkpage could conveniently be semiprotected, but as it is, I hesitate to shut you out of the article. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    [167] by 85.84.118.247 on 27 Feb is a reversion (unexplained) of the same content as today's [168] by 83.213.205.149. Indeed, the edit history of 85.84.118.247 solely consists of the same pages and in some cases same edits as as User:83.213.206.197, who is clearly the same as the current IP. (by 85.84.118.247, by 83.213.77.74, by 83.213.206.197; [169][170][171][172][173][174] by 83.213.77.74 & 83.213.206.197, restoring block of edts [175] made by 85.84.118.181 & 85.84.118.247). Looks like a web-footed waterfowl to me, but YMMV.
    I realize my preference not to use an account at this time makes it harder to address the situation, but it is my preference nonetheless. 50.37.115.224 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. The 85.84.XX IPs quack, yes, but you've only given me two of them, 85.84.118.247 and 85.84.118.181. That happens to be a tiny range, 85.84.118.128/25. I don't see much point in blocking it, both because it probably actually needs to be larger, and because 85.84.118.247 only edited for a quarter of an hour on 27 February — I'm not kidding, see [176] — and 85.84.118.181 only for a few hours on 14 December 2016. So it's kind of stale; all the recent disruption has come from the now-blocked 83.213.200.0/21 range. At least as far as I can see from your information. Feel free to provide me with more 85.84.XX IPs if you should come across them. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note to the OP: The standard (and sometimes the only) solution to repeated IP-hopping disruption to a single article is to request temporary semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP, which would prevent IPs from editing the article. Of course, you would not be able to edit it either, which is an excellent reason for you to register an account, if indeed you are an enthusiastic editor. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Another IP, 85.84.115.9, has just turned up and vandalized both Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage. I was glad to see it, as it made it much easier to block the second relevant range, 85.84.112.0/21. :-) We can only hope those two rangeblocks will hold the individual. If not, I think I'd better semi despite the disadvantages. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Update II: It has turned out my rangeblocks are still insufficient. I've had to semi both article (one month) and talk (two weeks). Bishonen | talk 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Mass creation of mostly empty articles

    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. User:Xfactor1234 appears to have created over 750 articles of YEAR in COUNTRY television, most of which appear to be almost entirely empty articles, and on the face of it, seem like they should at best be categories. We may need an orbital nuclear solution here. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Timothyjosephwood: I agree. Several weeks ago, after a discussion with several administrators on IRC including Oshwah it was decided that Xfactor1234's articles on "<YEAR> in French television" would be deleted. Unfortunately this spate of useless article creation is repeating itself. I suggest deleting the articles and ensuring that they cannot be created again, at least by the user in question. We need to nip this in the bud before it escalates to a Sander.v.Ginkel scale problem. DrStrauss talk 15:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be on board with this, but I have a "devil's advocate" question - are we deleting only their creations, or similar ones like 1986 in television which are virtually identical but created by others? Primefac (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh god. So that...exists. Personally I think the whole lot should probably be categories, but I may not have a majority opinion on that. They pretty well qualify as indiscriminate lists, and don't seem to serve any purpose other than duplicating a category in mainspace. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seriously concerned that the user does not engage in the discussions whereas they continue editing. May be they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be a pretty serious ABF, but I did wonder for a second if it might not be automated. TimothyJosephWood 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If not completely automated, relatively easy to make semi-automated. Copy/paste and then change the dates with find/replace. I don't think it's ABF to assume that they're not really paying a lot of attention to what they're doing. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [177]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the user's talk page suggests that they are unwilling to engage in discussions concerning problems with their editing and therefore it is fair to assume that they are uninterested in learning how to improve their contributions. In response to your question Primefac, I would say that because such articles, although light in content, are not country-specific and therefore offer global coverage adding to its value in an encyclopedia. I think a block and a deletion of all relevant page creations by the user in question would be a fair and just measure, particularly considering that they appear to offer little dissent. DrStrauss talk 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Primefac also in response to the global question exemplified with the link you put forward I think it would be astute to note that other nation-based year-TV articles rarely go earlier than 1990 as there is little content to provide while Xfactor1234's articles go back quite far and act as mere placeholders. DrStrauss talk 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. User talk:Xfactor1234

    @Ymblanter: I think that the flippant message immediately above shows how uninterested this editor is in sensible discourse. DrStrauss talk 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let us wait a bit. I do not think our primary goal is to block the editor, it is to solve the problem. If they are not interested to be a part of the solution, fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Commenting mainly in response to Primefac's question re: cases like 1986 in television: those should be relatively easy to deal with on a case-by-case basis via PROD, and if it becomes controversial, via an RfC. On the case of these articles, what we are essentially talking about is another CSD X criterion, which I am not sure you could find broad consensus for because in theory, these articles could actually be useful if they weren't created in what appears to be a semi-automated way. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's determined to be a detriment, the mass deletion of their creations can simple link here. No need to have a new CSD criteria. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. I wouldn't oppose that so long as it was clear that the mass deletion was in response to these specific creations of the articles in a mass unsustainable way. I still think that PROD would be the best way to deal with dab pages mainly linking to these articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. the trivialization continues. The editor just drops stuff in--if a show ran in 1983, that's apparently good enough to count as an "event" in the article of that year. A fascination with the Eurovision Song Contest is always questionable, and that's much of the content of the articles I looked at--I don't even consider that a "television-related" event; it's an event on television. By extension each and every single thing that happened on TV would be worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I agree, I think lots of these types of article are very flimsy in their interpretations of WP:OUTLINE. DrStrauss talk 18:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: PRODs would be unnecessary as the consensus here is akin to a mass AfD. DrStrauss talk 18:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For articles by Xfactor1234, yes. For articles like 1986 in television which have edit histories from significantly before Xfactor, no. You'd need to either PROD them on a case-by-case basis or have an RfC on "Years in television" to deal with them more generally. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @TonyBallioni: ah... yep. Read that too quickly. DrStrauss talk 18:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that the other articles should be deleted, but I also agree that this is probably the wrong venue for that discussion. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • flag Redflag A quick search of their contribs reveals this user is employing a "fly under the radar" technique which many other have used to continue editing in ways that are not helpful. They just don't respond. The adding of the word "hi" to this page was the first time they have ever edited in project space, and the fist time they have spoken to another user at all in nearly two years. They have never edited their own talk page to reply to the 67 different tissues brought up there over the course of the last ten years. You can't edit in a collaboratie environment if you refuse to speak to anyone or consider that your creations may not be desirable. A block seems overdue, as is often the case witht users who employ this tactic. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the above, someone block, we can wait to see if there is dissent on the deletion. TimothyJosephWood 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The flippant remark is unhelpful, but they haven't edited since then. I'm going to hold off on the block button in the hopes that their next edits will begin to address some of these legitimate questions. If they return to business as usual without doing so, any admin will have my support for blocking. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Call for dissent

    I'm not asking for support for mass deletion, because I think that seems fairly common sense. Instead I'm asking if anyone, at all, has any argument whatsoever for not deleting these. This is one of the most watched pages on the project, and so surely if someone can formulate a coherent argument, this would be the most favorable place to preserve the articles. If not, then I think we can probably push the big red button and be done here. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, an AfD would be unnecessary in my opinion and considering the magnitude of the situation I think this onus shift is a good idea. DrStrauss talk 08:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac and Ymblanter: ^thoughts? I was going to ping you in in the first message but because of the limitation of the template a new message was necessary. DrStrauss talk 12:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for dissent is a good idea. 1 week deadline? Primefac (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac: Monday 13th high noon? DrStrauss talk 13:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a notice at WT:AFD in case anyone there wants to weigh in. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Objection, with the caveat that only the articles created by this editor are subject to mass deletion. Obviously, the other similar articles that predate Xfactor's articles should be evaluated on the merits, individually. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are only talking about articles created by one user I am fine, but even in this case I would advise users to be reasonable and to not delete articles if they are not supershort stubs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection - Sorry gang, I get the annoyance here, but this absolutely seems like the wrong venue for this. This wasn't a ban evasion. It wasn't vandalism. It wasn't sock puppetry, COI, POV-pushing, etc. Mass creation without discussion is a baaaad idea, but there has to be a really good reason for deleting them all that isn't simply that the same user created a lot of them and that they're or poor quality. This user contributed based on an existing format -- one that's perfectly sensible within the context of the thousands and thousands of years-based and country-based navigational lists. That they are incomplete isn't a reason for deletion, nevermind deletion without discussion at the regular venue(s). Honestly I don't know if I would support deletion if I saw this at AfD or an RfC, but this isn't the place for it (i.e. not a good place to make calls about whether a particular type of page -- one that preexists this user -- should not exist if it's incomplete or if the same user started lots of them. At least not when the behavioral aspect of the scenario doesn't absolutely call for deletion of hundreds of articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually let me clarify something. If the user was explicitly warned to slow down and/or asked to engage in discussion before continuing, and pushed forward nonetheless, I don't object to the subsequent creations being deleted. That, to me, would place this in the domain of behavior rather than content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Upon further review (which, admittedly, I should've done before tacking on this clarification), there wasn't such a warning. Some users gave advice, but he/she wasn't asked to stop/slow down. I also note that it seems like this user is being characterized as having [possibly semi-automatedly] created these 750ish articles in a short span of time. 17 were created on 3/4, 30 on 2/20, 27 on 2/18, 74 between 1/25-1/26, 15 on 1/16, 19 on 1/15, 17 on 1/9, and so on, with the activity starting more than two years ago. That's a lot of page creations and a lot of time that has gone by to now say "too many of them aren't good and should be deleted". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem as I see it is two fold:
    1. The issue is not that the articles are of poor quality per se; it's that they're basically empty, for the most part are merely duplications of their own empty categories, and for the most part are duplications of each other, empty as they are. They are almost certainly semi-automated in at least as much as copy/pasting is a type of automation. More so, looking back more than a year to 2003 in Turkish television or 2016 in Israeli television the articles are basically being created and abandoned, and languishing in their own walled garden, which is probably exactly how this went on so long without someone finding it.
    2. Although the user has edited since this thread was started, and are definitely aware of the discussion, and been asked twice on their talk to contribute here, not only have they said nothing, but they literally have never engaged in an article talk page discussion in ten years, and have never contributed to any discussion ever other than their single one word comment on this thread, and a single post three years ago.
    The two of those combined indicate there is likely a larger issue here. The articles are probably the largest walled garden I've personally seen so far, and the user doesn't seem willing to communicate with...anyone...about anything. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to slap a RFC banner on this discussion to try to attract more participants, or start a AFD discussion if the venue is problematic. Would either of these fixes address your concerns adequately? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think mass AFDs would be more productive than a month-long discussion that will invariably end with no consensus except to send everything to AFD. Some of the categories would be straight-forward "delete as empty" (such as the pages in List of years in Israeli television), so if the consensus is largely that they should be deleted, but not here and not now, then I'll start working on the mass-noms. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Poeticbent

    Hi would you help me with User:Poeticbent, I am finding his/her remarks towards me offensive and he/she is unwilling to discuss - [178] [179] [180] [181] Artinpl (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, reverting on my own talkpage.[183] Poeticbent talk 19:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I"m not sure that User:Artinpl would have been pinged when you notified WP:UAA you malformed the address, adding and extra User: to it. Your comment to him seemed a bit rude - but I don't know the history. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see that User:L3X1 just fixed that while I was also trying to fix it. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment to him would have never been rude if he didn't call my reasonable and thoughtful edit "vandalism" in the first place. Poeticbent talk 20:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the WP:UAA issue, this looks more like a content dispute. You templated them, with a note that disputes should be taken to a talk page.[184] And then 10 minutes later User:Artinpl tried to take it to your talk, though a little aggressively.[185] Which you then simply deleted with the comment the usual asshollery by a self-righteous newbie who has yet to read our policy guidelines.[186] You are both escalating this with each step. Neither one of you has really tried to talk it out. I don't know why you'd invite him to your talk page, and then simply delete his attempt to talk. This isn't a WP:ANI issue, it's barely even edit warring, given how recently it started. Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nfitz, the amount of advice you hand out on ANI is excessive. Please take Timothyjosephwood's post on your talkpage to heart, and stop feeding experienced editors alphabet soup re our best-known policies and other noble sentiments. I really don't believe that ever has a good effect. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't see what's wrong with pointing important policies to experienced editors, that they are clearly ignoring; that's only the polite thing to do I think. It's not meant to be anything other than helpful. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with what I've suggested. My apologies if it offended anyone. Other than that, I don't think this is the place for that conversation. Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anything needed from me re: this section?L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Nfitz (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    such comments, like asshollery are acceptabe here? I don't belive this! Artinpl (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL WP:NPA What are you considering *(^&#*&%? If you have something to say, state it, don't insult.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    he? I'm not insuting anyone what's this?? Artinpl (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC) I was insulted and nothing? Artinpl (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC) :Hello Artinpl, [reply]

    • 1st. Please learn proper indentation, type colons in succession as the conversation flows. See above wikitext for demonstrations.
    • 2nd, you are insulting. When you come and say that these comments are a******ery, that is insulting. Before I took offence, I asked you to clarify, whose comments do you consider !™£¢*&$&? You tried to say you weren't insulting anyone, and dodged my question, so I assume that my comments (all one of them) are considered by you to be !*(•ª¶¶§∞!.
    • 3rd. Now you are claiming you have been insulted. You don't say who did it, or how they insulted it, or what you would like involved parties or uninvolved parties or Grand High Sysops to do about it. Lack of coherence in your "statements" above is beginning to look like a lack of competence. I have assumed good faith and given you the benefit of the doubt for a long time. Admins in charge may not look so favorably upon your behavior in the future. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, never mind, I don't want to drown in this crazy swamp with such mean, toxic sh*t like User:Poeticbent, you can block me, I know you love it. Artinpl (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inlinetext

    Inlinetext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Inlinetext has been a disruptive user, in which they have accused me and other editors of being paid editors or sock-puppets, made personal attacks against me, and has edit warred with another user. This isn't the first time they have been on ANI.

    Diffs
    Edit warring
    a long span of diffs
    more reverts
    more...
    COI accusations
    long span of diffs again
    on someone else's talk page
    Personal attacks
    on her userpage
    on a talkpage
    reverts it back
    confusion?
    —JJBers 15:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Still investigating this. See the lengthy Q&A on my talk page for mote detail (part of the original discussion and related AN3 report). El_C 15:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the lengthy hosting of the investigation, El C. I'm not sure it needs to be carried out over several forums (i.e., here, and on your TP, and on the TPs of the two editors, etc.). In any case, my comments are: (1) Inlinetext needs to stop immediately with the personal attacks and insults (including calling someone a schoolchild), or they may be blocked from editing. (2) Inlinetext, do not edit war over a COI tag; if you suspect that there was COI editing, report the matter to WP:COIN rather than making that unilateral judgment yourself. (3) Thank you also to El_C for full-protecting the main article in question until that content dispute is resolved. Softlavender (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments: Inlinetext, please stop accusations of sockpuppetry. Either file a case at WP:SPI if you have evidence, or don't. I'd also like to link the ANI filing against Inlinetext from three weeks ago: [187]. It mentions the massive deletions Inlinetext made from Swami Nithyananda, which are indeed alarming; the article previously looked like this [188] and after Inlinetext's very selective gutting it looked like this: [189] (and still does, with some added attacks), which appears to violate WP:BLP and is a borderline WP:ATTACKPAGE. — Softlavender (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPCRIME probably does not extend to the regulatory issues in Conrad's case. The only issue here is creation of a highly flattering article by Vipul's pyramid network of paid editors on Parker Conrad at exactly the time he was under attack for regulatory breaches. This is why the regulatory COI notices are necessary to be conspicuously embedded to caution readers, and Vipul has admitted he didn't do them. Inlinetext (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, and it applies to all BLPs. Moreover, you need to address the points I made on the talk page of that article, which has been full-protected because of the edit-warring. If desired, I can re-post my comments here. COI notices of declared paid editing are placed on talk-pages, not on the articles themselves, as I mentioned in my pinged notice to you on that article's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I concur. And note that my questions regarding BLP were left unanswered by Inlinetext. El_C 22:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I told you I am busy in real life. If the community wants to hurriedly sweep this under the carpet, fine. I reiterate that Vipul stood to make at least $600,000 (conservatively) from those out-bound links based on 'value' of those links. Another Indian paid editor 'Wifione' got away for many years under these same processes and by the community not following the ToU. 22:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlinetext (talk • contribs)
    • Inlinetext, if you continue to make these hysterical and grossly unfounded accusations, even in the face of evidence to the contrary and requests to stop, you will receive sanctions in the form of a block or topic ban. Please stick to the issues at hand here on this thread and heed what people are saying to you. Softlavender (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey inlinetext, I'm pretty busy in real life too! Still been trying to answer all your questions (at cost to my day job and weekend relaxation). Here's a suggestion to reduce stress for everybody: don't make ridiculous accusations and don't drag third parties unnecessarily into debates.Vipul (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Parker Conrad is only a symptom of a much larger problem for conflicted editing, I shall see how my editing priorites (and time) lies 'wrt' reporting this episode to WMF. I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors. Volunteer (unpaid) editors correcting errors obviously feel harassed and highly unwelcome here. This of course is a ToU issue. Inlinetext (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that BLPCRIME only covers "crimes" which can result in conviction. Regulatory contraventions like licencing may not be directly classified as crimes. There are probably under State regulators (who are not criminal judges). Inlinetext (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors." There is no evidence of anything of the sort happening on that article. Vipul has explained that below. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anybody reading the talk page of Swami Nithyananda will realise this is a gross untruth. Also the content on the article was not inserted by me and I have carefully aligned it to reflect what the sources say. And, I didn't find or insert those souurces either. Inlinetext (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I should, however, note being especially curious about inlinetext's Question no.7 regarding the possibility of: "personally stand[ing] to receive between US$600,000 to US$900,000 for out-bound links [Vipul's] team inserted into Wikipedia articles which generated those 6 million+ page views." Following the money may be prudent, too. El_C 16:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion the WP:COIN regulars need to be made aware of that entire investigation and interrogation. Pinging @Brianhe, Smartse, Doc James, and JzG: (and they can ping whoever I left out). Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Above my pay grade. I think this needs to go to the foundation. I can't see them being happy with someone operating a pyramid scheme based on paid editing! Guy (Help!) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't get into it right now but brought the the matter to light at COIN (permlink). - Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, a pyramid scheme on Wikipedia, that isn't a article. Well, that's nice. —JJBers 18:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with 'Guy'. The curious facts of this case need to go to the foundation and only to the foundation. It actually appears a case of a pyramid scheme based on paid editing to deliberately compromise the quality of the encyclopedia for personal profit and which thereby endangers the stability of WMF's computer servers. Inlinetext (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Parker Conrad content being reverted was not added by me or people I paid -- the main connection with me is that the ~2-year old original version of the page was created by somebody whom I subsequently paid for it. In other words, any connection with my paid editing enterprise is tangential; the people involved in the dispute aren't connected with me, and I don't even know who they are. The fact that the conversation was so easily manipulated away from a discussion of the subject at hand (inlinetext's revert patterns) to my paid editing project is sad. I'm happy to answer questions about my paid editing in an appropriate forum (public or private), but I don't appreciate how a discussion about a very different topic (namely, inlinetext's behavior) has forgotten its original purpose so easily and quickly.Vipul (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Vipul, can you identify which of your paid editors made any edits to that article or its talkpage? And also post that information on that article's talkpage (since the issue is brought up there)? That way, we could separate the issues and determine how to proceed. (Right now the article is fully locked because of the edit-warring, and cannot be edited.) Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Simfish (Alex K. Chen) created the original version of the page. His final edit to the page (based on which I paid him for it) is this. My payment to him is recorded here (it's the very bottom row of the table) and here. As you can see, the version as he created at the time was fairly small and just barely more than a stub, and most of the material under contention was added in later edits.Vipul (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance, Vipul. Could you please also copy all of this (both paragraphs of explanation) to the article's talk page, adding it to the bottom of the thread about paid editing? Also note the date and year of Simfish's last edit. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerning 'JJbers', this ANI was only filed after I pointed out to her that she had insulted me as follows "@Inlinetext: I understand that you may be mad," [link]. The user ought to have used a neutral word like 'upset'. As Sitush has pointed out to the user, with Sitush twice telling him/her in exasperation to fuck off, this user is interjecting themselves into controversies and areas where they are incompetent and unwanted. It strikes me as very curious that this school student is so interested in rape / murder and homosexual assaults of Catholic priests on schoolboys, and edit wars to extraordinary length with me over such topics. I view such behaviour as a ToU issue and not a community issue. Is this an enclyclopedia or a Reddit ? If so, why has 'JJBers' not hauled Sitush to ANI for saying fuck off twice to him/her? I am not up to date on what has happened here in the last few years but standards, civility and basic courtesy seem to have gone down tremendously .Inlinetext (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Inlinetext, you are continuing to make personal attacks there. Personal attacks are what you are being reported for, and I have already warned you: You need to stop immediately with the personal attacks and insults, or you may be blocked from editing. Stop calling the editor a schoolchild, stop objecting to their use of American English ("mad", which merely means "angry"), stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS about their interests, stop using cursewords (quoted or your own). Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I must object here. I wonder how you presume/assume that every English speaking editor here knows that "mad" equates to "angry" or that I speak US English ? Did the filer not that know/consider that "mad" means "mentally ill/ insane" to most (other) English speakers. And imputing instanity to such other editor is definitely a personal attack. I can think of at least 10 other perfectly civil synonyms for "angry" which are probably also used in the US. Inlinetext (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously knew exactly what it meant [190], as does any adult native speaker of English. El C, I think this time-sink has gone on long enough, and the community should not be forced to waste any more time on this editor. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When she says "mad," unless there's some kind of indication to the contrary, you should intuitively assume that it means angry rather than insane. So none of that anymore. And certainly none of these edit summaries. Take, then, this as a first and only warning about personal attacks and insinuations. El_C 01:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Inlinetext. It's all getting to be a bit much. El_C 23:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think if the editor does not calm down and start collaborating, there is a strong case to be made for CIR ... as in a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am disengaging now. to cool off Inlinetext (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    :I would like to clarify a few things, Inlinetext:
    1. I'm a male, not a female.
    2.The only reason I joined the AFD was because of a ANI started on that page.
    3. I joined the Parker Conrad because of your contributions, not some off-wiki thing.
    4. Insulting that fact that I'm younger than you, isn't really useful, and uncivil.
    —JJBers 02:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyways, I completely forgot about this diff, which's edit summary is basically cursing, in a quote forum.—JJBers 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry that I was unable to respond to anything, I was out taking photos of Norwich, Connecticut, which I will upload sooner or later.—JJBers 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I shall henceforth be responding only on the COIN thread or my user talk page. I am staying off "content" until the outstanding issues are not resolved. If I observe any urgent content issues, I will use talk pages or DR to get some other editor to resolve them. I would appreciate JrHeller1 and JJBers not communicating with me unless it is unavoidable. Regarding I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors., this aspect is now very well clarified on the COIN thread in the context of Vipul's group and was not specific to Parker Conrad. Inlinetext (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure

    I think we should just issue out a final warning to Inlinetext and end this. Any thoughts? —JJBers 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. See this example. I have ignored your behaviour but when several senior editors of long standing have commented this and this and this, this on your impatience/behavior, perhaps its time to back away ? "we" ? are you an Admin ? Inlinetext (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor 'JJBers' ignores BLP / BLPCRIME and shows battleground mentality. When I deleted scandalous material inserted by the user with a clear edit summary, see this, it was restored with a frivolous edit summary. The (unpublished) source cited does not explicitly say that Reverend Charles Carr was a priest of this church's parish (it says he was then a priest in our Lady of Fatima in Wilton), nor does it explicitly say that Carr was "found guilty" in the "case" it only says he was referred to State protection authorities. Neither does the print version. Inlinetext (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Request is it possible to get a interaction ban for this filer preventing him from interjecting himself in my edits / discussion threads and from posting on my talk page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlinetext (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJBers, Inlinetext was already given a final warning above this WP:POINTy and self-involved new section you opened. If you keep pursuing them and harassing them and talking about them, you will be blocked from editing.

      An interaction ban is not necessary here. What is necessary is for you both to stop tracking and commenting on each other. If evidence of tracking the other editor's edits recurs, either of you may be blocked from editing. Please go forth and edit elsewhere along you own interests. Softlavender (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack and lobbying

    On List of Iranian dynasties and countries page, I made regulations by making the necessary explanations on the talk page. I explained all the edits I made on the talk page and in the summary of changes. Nevertheless; Without giving any reason, Changes revert by the @LouisAragon:. When I invited him to the talk page.[191] He deleted the message I threw at it. By ignoring the discussion page, Requested page protection and Used disrespectful expressions against me. He does not give any opinion as to whether the changes made are wrong or correct. He's reverted edits and provoking me. When we examined his personal talk page, We see [192] .They warn each other about the change and act together. Please see List of Iranian dynasties and countries: Revision history. Reverted by another user. When we examine their changes and personal talk pages, We see that users move together. This is called lobbying. If you look, you will see that he made no comment about my changes. He's making misleading statements to justify himself.--AlpAy (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already fully protected the page—some of the developments I was unaware of can be read on the RFPP report—but I note that an account created today finding ANI, is itself a bit of a mystery wrapped in enigma wrapped in a vest. El_C 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A vest? EEng 19:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And a fine vest it is. El_C 20:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Luca Brasi's?
    IP: 78.170.159.121 restores a removal by Dengesizzz, 11 June 2016.
    User:Dengesizzz is a sockpuppet of EMr KnG.
    IP 78.170.159.121, which restored Dengesizzz removal of referenced information, then can be found edit warring since 2 March 2017. Five reverts by my count.
    User:AlpAy arrives 5 March 2017‎, and continues the edit warring.
    Thus, AlpAy = 78.170.159.121 = Dengesizzz = EMr KnG.
    Which explains how a supposed "new user" could find ANI, since EMr KnG has posted on ANI before. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like it noted that I didn't read the previous comments very carefully, and hadn't read Kansas Bear's at all (the odd formatting made my eyes gloss over), before posting the above. I saw the OP's comment and it looked suspicious, so I checked into the history a bit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow-burn heraldry edit war

    (non-admin closure) L'honorable and sock are indeffed. Kleuske (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've had user L'honorable's talk page watchlisted since participating in an unblock request a month or so ago, as the block was for sockpuppetry and I happened to come across it as an SPI clerk; I later supported the request. The user's return has been tumultuous, having been reblocked and then unblocked again as well as being blocked on Commons for behaviour which may be related, and they've recently become involved in a content dispute at Albert, Prince Consort which also involves administrator DrKay. DrKay appears to have history with L'honorable, which I know nothing about, but over this weekend DrKay has taken to forumshopping various admin boards to get L'honorable re-blocked. They posted at ANEW earlier, which is a good thing for an involved administrator to do, but they appear to have taken it poorly when that was "closed as no violation". The thread was closed at 13:52; at 13:54 DrKay filed an SPI clearly rehashing the case which led to L'honorable's original block. 20 minutes later they reverted with a clearly pointy edit summary at Albert, Prince Consort ("since this is not edit-warring per {link} I shall repair all the damage"). In all this there has been exactly zero discussion on the article's talk page, which was last edited by a human in 2014, although L'honorable has attempted to discuss the content dispute on DrKay's talk page (which DrKay today ordered him not to do again) and by pinging users to his own talk page.

    I closed the new SPI and tried to suggest to DrKay that some discussion on the talk page would be a good next step, which earned me a "don't speak down to me". So I'm leaving it here for someone else to take a look at:

    1. does Albert, Prince Consort need full protection due to the edit dispute?
    2. does my support of L'honorable's past unblock make me involved w/r/t Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina? (in which case another clerk should review the case)

    Thanks in advance. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to note l'honorable's recent edits to List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Even though DrKay and I remarked on the talkpage that we can't take it upon ourselves to attribute a coat of arms to a particular person—in this case David Cameron—l'honorable afterwards launched into the article doing just that. His reply on the talkpage makes it seem that his edits were undertaken in spite [193]. Back in 2015 Mabelina edit-warred specifically over this Cameron-heraldry-original-research-stuff in the David Cameron article, and was blocked several times—I remember this because for a while it seemed like I was the only person who was concerned about the false heraldry and false genealogy that he kept inserting in it and other articles (for example see Talk:David_Cameron/Archive_5#Problems and this 2-week block for edit-warring over this exact thing). From my standpoint, Mabelina was a nightmare concerning the Cameron stuff. It was so frustrating dealing with someone who would not listen; who refused to comprehend the concepts of original research and synthesis; and who constantly edit-warred to 'win'. So now, as a result of l'honorable's recent edits, and from reading through the carnage on his talkpage, it's dawned on me that Mabelina is back under a new name. I've since learned that l'honorable was caught socking and later forgiven, and that his lame excuse of a shared account with an 'ex wife' was apparently accepted. What the hell? Here's a comment User:RHaworth left on l'honorable's talkpage in December when the prospect of unblocking l'honorable was hashed-out: "Highly sceptical unblock proposal ... I confidently predict that we will soon see a return to the disruptive activities which got Mabelina blocked so many times"[194]. RHaworth was right. Enough is enough.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Way back in May 2016—days after l'honorable was outed for socking whilst in the midst of warring over his heraldic-original-research in Lawrence Booth—RHaworth left the following comment on l'honorable's talkpage: "Sadly my betting is that if you stick to the standard offer and we unblock you in six months time, then within your first half dozen edits you will resume the behaviour which has got you blocked a dozen times so far" [195]. The history of the Lawrence Booth article spells it out: for years User:Ealdgyth seems to have struggled with Mabelina's original research in this single article; and when Mabelina was blocked for good at the beginning of 2016, l'honorable showed up that spring and renewed the struggle. His warring in that particular article reached a crescendo in May 2016 that only ceased when he was outed and blocked for socking. But l'honorable was allowed to come back. And now he's drifting back into some of his old haunts—like List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom—picking up where he left off, pulling the same stunts. Anyway, I was stunned to see that RHaworth called it twice. I sympathise with DrKay and anyone who has to deal with this guy.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Now, verbosity is in itself not a blockable offense, but disruptive editing is. That's the argument that should be made here. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about bad-faith grandstanding solely to provoke DrKay and the banner? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And while we're at it, dragging commons drama over to here YET AGAIN??? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked over some of l'honorable's recent edit-warring activities and have re-blocked them indefinitely, reinstating the original indef-block as imposed on User:Mabelina for "exhausting the community's patience" in January 2016. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't disagree with that action. Regarding the connection to Mabelina, l'honorable's accepted explanation is that he shared the account with his (ex-)wife, so there shouldn't be any surprise that some of Mabelina's history carries over into l'honorable's behaviour, and l'honorable made no effort to hide that connection. I argue that this situation is not sockpuppetry, though it is definitely resuming disruptive behaviour which led to a prior block, and this block ought to stick. There now remains the issue that Albert, Prince Consort, currently a featured article, has been through a protracted edit war and could use some neutral parties to review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sockpuppetry was blatant: he even forgot - as most sock users do - who he was signing off - Mabeline's trademark "M" here and again "M", this time as L'honorable, here. Why anyone would want to sign their apparently acrimoniously divorced spouse's monogram instead of their own is beyond me! Keri (t · c) 14:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That he was using both accounts is obvious; he admitted it. Sockpuppetry requires that he did so deceptively to evade a block, which he did in May 2016 and was blocked. Some time later he asked the community to allow him to edit as l'honorable, which we did, and subsequent to that unblock no sockpuppetry has occurred. But we're arguing semantics anyway, he's blocked as l'honorable for continuing the same behaviour that got him blocked as Mabelina, and it's unlikely either account will be unblocked again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To my opinion, DrKay also should be rewarded a block of some kind. The SPI was the point that I noticed that DrKay went from being in conflict to harassing L'honorable. On my critical question on the talkpage came a rather harsh e-mail-reply, stating that my "with al due respect" was in fact just showing disrespect. At that time I realized that DrKay was in full attack mode, what is shown in the actual SPI too. The Banner talk 10:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To provide context and prevent misunderstanding of the term "harsh", you have my permission to publish the full content of the email (minus address and any identifying headers). DrKay (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Reverted). 79.78.35.136 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens at Commons, stays at Commons. It's fairly obvious that you haven't been following the multiple car wrecks of the Mabelina/L'honorable saga here at en:Wikipedia. Keri (t · c) 13:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP has only 12 edits: 2 of them are to my talk page and 6 of them are at this board. 8 of them coincide with periods that either the Mabelina or L'honorable account was blocked. It does not take a genius to figure out who it is. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The full 13 words of your mail will not add anything serious to this case, DrKay. The Banner talk 15:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought. Now the IPs have joined in and the disruption and sockpuppetry is blatantly obvious, this entire thread should be shut down. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The troll behind the disruption in this thread is not related. Unless you mean to suggest that Mabelina/L'honorable is the known troll, which I personally doubt. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Motion to close - if it's alright with The Banner and everyone else, I suggest chalking this up to an editor's frustrated response to our sometimes slow pace in dealing with a disruptive user. Admins are not immune to emotion, and the user is now dealt with and there's been no abuse of tools or anything here, so why don't we all just move on? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Odd IP behavior

    187.74.246.62 (talk · contribs)

    Their last several edits have been adding one to three blank characters and then immediately removing from a handful of articles, within a minute. These are all whitespace edits so not vandalizing anything, but this is really really odd. I dunno if they are trying to game the system or something, or something more malicious. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please,check with blocked 200.100.71.70 (talk · contribs). Same modus operandi and same server location. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Tropic Thunder this has been going on with various IP addresses for over a month. Other than burying something in the history, I can't think of any reason, disruptive or not, that someone would want to do this. Monty845 01:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If its a bury attempt, should we slap on a month on SEMI? I think it could be some little kid fooling around.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably not a kid fooling around, given that they've now used three different IPs and edited at least four different wikis. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that white-space testing fellow from Brazil, has been doing this disruption (to mostly the same articles) for several months, with many IPs at his/her fingertips. No doubt getting a cheap thrill out of it. Certaintly a case of WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would writing an edit filter rule to stop these sorts of edits be appropriate? -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, please! Drmies (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can only admins write edit filters? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @L3X1: No, you can request the edit filter permission from the Edit Filter Noticeboard, but you'll need to show solid evidence you know how to write filters, such as a track record in programming regular expressions and understanding the MediaWiki API. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely don't want to excuse the IP's behaviour, especially if they're as unwilling to discuss the issue as they appear to be, but I do want to point out that there may be an innocent and non-disruptive rationale behind the edits even if it's wrongheaded. I recall, several years ago, seeing a similar pattern of edits from a different user who's definitely not connected to this (he later registered a real account and he's Canadian) — after asking him about it, I was able to determine that for some reason he had it in his head that Wikipedia articles inherently had to be edited at the top of the next hour before edits made within the previous hour would actually get committed to the page history — so because he had that obviously wrong notion in his head, he was adding blank spaces and then removing them again simply to ensure that his work over the past hour wouldn't simply disappear. So I assured him that what he was worried about wasn't actually a thing, and he stopped. Again, without an explanation of why this user's doing it we can't read his mind, but I just wanted to raise this example as proof that there may be a good faith reason why somebody thinks this is a productive thing to do. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I would generally agree with assuming good faith as far as possible, but the cross-wiki nature of the edits, as well as the IP hopping, would seem to rule this out. Plus, there are the occasional bits of explicit vandalism involved too - at least a couple of page blanks and content replaces with random characters. All of this, plus the timeframe involved (at least months), leads me away from an assumption of good faith here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block possibility?

    The vandal of @2607:fea8:235f:ff8f:c57b:de0a:9b9e:f4d8: look exactly the same as @2607:fea8:2360:724:b102:a156:4e86:50fb: and @2607:fea8:2360:724:6cc2:15b6:c830:b7cb: (removing "Limited" from the Chinese name of the limited company)

    In turn, the edit of aforementioned 2607:FEA8:2360:724:B102:A156:4E86:50FB (talk · contribs · logs) had exactly the same interest as @2607:fea8:2360:724:25c0:62ab:8fe8:89e4: and @2607:fea8:2360:724:51b:eaef:b71c:16ee: back to December (good faith edit but unnecessary American/British English correction). Would the latest vandal by aforementioned 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f:c57b:de0a:9b9e:f4d8 (talk · contribs · logs) qualified for the range block of the whole?

    Other involved:
    2607:FEA8:3C9F:FE1E:210C:2C21:82B2:4E48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:3C9F:FE1E:5157:966B:2A58:A5D9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:20E0:15F:E4AC:B305:581E:2163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:7DF4:3E98:28C3:CF41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:19FC:1A17:63E0:7C69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:497A:F7A0:ABA7:E00E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Good faith only but tagged by others. Seem same interest with other ip in biology
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:2524:24AF:7A3E:EC0C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:AC62:152E:706A:65E8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:AD07:4D25:F2CF:D3A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:E916:D03F:6134:3599 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had 24 hours block before
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:F03F:6E5F:78AD:BD88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:F05A:9C30:9EE1:4CD5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    more skipped
    most of them either had the same interest in biology and/or airport and most of them involved in unnecessary American/British English correction, and go through the sample suspected ip, 3 of them obviously on Limited Company vandal. Matthew_hk tc 09:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No going to list all the ip in the cat, but recovered few more ips for obvious vandal on removing the word limited
    2607:FEA8:2360:724:1DF8:89AB:DE68:CEEA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:2360:724:8D52:B87:49D6:A33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    2607:FEA8:2360:724:E938:2EC6:4878:4C1B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Matthew_hk tc 09:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    go through the ip again, those with expired block on single ip and not listed was:
    2607:FEA8:2360:632:C57B:DE0A:9B9E:F4D8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Matthew_hk tc 10:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I remembered something like this showing up here before. It was previously reported here in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Rogers Toronto Date/EngVar Vandal. I range blocked 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 for a week last time, so this time I'll make it a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EpiriotDevolli

    Blocked per WP:NLT Primefac (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This looks very much like a legal threat. I am wholly uninvolved being neither Greek nor Albanian, but I guess a suitable heavy request to desist from such behaviour might be in order.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA blocked indefinitely for saying "stop messing with our inside work because you can be sued for it." El_C 09:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible Interwiki Tongo bot

    BLOCKED
    Blocked in response to contributions and report -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2001:8003:2467:1E00:58EE:1BFC:E73:DE77 (talk · contribs) looks like they might be a bot - the IP is doing nothing but adding (deprecated) Tongo interwiki links to what seem like an entirely arbitrary sequence of articles, at a fairly steady rate of one per minute. They've ignored a direct question on their talk page asking if they are a bot. --McGeddon (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. for 31 hours to prevent further addition of such links for now. Hopefully by then the IP will start answering why they are making so many automated edits. Regards SoWhy 10:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked this user before as 2001:8003:2467:1E00::/64 for disruption and edit warring. The above IP is dynamic and other IPs in the same range were doing the same adding of interwiki links. I blocked the range again, this time for 1 month. In general for IPv6 a single user controls all the IPs in a /64 range. NrDg 15:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inez Jasper

    In December, our article about Inez Jasper — a Canadian musician who clears WP:NMUSIC #8 as a two-time Juno Award nominee — was speedy deleted under criterion G5 because it was determined to have been created by a user who was evading a prior editblock. Accordingly, I reposted a new version earlier today, rewriting the whole thing as substantially as possible — quite literally the only things I left the same as the original version were standard Wikipedia templates (i.e. the infobox and the discography list) and unchangeable facts like her name, her birthdate and her album titles themselves. I rewrote and reorganized every last bit of the substance that could possibly be changed, and added several pieces of new information and new sourcing that weren't present in the original version at all, so that the only similarities left were the unavoidable things like not giving her albums imaginary alternate-timeline titles — yet even that version was speedied within minutes as a "paraphrase" of the original article.

    The issue is that the substance of what there is to say about her is going to be the same as the original article regardless of how one does or doesn't phrase those facts — so if even completely rewriting every last word of the article's content (aside from the unavoidable matches on details like her name and the album titles), is still "paraphrasing" the original article, then there's literally no way left that any article about her could be recreated at all. I did write the new article differently enough from the first version that it should not be deleted as a "paraphrase" just because of some unavoidable similarities of structure — I can't make up a whole new set of alternative facts about her career or her notability claim, but rather the only thing I can actually do is write about the same facts in different words than the first version, and I did that.

    Accordingly, my question is what recourse do I have to get the article reinstated? How much more different do I have to make it than I already did before it can finally be kept without being perennially redeleted as still not different enough? Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bearcat, I've restored it. Nice work. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Primefac, I was going to, but you beat me to it. I would say that this regarding proxying matters too from WP:PROXYING: "...unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I think that's the case here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I say if any experienced editor wants to work on G5 that could credibly be an article, give them a heads up on the backlash they might face, and then restore it. --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible rangeblock

    Hi. After talking to admin GiantSnowman he suggested that I should go to ANI and request a rangeblock (diff). A dynamic IP starting at 2a02:c7f:5405:1300 has been disruptive on articles related to Tranmere Rovers and reverted multiple times by multiple editors. For example look at history of Ritchie Sutton where the IP has been reverted by multiple editors. The articles involved are about 20, so they are to many for semi-protection if it can be solved with a rangeblock. Regarding to length of a block it would have to b be at least one week so the editor notices the block as he only updates after his team has played a match.Qed237 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A /64 range block shouldn't hit any other users. However, for me, reverting an edit is not an indication of anything. In this edit they've matched the number of appearances and goals documented by soccerbase. Can you explain this or provide evidenced instances of vandalism? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: Bottom of infobox states Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 00:00, 1 May 2016., so it is a factually incorrect statement to add appearances and goals after that. Many editors have been reverting these kind of edits nowadays and in many of the article there are hidden notes that the dates must be updated so readers know when infobox was last updated. Regular editors has been blocked for repeatedly failing to do this, so the IP should to. I have also notified the editor about this on many of their dynamic IP talkpages (like for example here). Qed237 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. 1 May 2016, that's like a year ago, so we are using information that's well out of date? If their only offence is not updating the update date, it's no block from me. I checked a few articles and couldn't see any hidden notes. Perhaps getting the correct information in the article, and then writing a big hidden note near the current stats will help. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: There has been talks about an editnotice for these kind of articles, as notes unfortunately are often missed. Is that a bit much? Qed237 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the infobox for the Tranmere players are currently correct. The number of appearances and goals matches the dates at the bottom of the infobox. Qed237 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you'll take my point that the information is still out of date. My opinion is that editors are bombarded with so many notices that edit notices rarely have any effect. A hidden note in capital letters - when placed in a relevant spot - is usually the most prominent notice available, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of editors (and, indeed, admin) who imo overreact when an editor in GF updates the infobox but omits to update the date parameter on footballer articles. Reversions, vandalism warnings, final warnings for unsourced content, threats of blocks, you name it. Personally, I prefer to correct and move on. I wish more people would do the same. Gricehead (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Gricehead - they're clearly trying to help, not being disruptive at all, and this is the worst kind of WP:BITE. If the content is correct but doesn't match the date, why don't you just change the date to match and leave an explanatory note instead of a scary vandalism warning? ansh666 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gricehead and Ansh666: Trust me people are tired of fixing the same bullshit from editors over and over again, especially when it happens from the same editor who has already been told about it multiple times. After you have given them one, two, three or even four chances (correcting and notifying) and they still continue, there is no other way than to start warning. It is disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qed237: I'm still thinking on this, but whilst I'm thinking I thought I'd mention that I like the comment panels you've included in the infoboxes of the players in question. It would be interesting to see if they work - Tranmere have a game tonight, I believe. I put something much lower key in Matt Derbyshire after a spate of Europa League appearances being added. It wasn't that successful, but also wasn't as obvious as yours. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection at World Financial Group

    Dealt with elsewhere. Amortias (T)(C) 22:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The New York Times says this is a multi-level marketing company, and attempts to remove that info come in regularly from throwaway accounts and IP addresses. IP edits: [196][197][198] Throwaway account edits: [199][200]. None of these ever edited anything else; one or two edits to this article and they're never seen again. This has been going on for at least a year, with a new attempt every few weeks. Request semi-protection, since blocking would be pointless. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nagle Did you go to WP:RfPP? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; wrong department. John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 194.69.15.68: Kicked over from AIV

    I suggest we kick this over to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, go ahead. --bender235 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone with German language skills confirm that it is a scam? My google translate doesn't really make it clear, though even the bad translation looks suspicious. Assuming its confirmed as a scam, I would actually say we just monitor it... If an IP was actively spreading the scam, we would need to block it, regardless of collateral damage. But one post of the scam, that is already half a day old, makes it a lot less clear that blocking would really be useful. Monty845 23:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm a native German speaker, but even I couldn't fully make sense of what he was posting. It seemed to me like a some sort of scam, that's why I reported. --bender235 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's claim that it's a library in Umeå is credible. The user seems to be posting about Deutsche Bank's forthcoming share issue(?). I can't see the advance-fee scam. Not the most coherent editor though.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Monty845: I couldn´t find anything about that offer on the DB website, though I might have just overlooked it. Also the stock price, given at 11€+, is messed up as it gives you a 3-digit cent number ... which would change back the price to 17€+ which is almost identical to the current price on the stock market. The grammar is subpar and several words make, in context and/or sentence structure, no sense. ... GELongstreet (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the country or IP-address they are working from, they're peddling something. Scam or otherwise, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Given edits like this, this, this and this, I conclude WP:NOTHERE. I can't find a single edit by this IP that actually makes sense, in English or German. Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an educated guess here, but the grammar has characteristics of something which has been automatically translated multiple times. The word "elfeurosechhochsechsunddreissig" from this edit is an example: I believe it is an attempt to illiterate the phrase "Eleven Euro, six hundred thirty six", the likes of which tends to be concatenated by translation software if translated into German. I suspect that this is something they found which was written in one language, translated into a language the editor can read by software, then the result was translated into German, also by software. That being said, it doesn't look like an advanced-fee scam, but more like one of the typically vague edit requests we tend to get from new and unregistered editors at protected paged, and on admin talk pages. It seems to be making a claim about Deutsche Bank, something to do with a stock offering to existing stockholders that would drastically increase the bank's net worth. It might still be a scam, purporting to be 'insider information' to prompt editors to buy Deutsche Bank stock using a brokerage firm that the IP just happens to know is completely trustworthy... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure) blocked for promotional editing and username, see block log Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I posted the following at Deb's talk:

    An editor reverted a talk page post with the edit summary "...The page was not created as promotional but for purely informational purposes about a fashion brand with heritage. Similar page for another brand - Karen Millen...". That is not true. This editor clearly works for Xanda and edited/created Ariella Fashions, Menaye Donkor and Lotus Restaurant, all Xanda clients. The only article edited not clearly a Xanda client is Casa Tua. This editor seems to be here mainly to promote their clients.

    I decided that I ought to post here to see what others think. I just inspected this edit further, and now see a link created to the www.she-y.com website, as well as adding that site to ext links. That she-y company, by the way, is also a Xanda client.

    I posted at the usertalk asking for them to comply with PAID. Now I think a block may be in order. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've put a G11 speedy deletion tag on Lotus Restaurant, although it might also be subject to A7. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TonyBallioni added the A7. I actually wasn't aware that one could do multiple reasons for a speedy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, db-multiple with piping. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As they say: I learn something new every day. The article's been deleted under A7 by Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vensatry

    Although I find the trans_title field useful for non-English references, user Vensatry vehemently opposes it and I don't understand why. I have tried everything to convince him about it's usefulness but he won't listen. Ditto with archiveurl and archivedate. In Vijay filmography (currently a FLC), many sources are in Tamil (a non-universal language), and the trans_title fields in them were removed on his suggestion. Was he right to suggest so? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things: 1) You'll need to notify the other user of this discussion and 2) this is really a content dispute, and not in the scope of this board. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a discussion for elsewhere, but I always feel a bit nervous when I use trans_title (which I do), as it feels a bit like original research. I can see a user being very hesitant to do a translation, if English isn't their first language. Official translators are never supposed to translate except to their first language. Nfitz (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on the page List of European countries by average wage

    Page: List of European countries by average wage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Anioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [[201]] check at how he recalls me on vandalism while he deleted the official EUROSTAT source. ?¿

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [202]
    2. [203]
    3. [204]
    4. [205]
    5. [206]
    6. [207]
    7. [208]
    8. [209]
    9. [210]
    10. [211]
    11. [212]

    and much more editions, which can be seen in his page, he just changes with redundant sources or even without sources and with fake data, for example he used a website which talks about the politicians wages in 2013, and he changed as he wanted the wage on Italy using that source? I warned him on his talk page and he fastly deleted that [213]

    He also changed the economic data of the page of Italy with fake numbers even referencing the official IMF source which doesn't say and support the numbers he gave. I changed those numbers he edited to the ones from the official IMF source and he reverted here my change [214] although another user has reverted his change and from that day he didn't edit that page further.

    Anioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. This user is suspected to be the same user as Sad9721, a user which was banned from Wikipedia doing the same redundant editions on the same topics/articles. This time is List of European countries by average wage. He accuses me for being "anti-italian" because I revert his non consensual changes with redundant sources (one source he used was referencing this wikipedia article of the list of european countries as the main source, Wikipedia can't be a valid source for a Wikipedia article!) then changed it to a source which talks about the politicians wages (nothing related to the article) and then putting fake numbers which can't be found even in his sources and he also said that it's data from 2013. I reverted his changes by putting the official EUROSTAT (european statistic agency, official EU organism) numbers from 2015 on it and he keeps deleting those numbers and changing the aspect of the page.

    Also threatens me on the talk page of that article that he will delete any of my changes because "I make them without consensus" (while he started changing the aspect of the page in 28th of February without any kind of consensus and putting redundant sources) and because I just use the official data he calls me that i'm "anti-italian" and "aggresive" and doesn't change his mood, again today he not only changed the data of Spain and Italy in that page, he also deleted their official data from EUROSTAT and also deleted the source! Here are the proves. [[215]] this is when all started, after this edition he maded 19 editions in a row in the page List of European countries by average wage which every one of it was an redundant edition without trustworthy sources. Then I changed his editions to the official sources and all started.

    In his profile can be seen that he just edits the same topics, I warned him on his talk page and he directly deleted it and keeping in the same mood. He went to warn EdJohnston about "my vandalism" and EdJohnston said the same to him, that I tried to change his mood in his talk page and he deleted it. He also maded editions on the page of Italy by faking the official IMF economic numbers of Italy and changing the numbers while the numbers are referenced with the official IMF source, he changed them even if that's not what the page of IMF says and then when I reverted his edition with fake numbers he reverted mine again! [[216]] and here is the proof when today deleted the numbers of Spain and Italy in the article mentioned before just because he wanted, deleting the official numbers from the official source. [[217]] --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=769110728"