Yellow Warbler

User:Vnonymous has demonstrated time in[2] and time[3] again[4] that they do not understand correct procedure for warning users, when it's appropriate to use Twinkle warning templates, or using WP:AIV to report vandalism. Administrator intervention is needed, as the editor does not understand the responsibility involved with using tools such as Twinkle, as shown in unheeded warnings such as this[5]. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he's filing inappropriate reports, maybe someone could point him toward the Counter-Vandalism Unit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. Also, pointing the user to Wikipedia:Vandalism and helping to educate them on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism would be helpful as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah Except they are not responding to inquiries regarding their edits. Other editors have already tried. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the user is responding to messages and edits made on their talk page. I do see one message on the user's talk page here regarding a revert to vandalism that he didn't warn the editor for, but I don't see any others nor do I see any notices about bad reports left at AIV by the user. Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I'd be willing to mentor the user in fighting vandalism, if they agree to be mentored. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThePlatypusofDoom - EXCELLENT!!! Right on, dude!!! This is the exact solution that we need here; it'll give mentoring to the user and help them to learn and become experienced, and it'll address the concerns reported here. Vnonymous, what do you think? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late response, as I thought I had already added this comment. I questioned the motives of above said editor on an questionable AIV report they left. They failed to respond to that, the request on their talk page left by User:L3X1 regarding template warnings, as well the ANI notice I left regarding this case. Checking their editing history, I see they are still active, yet they do no respond to any pings, talk page notices, or attempts to notify the editor of questions about their editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I agree with you, and Platypus's offer is very much appreciated, and your elation thereat is understandable given how rare such offers are around these parts, but ... you should probably tone it down a bit. The above really looked to me like sarcasm on the first and second read-through and the only reason I didn't call you out for it was because I put far more brainpower than should be necessary into figuring out that you were sincere. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My most sincere and humble apologies are owed to anybody who may have misinterpreted my previous response above as sarcasm in any way. I give you my promise and my assurance that I sincerely meant every word that I said above and was not trying to belittle or engage in mockery. Hijiri88 pretty much hits it right on the head -- offers to mentor and educate other editors like this (even if their intentions are questionable or even seem to be in bad faith) aren't common around here, and I guess it's sad in a way that giving ThePlatypusofDoom a well-deserved shout-out for doing this may have been interpreted as sarcasm or belittling at first glance. However, it was not; ThePlatypusofDoom made a genuine offer that I honestly felt deserved genuine gratitude and a "high five", and my response above was me giving him that well-deserved gratitude :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I first want to say that Boomer Vial's first link won't load for me, it brings up the editing form. I also wished to comment on my uw-warn that I gave Vnonymous. In my anti-vandalism efforts I tend to dislike when other editors haven't warned the offender, as it makes a successful AIV less likely, and takes up a lot of my time going through the suspect's contribs checking to see if they have vandalised before.^[1][2][3][4]. I even templated myself!^[5] If the user in question is making bad AIV reports, would placing a uw-AIV on their talk page be correct? It certainly is strange that the user would continue edit and ignore everything on their talk page, unless he feels that it doesn't not require his attention. Thanks L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 Apologies about the bunk diff, I mixed up the order in which the links were supposed to be posted, which are to be included with the relevent diffs provided above. Here[6][7] are the correct links that I meant to post. Looking at it now, the AIV cases seems to be more of an mentality of "I don't like your edits, so I'll report you to AIV under the guise of vandalism". Thank you, L3X1, for noting the strangeness in their disregard of the most recent posts to their talk page, in particular the ones regarding questionable edits on their behalf. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

IP appears to be same person as 24.140.238.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), exactly same "edits" with same name wrongly inserted. David J Johnson (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP is now using 95.85.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the same vandalism. David J Johnson (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More ip reported: @37.200.67.62:. please protect all stock exchange articles as he use different ip to vandal. Matthew_hk tc 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have gone stale, report at WP:AN/I if vandalism starts again, if it is targeted at specific pages try WP:RPP. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24.140.238.212 back to live and blocked again. Seem can't range block nor SPI, seem he was shifting internet cafe or some sort. Matthew_hk tc 06:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. Deletion of article talk page content. Described simply as "edit"[8] [9] which Ghmyrtle picked up. Mass archiving of talk pages then followed at articles which didn't need archiving,[10] thus blanking talk pages; also directing the bot to wrong articles [11], [12]. Mutt Lunker questioned these actions [13] but had an inadequate response,[14] and they didn’t clear up the mess (deleting links to archives rather than restoring talk page material).[15])

2. Repeatedly using uninformative or false edit summaries. Advice given back in December [16] and again in February by MusikAnimal [17] but quick return to summaries like "edit" [18], [19] and "update".[20]

3 Not signing comments on talk pages (not including proper details or including the details of other editors), I raised with them in December [21] but it is still going on [22] [23], Springchickensoup even going back to remove their details [24] and responding with hostility, e.g. Talk:Dunoon. I raised this with this editor[25], so did PamD[26] and then me again.[27]

4. Edit warring rather than BRD. This was happening in December [28] but is still going on.[29]

5. Persistently adding inappropriate or non-existent categories. I raised this in December [30] then January [31] [32] but this has continued [33]

6. Failure to discuss. One instance of Mutt Lunker raising issues led to being taken to ANI in February Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#.28Moved from AN.29 - Inappropriate behaviour. Feedback given by Kendall-K1 was scorned [34] then an odd report filed at UfAA [35]. After offering advice J3Mrs was also rebuked.[36] Springchickensoup’s talk page's history has been blanked of criticisms several times, e.g. 23 Feb 2017[37], 5 Feb 2017[38], and 18 Dec 2016[39].

7. Repeatedly adding navboxes which do not relate to the page on which they are placed, e.g.[40], readded [41] and [42]

8. Unconstructive editing of infoboxes, such as distance of miles to two decimal places, or location by centimetre. Raised by Jellyman [43], PamD[44], Twiceuponatime[45] and others offered advice too[46]. Again the response was hostile and evasive.[47]

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

• I endorse Drchriswilliams's summary above. I had no dealings with Springchickensoup until earlier today, when I posted[48] on their talk page about problems with categories which I had encountered while working through Special:WantedCategories. Then something twigged with me that there might be more of a history, so I looked at the user talk page's history and saw lots of deleted content. That turned out to be mostly attempts by other editors to raise problems, and usually being dismissed quite rudely.

I noted that Chris had made the most recent attempts to engage, so I posted on Chris's talk[49] that it looked to me that there was some sort of there is some sort of NOTHERE/IDHT/COMPETENCE problem. I followed that up with a brief summary[50] of the issues I had seen. Congrats to Chris for doing the spade-work of putting this together.

I want to believe that this editor means well, but I see only occasional glimmers of an ability to work consensually, and that is a pre-requisite for editing here. There is a very big problem rate with these edits, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND hostility to other editors makes things uncomfortable as well as unfruitful for those who do try to engage.

AFAICS, this adds up to a huge net negative. Springchickensoup has already left behind a lot of messes for others to clean up, and unless some brakes are applied, the cleanup list is only going to grow.

At a minimum, I would suggest some community sanctions, such as: 1RR, requirement to use informative and honest edit summaries, civility warnings, and a requirement to use dispute resolution mechanisms. I wouldn't oppose a block, but am inclined to try a little WP:ROPE first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I also concur with the above assessments. (Apologies if this repeats some of the points made in the post immediately above as they were evidently being drafted at the same time.) This new user is highly active and clearly has much enthusiasm for the project, but only if absolutely on their terms. The bulk of their considerable number of edits are poorly expressed and drafted, do not conform to MOS, are poorly organised, poorly sourced, non-notable or actively - if often unintentionally - highly disruptive. It is understandable that, as a new editor, their level of ability in editing is limited but they have shown utter contempt for any advice or constructive criticism offered to them by numerous other editors. As noted above, they routinely leave misleading edit summaries, have made significant attempts to obscure critical talk page threads and have brought two vexatious referrals here to ANI in regard to criticism of their editing. Their unwillingness to desist from disruptive patterns of editing, coupled with their huge edit rate has tied up much time and effort of other editors in checking, reverting and vainly attempting to provide feedback, advice and criticism. I fear there is still much of their work to be checked, amended, corrected or outrightly reverted or deleted. They may have made some positive contributions but overwhelmingly they are a significant drain on resources, due to their behaviour. This user's enthusiams could be an asset to the project but after several months without showing an iota of willingness to accept the good faith of others, the point has been reached where it has to be indicated that they can not expect to behave like this and be allowed to continue to participate here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to help this editor on Dunoon for some time, tidying up, pointing out that section headings need proper formatting, and that we write in complete sentences, etc. I've now been included in their general vituperative remarks about destructive editors - ie those who apply Wikipedia norms instead of letting this editor do their own thing. It's getting tedious. Their editing is enthusiastic but unskilled, and they don't like getting advice or help. Mileages to London expressed to two decimal points - their response when I said that whole miles was enough precision was "As for being over-precise, again just nonsense, no distance on Wikipedia is precise as the points the measurements are taken from are not fixed point." which seems like WP:IDHT rather than an editor willing to listen to more experienced helpful editors. See also Talk:Dunoon#What.27s_missing for hostile response to a suggestion on how to improve the article. PamD 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just worked out how I ever got involved: this version of Dunoon, 22 Nov 2016 after Springchickensoup had made a vast number of edits, must have shown up on my notifications as linking to a page I'd created, almost certainly a dab page: it's massively overlinked and looks quite spectacular if you've got dab page links showing in orange as per gadget! PamD 22:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had little interaction with Springchickensoup but have found him confrontational and bizarre. He brought me to UAA with a charge I didn't understand, something about being dead or being three different people, and did not notify me of the discussion. Nothing came of that. None of my interaction with him amounts to anything deserving any kind of sanction, but together with all the stuff reported by Drchriswilliams, some of which I observed but did not participate in, is troubling. I can't really think of what a reasonable response might be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd seen Springchickensoup sooner, and I'm sure several people have tried to help them, and yes, their stuff is going to need further cleaning up. But their last edit appears to be db-usering their talk page on Feb. 24 after blanking their user page, so it looks as if they are gone. I did my best with one of their articles and then left a friendly message on their talk page, in case they think again, but I suspect they're gone and that this section is therefore moot. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering them some friendly advice. I see you also cleaned up some of the problems at Coylet. Springchickensoup had been approached about these problems already- I raised galleries with them and pointed them towards policy [51] weeks before they created that article.

While they were involved in two discussions at ANI in December they added the db-user template to their talk page [52] then added a pointy rationale [53] and was promptly offered an explanation about why it would not be erased.[54] At that point they posted a message suggesting they had left, placing a further scornful message on their user page [55] which replaced one from a fortnight before that was also rejecting community input.[56] Springchickensoup returned 23 days later and was immediately adding problematic categories again [57] and then continued making edits at pace. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I count half-a-dozen editors reporting a similar pattern of unconstructive behaviour. That looks like a consensus on what the problem is, but there has been little discussion of what to do about it. AFAICS, the options are either a block, or some sort of final warning. Any thoughts on that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Some action is clearly required and I'd be happy with either of your suggested options. I don't think we can assume SCS has left the project as they have stormed off in a huff before, only to return again, unreformed. I have seen unco-operative and misguided but prodigious editors come round and become valuable contributors in the past, although this editor seems rather an extreme case. Hopefully a stiff warning or block will get them to wake up and if not we can act accordingly. To note, per these posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, there may be further problems lying in wait per SCS's camapign of auto-archiving. I'm afraid I haven't had time to fully investigate the problem or to revert the changes which may cause similar problems at other affected articles. We can't have a user perpetuate an editing style which causes so much damage, unintentionally or otherwise, putting a considerable burden on others to clear up the mess. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally any course of action should include several aims: reducing incompetent changes being made to articles, stopping Wikipedia’s pages from having changes applied to them covertly, restoring a situation where changes are easy to review, accepting that discussion is used to reach shared understanding, and removing the additional burden that is being placed upon other editors. A final warning may serve to reinforce the gravity of the point we have reached but a large amount of helpful advice has already been offered and rejected- disruption has occurred repeatedly. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned I'd be happy with a block or a warning. With the aim of reaching a conclusion, if the former, how long, bearing in mind we don't know how long this latest huff may be? On that basis, possibly a stiff warning would be better as it will be there to be seen as and when they return. So, if a warning, how do we frame it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a warning which says that: 1) they have been repeatedly in engaged in disruptive editing in the ways set out in this discussion[permalink]; 2) any further disruption may lead to a block without further warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I support that course of action too. It sounds quite reasonable. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering WP:BEFORE [58] [59] [60], 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. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored [73] [74] and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" [75] [76]. 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 [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] and [85]. Similarrly, questions on his talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [86] and [87] 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: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]), but simply deletes the posts using edit summaries such as "delete rubbish" (diffs: [97], [98], [99]) 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]

• But that is exactly where we left things in September with the pageant ANI discussion, and six months later here we are again --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh flipping heck. I seem to remember a previous issue where JPL was nominating beauty pageant contestants and was at least having a 50/50 success rate. These footballer AfDs are failing badly; whether one believes they are notable or not, they pass our current requirements. Advice to JPL: just stop it, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• CommentI am not the only person who was not fully aware that Kyrkystan's national team was playing at Tier-1 competition level. This caused a lot of discussion on my talk page back and forth. There is an extremely long and complex list of Fully Professional football leagues, and I have consistently tried to review it when making nominations for deletion. I have tried to find the least combative way to respond to comments left on my talk page. Sometimes that is just blanking them out, and letting the discussion on the article in question run its course without saying anything else there. It is very hard to patient and calmly read through multiple attacks on the level of time spent studying a matter. This is even more so the case when PageantUpdater speedy keep voted on some of my hockey nominations with a false assertion that a particular league gave automatic notability for playing, when I had read the explicit guidelines in the notability for hockeyplayers guidelines that explicitly list the leagues that grant such, and do not list that league at all. I will admit I should not have used the term rubbish, but I was frustrated with the harping on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am sorry for my mistakes. I now realize that playing on a national team is generally a sign of notability, although it is sometimes hard to tell if they were at the adult national team or a non-qualifying junior national team. I will seek to fully understand this question before acting in the future. Another issue that has come up relates to players in the Phillipine Basketball League. In those cases it is almost looking like it might be worth considering revising our guidelines since they do not include that league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I hope I am not coming off as a jerk with this comment as Johnpacklambert has a long and distinguished career here on Wikipedia, however if this editor is unfamiliar or feels confused over the rules of WP:NFOOTY or the notability requirements of other projects, then perhaps he shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. AFD nominations such as these (see here 1, 2, 3,4) while possibly made in good faith aren't helpful to the project. My suggestion is that Johnpacklambert take a break from nominating articles for deletion and resume when he feels refreshed and feels s/he understands the guidelines better. Anyway that is only my opinion, hope it helps thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish when I had first come on Wikipedia I had realized I could put spaces in my name. Even though the way my signature now appears it has spaces, people seem to ignore this. I know this is a minor quibble, but I am part of the group that think all Wikipedia users should have to sign in and use their real names, and the fact that I do not fully comport to this bothers me. I am not sure that saying anything of substance about the issues of the notability guidelines for footballers will be helpful. I have come to better understand the issue with national teams, and have withdrawn a nomination because of this added understanding. On the other hand there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Allen (2nd nomination) which shows that there are in fact articles on non-notable footballers that I am catching.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about your name John Pack Lambert, I'll keep it in mind the next time I address you. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:02, 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 [100], [101] 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 [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109] and [110]. Also, questions on your talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [111] and [112]. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't seen those diffs [113], [114] 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.[115] 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 [116] 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]

• I'm not sure it's so much that the nomination isn't collaborative, but your lack of participation in the AFD, even when pinged, that is non-collaborative. Nfitz (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also non-collaborative is dismissing concerns about AfDs as rubbish. pbp 14:27, 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]
  • I agree that JPL should be free to appeal to AN to have the limit raised or removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it could also go in the other direction. If he's creating AfDs at a lower volume, but continues to have the quality problems demonstrated above and in the beauty pageant fiasco, we could look at completely closing the door. pbp 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. That is also true, but I think AN would be the preferred venue for any adjustment (stricter or looser) here to save the dramah. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 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" [117] 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]

• WP:NFOOTY is not a policy. WP:BEFORE is more debatable but deletionists usually contend that it's not a policy and AFD is full of cases where it hasn't been followed. Definite and important policies include WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The idea that football is special and so should be exempted from the general notability guideline is very much a point-of-view. It seems to be fan-based – the same sort of fan enthusiasm that has today given us Viking metal as a featured article even though that has been nominated for deletion too. The issues seem quite debatable and so editors are entitled to discuss them. See also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:Walled Garden. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 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]

• The entirety of your reasoning in opposing the proposal has thus far involved the Farukh Abitov article. JPL's nomination of that article is very, very far from being the sole basis for this ANI. João Do Rio (talk) 09:34, 2 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]
  • JPL, that long paragraph might be relevant in the broader discussion above, but it has nothing at all to do with this proposal. You do yourself no favours by posting such verbose irrelevancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 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.[118] 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]

• I don't know of any way to do that without reviewing the AFDs manually. If you could show that his AFDs in one particular field were poorly informed, a carefully tailored editing restriction -- say, requiring him to demonstrate compliance with WP:BEFORE for any AFD in the topic area -- would be a more appropriate action than this blunderbuss proposal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:37, 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]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Atkins (basketball) closed as Snow Keep by an uninvolved editor today on basis of GNG. Appears no research was done before nominating --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:09, 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:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Atkins (basketball) - SNOW keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Pablo Andrade - Keep, nom withdrawn
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahidul Alam (footballer) - Speedy keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Lambert (hurler) - Keep, nom withdrawn
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maksim Agapov - Keep, nom withdrawn
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov - Speedy keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Abdul-Hamid - Keep (4 votes for speedy keep, 1 for keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Abdul-Aleem - Keep (3 votes for speedy, 2 for keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Miller (quarterback) - Speedy Keep, this was a great example, nomination was "The sourcing is far short of GNG. Playing in the Arena Football league does not grant automatic notability, and I see no other sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)" as per the closer "The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. The Arena Football League is expressly covered by WP:NGRIDIRON--it is in fact first in the list of leagues named. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)"
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoul Karim Cissé - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omneya Abdel Kawy - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Abbate (2nd nomination) - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Aafjes - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Arapović - Keep, Subject was an Olympian, this was overlooked
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Therry Aquino - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akane Araki - Keep
• 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]

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 [119] [120] [121] 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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

• one edit in two different articles in 2 weeks is edit warring? I'm more concerned that you referred to this edit [122] as vandalism in a warning on the users talk page[123]. It's a difference of opinion, sure. But vandalism? Looking at Hillsborough, County Down, editors refer to this name as "a fact". However no reference or source is supplied. The link to the 1661 name is dead. Instead of going back and forth over the name, why not just add a reference to it? I assume that's easy enough to find, given that ga:Cromghlinn (Contae an Dúin) exists. That should end the discussion, unless I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you never bothered to look at the discussion on the Hillsborough talk page? Also edit-warring is not confined to time scale, and the fact remains they are ignoring discussion, warnings, and the facts which been explicitly spelled out to them. But yeah okay sure let's just keep reverting their vandalism over and over again and it is vandalism when they have been shown to be in wrong, ignoring discussion and warned several times yet persist regardless. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also assume you never bothered to actually check both articles edit-histories. 1 in 2 weeks? More like 4. Sorry I am using a tab and can't easily copy and paste links into this discussion without screwing everything up. Also the edit you highlight was the IPs third reimposition of their edit despite the attempts at discussion by Daithidebara, so yeah it can be classified as vandalism. Also let's see... 5 goes at Hillsborough from 21st Jan to 28th Feb, and 5 times at Lisburn from 2nd Feb to 28th Feb. Looks like edit-warring to me. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out on the talk page for Hillsborough, County Down there are two seperate issues, whether or not there is a Irish Language name for the place (and if so - I suppose- what it is) which may or may not be disputable, and the conduct of an IP Editor using two seperate IPs in deleting references to the Irish Language name without discussion. Their continued use of two ip addresses, in preference to registering, further muddies the water, as it is now important to read BOTH talk pages. I have before this placed three seperate formal requests for discussion on the talk page for the most used IP, as well as informal requests. In fact in their latest edit they give as their reason:

"No need to discuss as it is a fact not an opinion , adding a defunct translation to a long defunct name is idiotic"

This, it seems reasonable to infer, makes it plain that they do understand that they have been requested to discuss before further editing, but are refusing to do so, and have gone on to act without discussion. In that case, for them to be allowed to continue without sanction would seem to me to be odd. My thanks to Mabushka for bringing it here. Daithidebarra (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me some time (that I don't have right now) to fully comprehend the long (perhaps overly) long explanation on the talk page. Is there not a simple reference to the Irish place name, like there is for Lisburn? It doesn't help that reference 2 in the article is a dead link. Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read the talk page. And I see a reference in it to the place name. Why not just add that to the article (like has been done for Lisburn) and fix that dead link. That should change the IP edits from someone removing unsourced material to something more serious. Is it edit warring? Maybe - the edit comments seem half decent though. Hard to block someone for 24 hours, if they don't log in for a few days ... Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could simply block IP editing of the articles in question for a set period of time, say a month or so. Would have two effects: they stop; they register and carry on. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A month would be harsh for a first offence, for infrequent edits like this. They've only had 2 edits total in the last 2 weeks. Why not just reference the contentious unsourced material, and fix the broken link? Perhaps someone else here has a different opinion?Nfitz (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Nfitz an inadequate response on your part which largely misses the point. I thought I had explained the matter in my posting above. TWO DISTINCT ISSUES, what the Irish Language name for Hillsborough ought to be is the first issue. I believe I have now resolved this by providing a reference link to the Irish language name in Article Hillsborough, Co. Down, copying the equivilant reference used in the Article Lisburn. So the material is now sourced. This does at least improve the article. It fulfills your request above: "Why not just add that to the article (like has been done for Lisburn) and fix that dead link. That should change the IP edits from someone removing unsourced material to something more serious." BUT NOTE that as in the case of Lisburn the information already fully sourced in that way, the ip editor is already engaging in removing sourced material. This leads me on to the second issue, the conduct of the ip editor. I have taken the trouble to carefully follow procedure on this, and made many attempts to engage them in discussion, including the placing of no less than three formal requests to discuss on their main talk page, using the recommended template and using the recommended intervals of time. In their latest edit they explicitly refuse to engage in discussion. If there is to be no sanction whatever for failing to respond to a request for discussion what is the point of that process? Is it simply a waste of time? While I am at it you say " the edit comments seem half decent though. " Have you really read them? They include, in successive edits, accusing editors who disagree with him as having an "ulterior motive" being "idiots" and finally describing the Irish Language as "defunct". This last, especially in view of certain guarentees relating to the status of the Irish language contained in the Good Friday agreement would be experienced by a certain section of the Northern Ireland population as deeply offensive and an attack on their identity. This is essentially troll like behaviour, but it seems nothing to be done. Really? I am asking for a sanction to be applied. if you are unwilling to do so, please respond to me and explain why the conduct I have listed here requires no sanction. Daithidebarra (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2017

Yes I did see those. Successive edits? The ulterior motive one was on Feb 2 - and is a bit pointy. Defunct is a week later, and I took as meaning regionally defunct - but I'm no expert on how widely Irish is used in that part of County Down. The third is several edits later on Feb 28, and isn't "idiots" but "idiotic". Again pointy, but you are overstating a bit by saying he called people "idiot"s.

On the other hand, there are discretionary sanctions related to WP:TROUBLES - although I don't think they've been utilized for a while. I think it's heavy handed - but perhaps someone with history here needs to look. User:BrownHairedGirl has been involved in that topic area - what do you think? Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: see WP:TROUBLES, which seems clear enough that sanctions are still applicable. The logging was centralised, so the sanctions log on that page is not up-to-date. However, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#The_Troubles, shows that these sanctions were applied several times in 2016. So I conclude that they are very much alive.
As to their use in this case, it does seem to me to be absolutely the sort of issue where they can be helpful. However, I haven't analysed the IP's conduct closely enough to form a view on whether they should be used here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirlThanks, I was looking at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#List of editors placed on notice.

Someone else needs to look at this. I don't think it's worth it yet, and simply referencing the contentious issue in the article should solve. But I think another opinion is needed. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a different administrator should take a look at this issue. Also I said block IP editing of the articles for a month not the actual IPs. You know semi-protection? The statement afterwards stating it'd maybe make them signup should have made that clear. I also have to agree with Daithidebarra's comment above. Personally the incompetence shown here only further encourages disruptive editing, any wonder quite a few long time editors in the Ireland WikiProject have disappeared completely over the past few years. Sheer incompetence rules once more. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have reported this IP to other administrators about this issue recently to Laser brain and Oshwah, but I didn't get a quick response. This IP just recently made these edits [139] [140] at the At. Long. Last. ASAP article. Look, I hate being the boy who cried wolf here, but my problem is the IP has made too many grammar mistakes, and most of the changes essentially only contributed to corrupting the language and added nothing to the content. I don't understand what the user was trying to achieve. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. I was busy and missed your message on my talk page when you left it. Sorry about that, man :-/. I'll look into this and get back to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I do see what you're talking about, but what I don't see are recent attempts to discuss the issue directly with the user. The last warning was left on February 20th. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I know the last warning was left on February 20th and I should have left a very recent warning to the talk page, but the reason I didn't leave a warning because most of the edits to other articles recently didn't seem disruptive to me, so I didn't bother, but realized now, I should have. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts - It's all good, dude. This is why these noticeboards exist - to make sure we're doing the right thing :-). If attempting to warn or help educate the user doesn't go anywhere, and if the edits in concern continue -- let me know and we'll go from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: The IP has blocked by Materialscientist for adding unsourced material. Thanks anyway for the advice, I let you know if this user might use another IP address because this user has a history of using multiple accounts. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! And yeah, please do! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

My initial thought is that I don't see a problem with creating an edit filter like this (although others may disagree - I welcome their input). I'd just leave it at the non-autoconfirmed level; an edit filter disallowing accounts from doing so unless they're extended confirmed seems unnecessary (again... others might disagree with me). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article is already subject to ARBAP2 and blue locked, it's not much of a stretch to allow only extended confirmed editors to create redirects. Blackmane (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such a filter sounds sensible. DarkKnight2149 13:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• How is pussy-grabber-in-chief not notable enough for a redirect - it's got 120 google news hits from all sorts of sites as a quote. Reality is, it's out there. Nfitz (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirects shouldn't be judged on their notability, but on their functionality. Do you really think that someone putting "pussy-grabber-in-chief" into the searh box does't know that name of the party, and could go to that article directly? Of course they do, and that makes the redirect POV and a BLP violation at that. We're an encyclopedia, if the phrase catches on in a big way and gets a lot of use in hte mainstream press (120 Google News hits is a dop in the bucket), we could have an article on the phrase itself, how it originated, and what it's based on, but a redirect is just making a POINT. (And this is from someone who prefers that the man's name not be mentioned in my household.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree: redirects are not required to be neutral and not required to be tasteful, only functional and not obviously an attack term invented on Wikipedia. "Pussy-grabber-in-chief" is indeed out there in sources of varying reliability ([141] [142] [143]) and it's clear who it refers to, and such a redirect would have been just fine. Except that it's WP:G5 and should be nuked with extreme prejudice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that functionality should be the primary criteria, but I'll stick with the point that anyone who uses it knows exactly where it's going, so it has no de facto functionality at all. But, we can agree to disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... thus I support enforcement via filter, just to be clear. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I'm not convinced that it's either very POV or BLP given his own words. However my mistake is applying Notability - and yes, as a functional re-direct, I see the issue. Gosh, and I hadn't realised we had a Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording article - these are the times we live in I guess ... glad I don't edit much in this topic area. Hmm, and there's a Pussygate redirect to that ... which is at least a convenient short-form for a search Nfitz (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

(EC) There have been both sillier redirects and more serious ones in the past that have had to have discussions. It comes up as a BLP issue occasionally because a plausible and reasonable search term (really the only real criteria for a redirect - will this help people find the correct article) is not necessarily BLP compliant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are. I never thought I'd see a day when a clear misogynistic bigot and arguable white nationalist was elected in any G8 nation. So it's no wonder that we are now considering such filthy terms. Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Very good idea with the redirect filter, please enable it. Good idea, Ritchie333. Now how about the clever fly-by editors who add Donald Trump as an example or a "See also" to articles like Dunning-Kruger effect or Narcissism? I semi'd Dunning-Kruger effect for that at one point. Could we have a filter for Donald Trump being added to articles where he didn't previously appear, by users with less than 500 edits? Am I joking? No. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, based on the simplified policy that a) Bishonen is always right and b) When Bishonen is wrong see a), I have enabled the filter. It's not hard to change it so it will block any edit linking Trump into an article, but let's see if what we've currently got trips up anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, perhaps it's worth mentioning here that a paragraph about Donald Trump was just added to Dunning–Kruger effect by an experienced editor, User:Herostratus. I thought I'd revert it per WP:BLP, but no. It's very well sourced, notably to an article by David Dunning himself.[144] So... well... bad example on my part, perhaps. (Or not?) When Bishonen shoots herself in the foot, see a), by all means. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It's OK User:Bishonen, it's fine. Overall and all-in-all, it's probably (or at least reasonably arguably) a net benefit to block references to Donald Trump being put into articles, at least until discussion and consensus. No rule is perfect and all have side effect. I thought about it, and considered my addition to be a (rather rare) worthwhile exception (although I might be wrong and am standing by to discuss and assess if requested). Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Dunning's article, I think you're right, Herostratus. But it has just been removed. Talkpage now, of course. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes of course, WP:BRD is operative. It'll be some heavy lifting, and we'll find out what's what and hopefully continue to learn and grow. Herostratus (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirects are not required to be neutral, but they're also required to be reliably sourced (as in: in everyday use by neutral sources). See also: the kerfuffle over Saint Pancake as a redirect to Rachel Corrie, which had multiple references, but practically all of them were alt-right and virulently anti-Palestinian blogs. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite, please tell me you're kidding... Drmies (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support enabling the filter. A preventative approach to this issue seems appropriate given that prescriptive measures do not appear to be working. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

To be fair, by removing a warning, they are acknowledging it. They can remove warnings from their page without comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but it's also the extent of the warnings over the short history of this account that I'm bringing attention to. Funcrunch (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was only commenting on the talk page warning issue. That in itself isn't a problem, but the edits I would agree are starting to look WP:NOTHERE-ish. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the problem here? Discuss it on the talk page, that's what they're for. This would be a weak complaint at ANEW, it certainly doesn't belong at ANI. Nor is their blanking of messages any reason for complaint: they are allowed to do that, and even if you find it irritating, they are allowed to do that. It is incumbent on anyone posting to ANI to check first that what they complain of is actually an offence against wiki morality.

Maybe they should be critiqued instead for the dreadful phallocentricity of their username, even if they do present as a 'vixen'? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, my reason for posting to ANI was not just about the talk page blanking and not just about the edits to the Cisgender page. It's the history of contentious editing over the month of this account's existence. Funcrunch (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing WP:NOTHERE, I'm seeing an opposing point-of-view. Some edits are quite neutral. Just as many of us are probably biased in one direction, others may be biased in the other direction. This doesn't mean that their contributions aren't valid - and different viewpoints will ultimately lead to a stronger project - what one person sees as NPOV will differ from another. Presumably even a member of a very right-wing organizaiton has a viewpoint, and is welcome to contribute, as long as they abide by the same rules as the rest of us. The user has only edited cisgender thrice, ever. And what they are trying to add, doesn't seem to be entirely unreasonable to add, if phrased correctly. Instead of just deleting the reference they are trying to add, why not rephrase the text around it more neutrally? For the innocent here, what does DH110 refer to? Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nfitz. de Havilland Sea Vixen. An aircraft. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not just talking about the Cisgender page; I wouldn't have brought the user to ANI for only those edits. Contentious editing also happened on Buzzfeed (1, 2) and Black Lives Matter (1, 2) with multiple reverts despite being invited (on the BuzzFeed edit) to discuss on the talk page. The only talk page D.H.110 has edited to date appears to be their own. It's not a matter of having an opposing point of view, it's a matter of proper sourcing and cooperating with other editors. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those; but not much else. Those were both the month before last. No indication they aren't learning from the edit comments. I think this WP:BITE applies. Doesn't seem to be edit warring. On the surface the edits all seem quasi-reasonable. They aren't doing any damage. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot one more example: Also blanked a sourced section of Gender binary as "unverified", and did not respond to invitation to discuss on talk page. Also, this is the first day of March, and February is a short month, so "the month before last" makes these edits sound longer ago than they were. Regardless, I disagree that "they aren't doing any damage" (obviously, or I wouldn't be posting here). Funcrunch (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it so annoying when people delete a referenced section because they don't agree that the reference cited actually supports the claim?

This is not ANI material. Discuss it at talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gender binary is a bit more concerning. But it's the only time they've ever touched the article, and it was January. Their more recent references have been a bit more constructive, and have had references. All the edits I've checked, that gave me any concern on POV were very quickly dealt with on the pages in question. The edit summaries for both their edits and reversions look good. I'm not sure I'd get along particularly well with the editor in question, but I don't see any issues other than POV; I'm a little concerned that reference isn't being added to cisgender in one form or other. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: As I've pointed out, the editor has not shown any willingness to discuss their reverted edits at article talk pages. @Nfitz: If another editor want to re-add that source with what it actually states, rather than twisting it to suit their point of view, they are more than welcome. Funcrunch (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any attempt to engage the editor on the talk pages either. They aren't continuing with the edits, and they seem to be reading and responding to the edit summaries. Honestly, I don't blame them for not wanting to start an argument on the talk pages, if they don't think it would be fruitful - they don't have to engage, if they don't want to edit further. Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits are not something that require discussion though. The "slur" stuff might, but blanking or other disruptive edits should be addressed on the user's talk page (and they were). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue I'm seeing is a strong POV without indication that they are learning or changing behavior (e.g., this nonsense). The past month or so has demonstrated an inability to edit constructively on what the user might call "SJW topics". A month and a couple dozen edits should be enough to address the behavior. While I understand concerns about BITE, there's clearly concerning and disruptive behavior here with little to no indication of abatement (also see WP:PACT). Remedies like topic bans might be warranted if this continues, in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a single edit on the page. All they did was remove a single image [145], with the comment "deleting hate speech". It is hate speech ... and I can see some might see it offensive, in many, many ways. I don't see why WP:AGF doesn't apply. They've never tried to remove another image like that, that I can see. Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech... maybe see This machine kills fascists. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, difference between an idea killing fascists and people killing ... but I see your point. Okay then, strike hate speech and replace as "might be seen as hate speech". However I don't think that changes my point. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This vandalism seem pointy,^[146] as well as consistently blanking their user talk page, are not good signs. El_C 13:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that one ... oddly no talk page warning for that one. No, the talk page blanking isn't a good sign, but it's allowed. Nfitz (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir did post a talk page warning about that vandalism (alongside two other diffs). Funcrunch (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so he did. I must have missed the last diff. We've discussed the first two. I don't think the first was pointy or disruptive at all - there'd been a discussion about adding a reference to this in the talk page, and he went and found a decent reference - all it needed was a bit more editing - I still think the article suffers from not having it. The second is that image, which he only tried to delete once with an explanatory message; I can see why someone might think that kind of obscene vulgar image shouldn't be here (it should, but I can see why one might). I think it's clear that his POV might differ from others (and there's nothing wrong with that), however he doesn't seem to be trying to edit the project to move away from a neutral POV. That third edit is troubling - but not worthy of a ban. And I don't see any offending edits since the final warning (which seemed to me to be overly harsh given the first two examples. Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The user identifies as "anti-sjw", which immediately invokes the GamerGate case. Their edits to aircraft articles are largely unproblematic (form the perspective of someone who has sat on top of the actual aircraft pictured on their user page) but most of the edits to anything related to gender politics are problematic. Per WP:ARBGG I think we are into final warning before topic ban territory; I placed a DS notice and warning [147]. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned that the users edits appeared to be progressively improving. And what finally brought them here was added in accordance with the discussion at Talk:Cisgender#PUSH BACK/REJECTION AGAINST TERM, was well referenced [148], was reworded in a following edit. After the ANI notice they appeared to discuss constructively on the talk page. It had all the appearances of being a good-faith constructive attempt to improve the article in accordance with previous discussion by others on the Talk page. The warning looks a little WP:BITE to me.Nfitz (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As I explained on the Cisgender talk page (after thanking the editor for participating there), the subsequent edit was not reworded to conform to what was actually said in the source. I do not believe this editor is acting in good faith with respect to social justice related articles. Funcrunch (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It was reworded though. He added the word 'some' which I think one could consider as an attempt to reword it to remove POV. I'm not saying it's a great edit, I just don't see why WP:AGF doesn't apply, and someone simply improve it a bit. To tell the truth, I thought saying that it wasn't reworded was pointy - as it clearly was. And I don't see trying to add the reference and text was pointy, given it was in accordance with the over 3-month discussion on the talk page. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding the word "some" did not make the edit conform any closer to the source. The source said that some gay men and lesbians see cisgender as a slur, the editor wrote that some LGBT people have used "cisgender" as a slur. Not the same thing at all, with or without the word "some". But I'd prefer not to dwell further on just the Cisgender edits on this page. Funcrunch (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guy: Note that the editor removed your warning (yes, I know this is allowed) and right afterward added "anti-fascist" to their user page. Funcrunch (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Users being reported:

• Special:Contributions/144.13.183.111
• Special:Contributions/GELongstreet

Please see

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3

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]

• Comment: If Wikipedia is discussed on those Reddit posts, then that adds a bit of ambiguity to the situation. I think WP:POSTEMAIL can be applied here. DarkKnight2149 17:01, 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]

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]

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]

There appears to be a fairly new user who has begun heavily contributing to updating men's and women's college basketball standings templates, but they are repeatedly using future "as of" dates rather than the most recent game result or editing date. This behavior has caused confusion and inconsistency across templates, upended years of standard usage by numerous other editors, and is in conflict with the documentation for Template:CBB Standings End ("date: Date that the template was most recently updated.")

I and several other editors have been trying to revert these nonstandard changes to proper "as of" dates as we see them, but the user in question is rather prolific. More importantly, the user is unregistered and using dynamic IPs that change every few hours, making it difficult to track all of their edits and engage in discussion with them. A number of messages have been left on the talk pages for the IPs, but they have gone unanswered. Any advice on what can be done to rein in or at least elicit a response from the user to facilitate a discussion about their behavior would be appreciated.

Partial list of IPs apparently all used by the same editor:

• 2602:306:cc21:9950:c1a9:c9cf:c5d7:4e63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:a5a7:e6c1:9fc8:5d6c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:6187:e9e0:66ca:b066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2600:1:d306:6d8d:58b3:73a6:8a77:e789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:c5bd:6578:7562:f66a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:449:7dd4:9e43:4a01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff

Thanks! WildCowboy (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @WildCowboy: Except for the fourth, all of these belong to the same AT&T /64 subnet and are almost certainly the same person. That they are changing so often within that range is no surprise due to the way IPv6 addresses are assigned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, the template pretty clearly states this should be the date it was last updated, not some future date. Since the disruption is ongoing as we discuss this, I'll range block 2602:306:cc21:9950::/64 for 24 hours. I don't know anything about how Wikipedia covers sports, so I'm a little reluctant to start off with a longer block. Another thing I noticed is that User talk:2602:306:CC21:9950:C5BD:6578:7562:F66A is tagged as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs), which struck me as a possibility when scanning through the templates' history. However, he doesn't seem to set the date parameter to the future (example template edit). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the long-term, is semi-protection an option, if it doesn't stop? I'm not sure how many templates are involved. Nfitz (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As a frequent editor of college basketball pages and standings templates, this user has been making disruptive edits for a long time, and has been given many chances to start cooperating with all the rules he has been violating.--Zachlp (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the input everyone. Semi-protection would seem to be a natural step, but this affects dozens of templates, so it's rather unwieldy to request and implement. Glad to hear others have been frustrated by this user's behavior. @Zachlp: Why do you suspect that IP is a sockpuppet? Dereks1x (talk · contribs) was banned ten years ago and I didn't see anything linking him to that IP in a quick scan of that case and recent activity on the IP. WildCowboy (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @WildCowboy: I would say that the IP users mentioned, and most (if not all) others in the suspected sockpuppet list are certainly tied to Lewisthejayhawk (talk · contribs), who, before I was involved with this case, was a suspected sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs). It was my understanding that there was also a clearer connection between Lewisthejayhawk and Dereks1x, leading to all of the users/IPs being grouped together under Dereks1x.--Zachlp (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• NeilN has blocked the range for 24 hours. This group of IPs geolocates to a different part of the USA from the group most recently reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dereks1x fwiw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems he/she isn't done. They have been reverted again at Template:2016–17 Big 12 men's basketball standings for setting the date to today, even though there is a game to be played today. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, still around and still using future dates: 2602:306:cc21:9950:bc17:dee1:7d88:2fc7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. WildCowboy (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I did a one week range block this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the user (@ThanhPeters:) keep on on not responding English warning (he did reply once in his talk page for Chinese/English bilingual welcome message but seem a Vietnamese). His most recent disruptive edits was keep uploading the same image to English wikipedia (currently the third time) after his attempt to upload to wikicommoan was failed. He clearly not the copyright owner nor showing the "fair use" of the image, but he keep removing maintenance tag in wikipedia and common, and/or making false claim on copyright information. Matthew_hk tc 06:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user is already blocked on Commons for three months for uploading non-free content. [:File:Wang Ziwen 中国电视剧品质盛典.jpeg] was already deleted once by User:Fastily for violating WP:NFCCP #1 and the image is all over the internet. I've tagged the image for deletion.

See relevant SPI here and edit warring by now blocked WP:DUCK here.

Seems fairly clear that the user is either unable or unwilling to communicate with others, although they do know how to use their talk page. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef with instructions on how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined the unblock, which read (in full) something rule in wiki so hard i don't get this yet. Anyway, I've dealt with the user problematic editing before and I don't have high hope that a new unblock message will be convincing. English-language skills seem just too limited. El_C 15:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I don't see the decline on this talk page. His written English might be poor in grammar, but it seems comprehensible enough to me. Nfitz (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they're on their third block on Commons for the same conduct, and have had more than a dozen images deleted there for the same reason, and considering that templates on Commons are multilingual and display in whatever language you have selected, this seems likely to be a CIR issue that reaches beyond the obvious language barrier, unless for some reason they had their Commons account set to English. TimothyJosephWood 15:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't-see-what? I've just dealt with him before, so the basis of that experience leads me to believe he is unlikely to articulate a convincing unblock request. El_C 15:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They can't formulate a proper unblock request and keep on removing the decline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. he'd removed your decline, and somehow I missed seeing it in your edit history. Someone has restored it - I should have looked at his talk page history first. Sorry Nfitz (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Understandable confusion. El_C 16:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 [149] and moved on to things like this [150]. 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]

• Edit summaries like "I assume this was written by an indignant anglo who can't get over the fact we're about to wipe the floor with him in 2 weeks time! Goodbye!'" and "No citation - Selkirk was indeed the subject of Robinson Crusoe, the truth backed by citation and common reason, as it is known fact that no Englishman has the capacity to survive on his own wits, and must for his own benefit be instructed by a Scotsman" don't exactly suggest non-partisan motivation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Short block. There was an account that did this kind of stuff, and ended up either indeffed or indef topic banned from such changes — I don't remember the name. Anyway, the IP has made several edits of the same nature after Acroterion's recent level 3 disruption warning. I've blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• 172.58.184.146 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.216.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.217.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.56.3.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.56.23.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.216.164 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.217.236 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

A very persistent IP hopper keeps posting bigoted and offensive material at Suicide of Tyler Clementi and its talk page. Most recent example: [151], 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: [152], 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]

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.[153] 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.[154] 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]

• I'm sorry if you're "triggered" because someone doesn't buy your smoke and mirror show. I'm sorry that you feel the need to be right, even when you actually aren't right. If you don't want people to treat you like a jerk, don't treat them like a jerk. Long piped link, just for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 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]

• It wasn't a personal attack, so your excuse fails. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 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 [155], adding SPA tags [156] (especially when the discussion above shows very little support for that), removing comments [157], and cluttering up an RFC with off-topic accusations of sockpuppetry [158] 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? [159]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]

• If it's really an open proxy, the !votes and comments should be struck, whether or not the {{SPA}} tag is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor involved: Special:Contributions/173.230.139.45

• Personal attack: diff
• Socking accusations:

• diff
• diff.

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the personal attack? El_C 19:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

coffman go on removal spree

The two IP above is coffman.

He does this and hide behind ip addresses from time to time. He confessed using IP address...

Does this clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you might have taken offense, and that it may well be an unwarranted accusation, but I'm not sure it actually rises to a personal attack. El_C 19:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The first diff is not a personal attack. Sock puppetry accusations without evidence can be offensive. I'll explain that to the IP if they haven't approached yet. Tiderolls 19:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dis"-concur with both for differing reasons. Accusations without evidence are personal attacks. The first diff is not a PA at all. The second is quite telling to me that this is not a new editor. The IP editor has randomly shown up to a normal discussion to throw an attack against coffman on a page they have never edited before nor were invited to. I don't see a context for it at all. That said, if there's something block worthy it's a combination of the three edits to their talk page calling people bastards; one edit in a four chain revert war. and their article edits being pure vandalism; here, here and here Mr rnddude (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, due to this being an IP I am unable to tell whether the owner of the IP has changed over the past month. It is likely that they have, but, both owners of the IP have similarly unwanted attitudes and zero constructive contributions between them. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user is continuing with their accusations of socking: diff. I believe that in this case WP:CIR also applies as the IP's alleged confession / evidence is a simple lack of reading comprehension (see diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• smh. Dear Namiba or whatever, is this page the only article with original research? Why are you focused only on that article? --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:12, 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]

LuckyAries (talk · contribs · count)

User was blocked last month for repeated copyright violations and has continued to upload copyvio images. No communication whatsoever from them on their talk page regarding this. It doesn't look like they are going to stop. Requesting a block. --Majora (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed and uploads nuked, though I left the cover art for R U Ready? (album) since that had the proper tags on it and clearly falls under the remit of the fair-use image guidelines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tagged that for a size reduction. You can probably thank the upload wizard for their other uploads. The wizard works rather well for fair use images. Other things, not so much. --Majora (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 174.255.138.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is wanting to refactor past discussions at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television) has posted on my talk page (here) with a demand claiming to be from lawyers. Note: this isn't the first time for various threats claimed to be originating from a lawyer was made related to this article.

I'll leave it to someone uninvolved to address WP:NLT with the IP. In the meantime, perhaps a curtesy archiving may be beneficial to at least move the mention off the primary active talk page? Thoughts? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should this be reported to legal@wikimedia.org, or should we just direct the IP to contact that address themselves? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although s/he says "legal request" ("per legal request from SAG-Aftra legal department")—I still consider it falling under no legal threats. I, therefore, issued a block. El_C 07:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This particular topic has attracted this sort of thing for awhile though. It's borderline, but the constant repetition of the word "legal" does sound like an attempt to me to intimidate people away from interfering with the redactions that they're making. So good call User:El_C. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting; I agree that blocking was the right thing to do despite my conflicting thoughts in regard to WP:NLT. Is it a legal threat? Eh no, not in my opinion. Is it legal intimidation? Yes. For sure. I really wish we'd implement a policy or guideline regarding legal intimidation like this. I genuinely feel that it has no place here, and that dealing with it has always danced around WP:NLT with debate as to whether it's a threat of legal action or if it isn't. I support El_C's decision to block the IP; it was the right call. I'm also quite suspicious in regards to sock puppetry (like many others here as well)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their tone is quacking like a duck to me - X201 (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted perhaps? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect this is Garnerted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 14:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I setup the page to auto-archive old talk threads; hopefully that'll be sufficient to prevent future disruption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soft skin, who was blocked in 2015 for anti-Semitic reference desk trolling, has in the past used his talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, and now we are seeing trolling of the refdesks that refer to those discussions. [164][165] (IP already blocked for a week for block evasion: See LTA/Vote X for Change).

Might I suggest revoking Soft skin's talk page access and blanking (and maybe revdeling?) the discussions on his talk page about the protocols of the elders of Zion, Palestinians, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The troll does raise an interesting question, though: Where was TRM accused of being a Holocaust denier? Referring specifically to this:[166] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's by some margin the least interesting question it raises, Bugs. The user — the account, I mean — had been silent after being indeffed in August 2015, but in February 2016, Anna Frodesiak reanimated them by inviting them to chat about how they're "not too crazy about Jews". I don't think Anna had the best idea there. I'm putting it mildly. Though I'm sure she had good intentions. The entire conversation had been revdel'd, yet left on the page, I presume by mistake. I've blanked the talkpage and revoked tpa. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

That, I wasn't aware of. And you're right, it was not a good idea to wake the sleeping dog. I would still like to know what TRM was talking about, out of curiosity anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of Vote (X)'s habits is making "unverifiable" claims about other editors. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Bishonen and Baseball Bugs. I should have stuck to DENY. I will never again attempt to talk to LTAs. I really am sorry to have made things worse. :( Please accept my apologies. As you know, I do make mistakes, but I always listen to good guidance and learn to handle things better after that. I'm so sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, you go out of your way to help newbies and difficult cases, which is totally admirable. No risk, no gain. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen. I'll always try to help, but that will never again include approaching LTAs. The DENY strategy to LTAs makes sense and I should not have second guessed it by trying to reason with one. Reasoning can only work with the reasonable. LTAs range from unreasonable to, frankly, quite bonkers. Anyhow, thanks for being so forgiving about the whole thing. I never meant to be a fly in the ointment. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Not quite. Old spat, dont worry about it. An Errors discussion where one editor complained that not including IHRM in 'On this day' was tantamount to 'Holocaust denial'. Which they linked to, so there was no weasling out of it by saying they didnt imply that those who didnt support its inclusion were not being labelled as such. Understandably TRM and David Levy were not best pleased about this. Personally I would have just removed the comment as a blatant personal attack, even if it was only by inference. Its ERRORS though, so anything there thats off-topic usually gets punted fairly quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it wasn't a long-term blocked troll, it was a regular user who got away with such a grave and despicable insinuation. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've seen it, yes, you were right to gripe, and more restrained than you had to be. It was a gross and baseless personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I knew this sounded familiar; admins, there's at least one good reading suggestion on that page: you're welcome. The Rambling Man, it is indeed a shame that this person got away with making 17 edits to the RefDesk; certainly number 7 should have been cause enough for an indef block. As an admin, I apologize for us not nipping this in the bud sooner. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I am in need of an experienced editor (you don't need to be an admin) who is willing to mentor a new editor. The editor in question has gotten into a bit of trouble and is currently blocked. However they have expressed what sounds like sincere regret and a desire to become a constructive member of the community. Alas there are WP:CIR issues here and a condition for unblocking is that they agree to mentoring. Interested editors can contact me on my talk page for details.

This post will be deleted as soon as a mentor has been found. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on your talk page. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ad Orientem - I'll be happy to help with mentoring! I see that White Arabian Filly has also elected to help (awesome!); if my help is needed as well, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah thanks for the offer. Feel free to drop a line on the users talk page. If we have a team of editors they can fall back on, then the odds of success are that much better. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and will do, Ad Orientem. Happy Friday -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 4 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: [167][168][169][170][171][172]. 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[173], 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]

• TParis, I believe you are correct: this user is POV pushing and it needs to stop. Thank you for bringing this up. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This IMHO is even worse:

• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...

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]
                • • This is not AFAIK what this noticeboard talk is about. And neither of those are examples of WP:UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • To add, the reason NOTNEWS is important is that most of these changes incorporate poltical banter and posturing, things that we have no idea if with 20/20 hindsight accurately should be included in a BLP's lede summary or in the body, yet edits like these are rushing to include the "ickiest" details readily covered by the less-objective press. Editors need to recognizing the political arena right now is super toxic, and nearly impossible us as a neutral encyclopedia to weed out the encyclopedic facts from simple political mudslinging. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Very toxic - perhaps a topic ban for anyone whose IP geolocates inside the USA. I'm not sure Americans can convince everyone else, that you've haven't all gone off the deep end. All sides. No one seems to be NPOV any more. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • For what? Electing Trump? The significant majority of American voters went against Trump. The peculiarities of the Electoral College system put him in office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not to mention, lost their ability (if they ever had it), to laugh in the face of adversity. Do I need to put a smiley in the summary of an ironic comment? Nfitz (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This is Wikipedia; You need to beat most editors, even us silly ones over the head with the fact that you're being ironic or sarcastic. I prefer my little link, for that task. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 4 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]
  • Yeah, AnomieBOT should fix it soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 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]
  • 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[174]. 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"[175] and "Political positions of Hillary Clinton"[176], 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]