Misplaced Pages

That's the possible 7:2 7:3 ratio I'm referring to is based on (strikeout are my emphasis—contributions added by me). El_C 11:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion that is not really the fault of the closer, because no indication was provided that that had occurred. My detailed advice in the close of this thread will eliminate that problem in a new RfC. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that no fault should be attributed to the closer—my point is about it invalidating the closure. I agree with your own close and hope a new RfC will resolve this. El_C 12:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, to get a consensus here to overturn the closure of that RfC might take as much or more work than creating a new one that is devoid of SPAs and canvassed people. The discussion above to overturn it seemed to be getting nowhere because the editors who approve of the close were hijacking the discussion. So it seems a fresh RfC would be the answer, unless an admin (you?) wants to simply unilaterally step in and re-close the previous one (considering the improper !votes). I agree that an overturn would be simpler, but only if it were done via a quick admin action rather than an endless discussion about it. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, I have re-closed as no consensus. Thereby bringing this long, drawn-out saga to a resolution. El_C 12:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate revision deletion at Beating of Ken Tsang

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cliffmore might need a review

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

I concur that there seems to be a pattern here. I'll leave the user (who recently blanked his or her talk page) a note. El_C 08:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It was a rather rubbish choice of infobox image, but I've seen worse. How about Kay Burley? Cliffmore may have thought "This image of Madeleine Albright is better because it's more up to date", which is a common line of reasoning with infobox images. Overall, I don't think that the edits by Cliffmore were vandalism, although they may have been unhelpful.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

S/he is replacing official images with ones that are either unflattering or where the image is positioned to appear as if it's viewing the article. Subtle, I know. El_C 08:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox images are a notorious trouble spot. I'm not a great fan of the official portrait of Hillary Clinton because of the wide eyes and forced grin, but this is how politicians often appear in their official photos. With a famous person, there will usually be many images to choose from on Commons, but the best policy is to ask on the talk page before changing the infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I told the user. He is to use talk pages from now on. El_C 09:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I can remember when we were having near daily revert wars over the infobox image in Michael Jackson. The more high profile the article, the more important it is to discuss a proposed change on the talk page and get a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a different type of situation, where the image selection is used as a provocation. El_C 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to help out and update more recent photos of people since all of the people in question have aged very much since their current photo was taken. Pretty obvious - not a troll. - Cliffmore

Please use article talk pages to propose changes to images from now on. El_C 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing behavioral problems by User:Kazaro

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

I noticed since two days ago that User:Kazaro has been editing a bunch of GMA Network related articles and replacing the word "a" to "an" in the articles' introductory sentence. (Ex: "Encantadia is an Filipino fantasy television series by GMA Network." - see edit here). His reason was the words "Philippine" and "Filipino" sounded like a vowel and he even cited two US shows (The 100 (TV series) and The Fosters (2013 TV series)) that uses the word "an" to its introductory sentence. I have already talked to him through User:Oripaypaykim's talk page (see discussion here), since Oripaypaykim reverted Kazaro's edits and the latter posted a warning to the former, but he is keep on insisting that we should use the word "an" to those articles, even if it is grammatically incorrect (both verbal and written) and he cannot provide a proper source or an instance that the word "an" was used for "Philippine" or "Filipino". Kindly advise what should be the approach on this dispute. Kazaro will most likely engage in an edit war to revert back what he have edited. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't really list here preemptively to an edit war (anyway, for that there's AN3), but I left the user a note. El_C 09:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Constant misuse of WP:AIV and Twinkle by new editor

User:Vnonymous has demonstrated time in and time again 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. Boomer Vial 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. Also, pointing the user to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and helping to educate them on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism would be helpful as well. ~Oshwah~ 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah Except they are not responding to inquiries regarding their edits. Other editors have already tried. Boomer Vial 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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~ 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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~ 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:CEngelbrecht2

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

CEngelbrecht2 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the Aquatic ape hypothesis, something that the general scientific community views with skepticism, but stop short of calling "fringe". The problem is that CEngelbrecht2 is extremely zealous in his belief in said hypothesis, and has been extremely uncivil and condescending towards editors skeptical of the hypothesis (diffs will be categorized and provided below) at Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis and the FT/N, usually comparing the other editors to geocentrists and himself and his fellow believers to Galileo Galilei.

He was warned by Bishonen (talk · contribs), but only replied by comparing himself to Giordano Bruno, a medieval advocate of the heliocentric universe who was executed for unrelated heresy, then went on to post a polemical rant on the fringe theories noticeboard. At this point,it seems more like he's just trolling rather than actually trying to be helpful.

Diffs:

Translated: "We need to challenge any source, that makes the peasantry realize, that the aquatic idea isn't unreasonable!"

It's really uncomfortable looking through Galileo's telescope, innit?

They were discussed, and a consensus was indeed reached. But that wasn't good enough, 'cause rules don't apply, if you suddenly feel like looking through Galileo's telescope.

The only issue is, that an actual encyclopedic article on this grossly misrepresented topic would force you to look through Galileo's telescope. And that makes you sociologically uncomfortable.

Take note of all of this nonsense, 'cause we're dab stab in the middle of a paradigm shift.

I can only see that one sin has been committed by the aquatic ideas to leave it so brutalized: That they're not wrong when expected to be. I can't put into words just how frustrating and depressing it is to observe that aspect of human psychology. I cannot see how we have moved a single step since the days of Copernicus.

I am requesting the community impose nothing less than a topic ban. While a block at this point would be preventative rather than punative, it would be pointless unless it was an indef. A temporary block, even if it lasted until the current fire dies down, wouldn't do because he'd likely just light it again the moment it expires.

That being said, I would also support any other sanctions against him, whether stronger or weaker.

74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Notified. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only see you demand, that I fall in line. (I don't understand how I notify the user.) CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to notify anybody, CEngelbrecht2; the notification requirement is only for when you create a new report on this board. IP, the Aquatic ape hypothesis is a fringe topic, and CEngelbrecht2 has been alerted to the arbcom sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe topics. Also I warned them sharply yesterday that they were getting close to a topic ban on account of their personal attacks, relentless repetitiousness, and nasty tone. Any admin — me, for instance — can topic ban them if they don't clean up their act, so I don't see much need for a community topic ban at this juncture. The community bans are more cumbersome. CEngelbrecht2's contributions to Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis after my warning admittedly don't show great awareness of how close they are to a ban, but for my part I'm not ready to topic ban just yet. Of course anybody who wants to support the idea of a community ban is free to weigh in below. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

What is it you expect of me? Applaud years of gross censorship and misrepresentation of a divisive topic? You want to ban me for keep speaking up about complete neglect of encyclopedic principles, just because a majority feels like it? That is Thrasymachus in a nutshell. How can I not see parables with the likes of Bruno? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, if you bring up the conduct of another editor in an existing discussion and that editor is not either already notified or an existing participant, it's generally accepted you should notify them. This doesn't apply here but I just want to explain that even if you aren't starting a new thread you need to consider notification requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Case in point: his two responses to this thread. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

When the response to David Attenborough for informing on the updates on all this was just a snorting "wishful thinking" and "he is irrelevant," I'm sorry, we can't trust the majority to be impartial. It's an academic scandal, that this is still to be treated as pseudoscience. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least they seem to confine their activities to the talk page for the time being, rather than POV'ing in the article; that's a plus. On the other hand, the grandstanding/persecution complex verbiage is at best annoying and at worst disruptive, and should stop. (That article is actually rather inclusive at the moment, and if anything needs a dose of further qualifiers, e.g. in the 'vernix' section - without a functional connection to adaptive features, the existence of a homoplasy proves exactly zip.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggested function of both human and harbour seal vernix in newborns is additional insulation in water to increase the chances of survival for the first few hours of the infant's life. In case you're wondering. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no indication that it actually has this function, so a connection is lacking. Anyway, content issue - let's not discuss this here.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, no indication. 'Cause fat doesn't insulate in water. Nothing to note from the only other known species where newborns are covered in fat is harbour seals, an aquatic. Nothing to see here. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Were you born with flippers? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

'Cause we all know, that the aquatic ideas are arguing human beings being old mermaids. It's not a perfectly rational idea about us being old tropical beach apes, no, no. Animal Planet is all we need, don't have to read what's actually being suggested. It's so much easier to read a cartoon with Charles Darwin depicted as a chimp than to actually spell your way through On The Origin of Species. We know what this is all about, even though we don't. Let's just have a cheap laugh while fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Enough. If you guys don't stop this off-topic bickering, I'm going to start thinking about taking admin action myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Topic banned. "Fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense"? That's it. Apparently my warning made no impression on CEngelbrecht2 at all. I've topic banned them for six months from Aquatic ape hypothesis and related pages, broadly construed. CEngelbrecht2, before you come back with a zinger about censorship, do please look up WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means. You're no longer allowed to discuss your favorite hypothesis on any page, including ANI and your own talkpage, other than to appeal the topic ban. You are of course allowed to do that, and the notice I have posted on your page tells you the ways and venues you can do it in. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Ehm...

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

Just received this on my talk page. Sounds like a pretty clear confirmation of my earlier assumption; WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

After a cursory review I think they are editing in good faith, just really badly. Language issues may have a bit to do with it. I've left them a message here but anything further along these lines would easily qualify as disruptive editing and need a mop to clean up. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Section title of FU (as opposed to F-Off) is a clear personal attack no matter how poor one's language—regardless, we likely have issues of sheer incompetence. El_C 06:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Add "idiots like you" to that as well. I don't think we should buy his seemingly feigned "problems" with the English language (regardless of the blunt personal attacks); he is ostensibly "capable" enough to copy-paste information word for word verbatim from this article, and drop it on this article in a newly created section, on no less than two ocassions. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

EDIT; there's clear IP socking by the person in question going on as well. Look how IP 94.102.184.35 beautifully added the very same edit summary and content on the very same article, as user "Roman Sakhan" later would. Then, IP 94.102.184.26 came in, same range/geolocation, supporting Roman Sakhans/94.102.184.35 edit. And to complete the circus act, another IP of the exact same range and exact same geolocation as all mentioned IPs (94.102.184.12), literally just came in as well to support Roman Sakhan/94.102.184.35/94.102.184.26. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK as well, apart from the washlist of other issues. Now there simply can't be anymore doubt about it. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Everyone indefed. El_C 07:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Admin has brainfart; carnage ensues

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

User:Hoary has recently racked up an extraordinary list of non-judicial assassinations.

Having various more pressing engagements, I (Hoary) decided to ignore them and instead to look around the immense swamp of sketches in draftspace. Most of what I saw there was horrible, but some was promising (for example, Draft:Graeme Williams). Realizing that drafts that hadn't been tinkered with for half a year could be summarily zapped, I resolved to look at a lot of the older ones, tinker with those I thought I could productively tinker with, zap what I strongly thought that nobody would/could turn into decent articles, and ignore the remainder. Which led to a very unfamiliar and, I must admit, slightly pleasurable feeling: wielding not a janitorial mop but a janitorial machine gun.

User:Unscintillating was not amused, and put me right. (In case you're as ignorant of these matters as I was: only AfC submissions can be summarily executed after sleeping for six months.)

Duh! Well, I've gone through what I deleted, and undeleted almost all. Almost all of those I left deleted were AfC submissions; one was a childish hoax. I think and hope I've resuscitated all that I shouldn't have killed off, regardless of their quality (actual or potential).

Another admin may wish to take a look, in order to see if anything else I screwed up needs unscrewing. Anyway, you'll be happy to hear that I've quite sated my appetite for zapping moribund drafts. (I might continue looking for and improving the better ones, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One question remains - Trout or stocks? Twitbookspacetube 12:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer an excruciatingly drawn-out ArbCom case followed by a desysop and a site-ban. Much more entertaining. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Tar and feather at the next Wikimeet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Give them the bureaucrat bit. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Make them an Arb, the ensuing mails they'd have to respond to would be punishment enough. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Make them watch The Amazing Bulk. The ultimate punishment. DarkKnight2149 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Make him host the Oscars! --64.85.216.18 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (passing by) - I don't have anything to add, but that list... Someone is having a bad day. DarkKnight2149 17:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion Human like you at 213.74.186.109

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

(cc @Oshwah, Juliancolton, Ian.thomson, and Black Kite:) This is another block evasion of indef blocked user 'Human like you' - reinstalling the same material in Salih Muslim Muhammad as 'Human like you' and their sock puppets, also the IP confirmed that they registered the account 'Human like you'. This IP has been used by the same user at least since Sep 2016. User 'Human like you' has used multiple sock puppets before (some are not listed via WP:DNFTT). The last block evasion at the same IP was discussed here. 217.83.248.75 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A possible rangeblock?

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

There's a weird situation at Deepak that's been going on for about a month, with a number of IPs from the same two ranges making and reverting weird additions. The first one was this, and the most recent today was this, with lots more similar ones in between. The IPs so far have been:

• User:182.59.3.151
• User:182.56.64.214
• User:202.58.102.195
• User:202.58.102.194
• User:202.58.102.197
• User:202.58.103.204
• User:202.58.103.205

Sometimes a 182 IP adds it and a 202 IP reverts, and vice versa. They have all had warnings and/or blocks but have ignored them. I've semi-protected the article for now, but I fear that might just send them to another one, so can anyone please work out if any range blocks might be appropriate? The 182 ones geolocate to Mumbai (ISP "Mahanagar Telephone Nigam"), and the 202 ones to other parts of Maharashtra (ISP "IT-Networking Department"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The rangeblock for the 202s are easy, 202.58.102.0/23 and there's no collateral there, but the 182s are more problematic (big ranges, and busy) and would probably have to be blocked individually. The 202 addresses have also been disruptive at Mohan (actor), although not for over a month now. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked 202.58.102.0/23 for a month and I've unprotected the article again, and I'll block any 182 ones that show up individually (the latest 182 edit is five days old now). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the IP, User:2405:204:18e:2853:5588:532b:a023:f394, that reverted the latest one also geolocates to Mumbai. V6 ones should be relatively easy to deal with, but I'll only block ones that make the additions and not the ones that revert them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User: 188.68.0.130

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Harrassment by user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS

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

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

The user in question has been warned a number of times about their editing with respect to WP:ARBPSCI. Since this is a matter relevant to arbitration-imposed discretionary sanctions, the correct place to discuss this would be WP:AE. jps (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure posting a picture of an Ape wading on the article Aquatic ape hypothesis was a fantastic idea but it was in a section that discusses primate wading. As purely illustrative its not completely out of scope but it should obviously not be included as serious evidence supporting it (AAH). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but what? Cue article saying: Most primates naturally walk on two feet when wading in deeper water...and cue image of A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth which is almost verbatim from the image description from the Public Library of Science, This adult female gorilla in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, northern Congo, uses a branch as a walking stick to gauge the water's depth So... exactly what part of this was original? Or are we just knee-jerk reverting and templating with a level four warning for an apparently on-topic image that apparently faithfully reproduces the information from the source? TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The original research bit is that the picture has nothing to do with proving/disproving the AAH. Its just a gorilla wading. Likewise the source of the picture is nothing to do with AAH. Its essentially using a picture of an ape in water to lend credence to the AAH. The 'not completely out of scope' bit I referred to earlier was that it is directly in a section about primates wading.. and the picture is indeed, a wading primate. Personally I wouldnt have used it, its the sort of lazy 'look here is a picture of someone/thing doing it! it must be true!' more suited to tabloids than an encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I gotta say that while I'm not expert on the evolutionary history of primates, to give someone a "final warning" for this, which is by no means OR in any sense of the term, is wrong. There may be other valid reasons to not include the image in the article, but this is WP:BRD stuff, not WP:AN/WP:BLOCK stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}

So is there an actual diff where the user claims this picture proves something, or is that just a blatant assumption of bad faith? TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

AGF is (justifiably in some cases) in short supply at the AAH article at the moment. There has been a recent influx of the lunatic fringe. (See Fringe noticeboard and elwsewhere). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So I'm going to take that as a no, that there actually isn't a diff where the user claimed this picture proved something. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I've added no other content wrt that picture. I just happened across it on a Smithsonian site on the same subject giving credit to Wikicommons. Mentioning the stick was purely in the interests of accuracy but it's irrelevant in the context. Chris55 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute that should be discussed and resolved (via consensus) on the article's talk page (with an eye to WP:FRINGE, MOS:IMAGES, etc.). If necessary, also take it up on WP:FTN. The issue should not be resolved by posting ridiculous "final warning" templates on anyone's talk page. 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, stop that nonsense or you yourself will be blocked from editing. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin. Thanks. jps (talk)
    • 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS Then take it from me, as I am an admin - stop that "final warning" nonsense and deal with what is simply a content issue by discussion on the relevant talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Noted. I will take all further matters to WP:AE. jps (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I am not sure what in this discussion suggests to you that WP:AE would be an appropriate forum for this discussion. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
          • There is a long history on Aquatic ape hypothesis of adding original research and content that violates WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SOAP. Typically the best way to handle this kind of protracted content dispute which crosses many accounts and has a history that exhausts the good faith of many admins has been to ask for administrators to use discretionary sanction remedies at the affected pages since those admins active at WP:AE have more experience with dealing with these kinds of disputes. I note that the complainant has already been notified of this possibility by a different user: which is why I thought a final warning was more appropriate. If I failed in that, I apologize, but clearly the other user and I are on the same page now. jps (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• That you have the audacity to continue to argue that your original research is worthy of inclusion in an article under discretionary sanctions is amazing. If I see you continuing, I will be recommending some sort of remedy from WP:AE. Yes, clearly on the same page of...threatening to take someone to AE over a picture. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't see any indication that you and Chris55 are "on the same page now" (if that were so he wouldn't have filed this ANI). I do not see any indication whatsoever of any attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. I do see that you escalated the confrontation on the user's talkpage after you issued the final warning: . -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• I just want to put this here as an example of the sort of comments JPS has been responding to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• WP:FUCKIT TimothyJosephWood 23:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well as I have been mentioned.

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

Propose block

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

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

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

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

Timothyjosephwood, I assume this is for 9SG.../jps? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Clarified. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Whilst the "final warning" on Chris55's page is clearly excessive (and jps really needs not to do that again), I would have removed the image myself as it does veer towards WP:OR. As the image detail says, the image is there not to illustrate that an ape can happily wade in water, but that they can use a tool - a stick - to help themselves do so. Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth. Use of the image without context does present itself to the reader as "Look, an ape wading in water, this backs up the hypothesis" - which it of course it doesn't. A warning (which has already been given) is enough here. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How you get original research out of the image is beyond me, and as far as I can tell is basically the same thing as saying we should remove the image from Chiropractic#Treatments, because showing a chiropractor and a patient clearly somehow indicates that it is an effective medical treatment. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth." That's not what the journal article says: the ape waded all the way up to her waist. Only then did she go back out to get a long stick to poke the area in front of her, to either test the firmness of the swamp floor or measure depth beyond that point . Chris55 points out on his usertalk that "Similar drawings/photos are given in all the scientific papers cited (e.g. Niemitz, 2002, Niemtitz, 2010, Kuliukis 2011) but are copyright. That one happened already to be in WikiCommons." . -- Softlavender (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Without context, the image is still useless. As would any image of a hominid in water. We know that hominids are not totally averse to water, that brings nothing new to this pseudoscientific theory. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That is... actually completely irrelevant, even if there wasn't an entire paragraph of context, which there is. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that paragraph, apart from one sentence (the one about bonobos), doesn't actually have any relevance to the image. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do completely agree that if you ignore the parts about apes wading in water, the image of an ape wading in water is completely irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's clever. Well done. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• oppose jps overreacted badly with their final warning, Chris55 overreacted badly bringing it here, and this makes three for three bad overreactions. No blocks needed for anyone; this discussion stands as enough warning now as to the folly of overreacting.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support This has been a long-running issue, across several of their line-noise account names (Just why does an editor have to keep renaming themselves to stop their username being obvious in history logs? Hmmm.). Also see what must be the 13th stupidest edit war, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216#globalsecurity.org, why globalsecurity.org needs to be banned as a source because globalresearch.ca is a bad site. This editor's attitude to others here is just unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• oppose six-month block, but ... jps clearly overreacted, and some sort of sanction might be warranted. As to the edit in question, in my view, in a section titled "Wading and bipedalism", it's appropriate to show an image of a wading biped, so I've just readded the image with a slightly different caption. To which edit, jps has responded on my talk page by suggesting that my edit was "pointy". Paul August ☎ 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• And he's right. I'd revert you myself, but I seriously can't be bothered with this nonsense. We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Misplaced Pages already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: User has had 9 different usernames in 5 years. The last four have been 20-character random-character gibberish. I think this is both UAA territory and evasive, and I suggest a ban on usernames moves and a recommendation that he choose User:Jps and stick to it. I have no comment as yet on the block proposal, but the usernames alone are quite a red flag and problematic. Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:UNCONF this is not a block-on-sight username, you could try WP:RFC/N if you like. I've never heard of a restriction on renames before, and since they did them all properly all their contribs and their block are intact, so nothing is actually hidden, although their block log is an ungodly mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

K6ka said "this is likely the last time we'll be accepting another username change request from you" at the move request (permalink). That sounds reasonable to me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think anything that jps has done here deserves an immediate long term block as response. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Black Kite, we certainly do have enough pseudo-scientific bullshite in Misplaced Pages already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a triviality, its a long term patter of disruptive editing, but either way is fine with me. It's not like there won't be another ANI thread on him in a few weeks. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If something is presented that deserves a long block, I'll totally agree with it. There simply isn't anything here, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This user consistently removes content or makes changes to the AAH page without prior discussion on the Talk page. This involves content which has been on the page for years and was not previously contested by other anti-AAH wiki editors. I second the request to have him blocked please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I hardly think you're an impartial judge of article editing on that topic. Your "anti-AAH" editors are more often than not trying to follow WP:FRINGE. --NeilN 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well of course you would, being one of the proponents of this pseudoscience. I think we'll stick to the opinions of those who aren't involved in trying to insert this type of content into an encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. A warning template (more so a final warning) is clearly excessive and not very conducive to discussion. But if we issued six month blocks every time someone posted a warning template that someone objected to, we would rapidly find ourselves out of editors. Personally, I think warning templates for the most part are a bad idea. They are often interpreted as a threat, and sometimes they are merely an empty threat, as in this case, since there was nothing particularly sanctionable about the image in question. Warning templates in edge cases like this lead to conflict escalation rather than resolution. This is a content dispute. jps, don't add any more warning templates, unless you really think repeating the behavior could actually result in sanctions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • TBH, the purpose of the warning was supposed to be indicating that my next stop was/is going to be WP:AE. We don't have a template for that, I tried and failed to find the closest one. jps (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS seems to have taken the wrong tack here (and he's admitted the error right above this comment, and he's given a reasonable explanation for it), his efforts fall well short of anything that could be reasonably called harassment. Deli nk (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - To be clear, my proposal here came in the heels of Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin, which is about the variety of flippant dismissal I've come to expect. Since they've defaulted on one of their two perennial ways of avoiding sanctions, missing the point while apologizing, as we saw in December's episode, (the other of course being ignoring the thread completely as in January's episode), then nothing will surely happen and we can probably just close this and move on with our lives. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Why bother, it will only be overturned like every other ban. Frankly this user is never going to be punished, and is going to only get worse as they come to think they are more important then anyone else. This kind of BS will drive users away, as JPs seems to be quite proud of having done in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction

I propose the following:

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

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

Could I request that I could also open WP:SPIs when I see suspicious behavior, or are those considered something different than a "noticeboard thread"? If I can file SPIs, I am happy to abide by this restriction whether this proposal passes or not. jps (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Excessive use of warning templates isn't the problem. Persistent, long-term incivility and battleground behavior is the problem, and a token sanction isn't the solution. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well he is not going to get a block, so what other solution is there, apart from a slap on the wrist and a solemn promise to behave until the next ANI, when the whole process will be repeated, with the same exoneration's and promises to learn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose at this point in time. Either jps fixes the battleground behavior or gives us enough ROPE to actually do something. At the moment, though, we barely have enough to tie the knot. I do have a heavy metal ruler that yall can borrow in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Proposed editing restriction

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

• Just as a procedural note, that's four completely different things that you're asking for agreement on. Woe to the closing admin who has to decipher that all. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, up till this point I have said there will be no agreement on action. This is my first proposal here. Could you please provide the diffs for me asking for agreement on anything else?Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You're asking for four different editing restrictions. Admin A likes options 1 and 3, admin B likes none of them, admin C likes all of them, and admin D thinks that 3 is a crock of shite but likes the rest. Which (if any) are put into place? I'm not saying you can't propose all four measures, I was just questioning the need to have such a different range of proposals in one motion. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. The problem is this user has been banned, they have been warned (Finally, at least three times) they have been given a gentle slap on the wrist. And seem to think that they will always "win". There needs to be a clear and unequivocal message that no they do not have special privileges that mean they can do what the hell they like. I am trying to craft a proposal that covers all their malafactions. The other proposal will not (and does not) do that. Frankly I have no idea what will really work beyond some kind of edit ban on topics and talk pages. This is an attempt to achieve something close to that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this kind of gratuitous piling on, combined with some nonsense accusations, is seriously frowned upon by administrators and others. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)7

No. I'm not doing this song and dance where we try to craft out a restriction that requires its own table of contents, and try to haggle for the best sanction we can get. If the community doesn't support actual sanctions, then they don't. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I actually like the ban on further namechanges. The nature of the names, compounded by the changes, is just annoying, and if it's not designed to create awkwardness for people trying to ping you or find your page to post on, etc, jps (I actually can't be arsed to create a ping, arghh), then I wish you'd explain what it is designed for. I've read the explanation on your userpage and am unimpressed. ("I prefer to be judged on the quality of my contributions rather than the name of this account." Bah.) I'd actually welcome one more change, to a name that is possible to remember and spell, and then no more.

That said, I strongly oppose any kind of editing restriction. I completely agree with User:Black Kite's sentiment above: We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Misplaced Pages already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality.. Or banned, or otherwise impeded. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC).

• I just want to point out that, unless I'm misremembering, JPS has been doxxed before. That being said, I agree completely with Bishonen's comments above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Rahul Dhanwani's behaviour

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

User:Rahul Dhanwani wants/wanted to include a free kick stat in the Lionel Messi article here. After he got reverted by several users here, here, here and here he took it to the talk page right there. As you can see it was closed as not a single editor agreed with him. Now he started a new discussion right after the "old" one was closed here. He got reverted and talked to on his own talk page and per edit summary but he keeps on reverting at the talkpage (not the article so far). So, what do we do? He should WP:DROPTHESTICK... Kante4 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Springchickensoup disruptive and not engaging in consensus building

• 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" which Ghmyrtle picked up. Mass archiving of talk pages then followed at articles which didn't need archiving, thus blanking talk pages; also directing the bot to wrong articles , . Mutt Lunker questioned these actions but had an inadequate response, and they didn’t clear up the mess (deleting links to archives rather than restoring talk page material).)

2. Repeatedly using uninformative or false edit summaries. Advice given back in December and again in February by MusikAnimal but quick return to summaries like "edit" , and "update".

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

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

5. Persistently adding inappropriate or non-existent categories. I raised this in December then January but this has continued

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Springchickensoup hoping for some engagement, but the response was unco-operative and included a groundless revenge complaint Misplaced Pages: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)

• I endorse Drchriswilliams's summary above. I had no dealings with Springchickensoup until earlier today, when I posted 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 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 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 then added a pointy rationale and was promptly offered an explanation about why it would not be erased. At that point they posted a message suggesting they had left, placing a further scornful message on their user page which replaced one from a fortnight before that was also rejecting community input. Springchickensoup returned 23 days later and was immediately adding problematic categories again and then continued making edits at pace. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiThugs on Ahmad Mohamad Clock Incident

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

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

The user in question is asking for a boomerang; they have repeatedly leveled unsupported speculative insinuations and outright accusations of criminality against a minor child, in the face of repeated warnings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have learned that "boomerang" has come to mean, effectively, on WP as "Retaliating against a person FOR THE SPECIFIC OFFENSE of complaining about other editors' behavior, regardless and without considering the actions of those other editors". That seems to be coming true here, too. And if "blocking" keeps an editor from continuing writing on the WP:ANI, that amounts to further malicious obstruction: What kind of insane system would not only block a person from editing an article, AND block him from editing a Talk page, and STILL AGAIN block him from engaging in a complaint process HE HAS NEVER MISUSED? 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One of many possible examples: here the user describes the article subject (a child) and his family as "terrorist wannabes" - violating BLP, NOTFORUM, RS, SOAPBOX and half a dozen other policies and guidelines. Simply hatting and redacting has not worked, so it's time for this user to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess you are pretending that there is some sharp and distinct line between discussing a subject, and discussing the article. I have repeatedly complained about misconduct BY YOU on that article. You ignore it, except you try to conceal it. And you are writing into your own words a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We tried to educate the user about our living persons policy (especially when involving a minor); about observing civility and avoiding personal attacks; about how Misplaced Pages is not a forum; on how neutrality relies on citing reliable sources and giving them their due weight. All for naught thus far. El_C 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you didn't do that. Another editor merely referred to WP:BLP, but did not apply that policy SPECIFICALLY to the article in question, and not to my comments at all. As if you thought it was somehow self-evident, or that your buddies would back you up without further discussion. Well, maybe you were right in thinking that? Congrats for helping ruin WP. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I did do that. And didn't even mention original research... El_C 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP is clearly WP:NOTHERE and needs a block. IMO the talk page posts need looking at and possible R/D's - though it would take some sifting through. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. It's clear they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and almost anytime anyone starts with "Wiki bullying" almost out the gate, nothing good is going to come from it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering WP:BEFORE , 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. Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" . 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)

• The user also has a habit of ignoring questions to him in the AFD discussions he's started (or participated in). Recent examples are , , , , , , , and . Similarrly, questions on his talk page about these nominations are also ignored - and Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• 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: , , , , , , , , ), but simply deletes the posts using edit summaries such as "delete rubbish" (diffs: , , ) does not inspire confidence, and I view it as disrespectful and insulting to refer to valid concerns by multiple users as "rubbish". North America 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• 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 America 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • If you appreciate my efforts then why would you ban me?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

*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)

• 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)
• 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)
• I hope I am not coming off as a jerk with this comment as Johnpacklambert has a long and distinguished career here on Misplaced Pages, 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)
  • I wish when I had first come on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)

• 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 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)

• 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 , 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 , , , , , , , and . Also, questions on your talk page about these nominations are also ignored - and . Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen those diffs , 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

And intimidation as well. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Not very far above she denied that she had ever said that, and tried to offer some evidence. 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)

A quick search 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Also non-collaborative is dismissing concerns about AfDs as rubbish. pbp 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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 19:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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" 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. 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• 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 ~ Did 21:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

@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)

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)

Comment – Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Nfitz (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• Support - I am a little hesitant to support this proposal as John Pack Lambert has a long and distinguished history here on Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)
• 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 America 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
  • 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)
• Support. Lets stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19

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

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

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

IP has been notified ... and while typing the above, the IP blanked the same content again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Blanking"...is that what it's called when you remove unreliable sources from an article, and then have to remove the content that relies upon said sources? I implore anyone to see the diff and decide for themselves. Also, please note that I informed Barek of my intention to nominate the article for deletion, and asked them to be more careful in reverting numerous edits in one fell swoop because they disagreed with one or two.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article is never going to be deleted at AfD, and you're removing material that ... well, some of it is clearly sourced and some of it is not so great, but you're removing it without a rationale, so I've reverted you, and you're at 3RR now, so leave it for discussion please. Black Kite (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there's certainly some poor-quality content that should be cleaned-up. But that didn't justify blanking large sections. On the IPs talk page, they didn't seem interested in discussion - although in hindsight I should have pointed them towards WP:BRD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for taking the time to respond to this report. The underlying issue at-hand here is the fact that you're making repeated reversions to the article and in a back-and-fourth fashion with others. This is called edit warring, which is not allowed. Instead, editors are expected to engage in proper dispute resolution and discuss the issue on the article's talk page and come to a consensus. This is what you need to do... you need to discuss this dispute here and come to an agreement. In the meantime, please do not make further reversions to the article. Doing so is disruptive, and you can be blocked for this... which is something I'd really rather not do to you... okay? :-) ~Oshwah~ 01:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can just have a look at the article itself? Specifically, with regard to notability and verifiability of sources. I read the previous RfD summary, which was closed by an account found to be (if I've followed the thread correctly) a prolific sock puppet. I'm trying to make Misplaced Pages better, while others seem more interested in preserving the status quo. Further, Barek was only too happy to revert numerous edits in a go, while specifying they only had a problem with one or two. It's also interesting to me that Barek preferred to assume I would 3RR rather than assume good faith. Might that be because of the nature of their reverts???184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to improve Misplaced Pages and make good choices and decisions (this is why nobody is blocking you), and that you're frustrated over this situation. If you start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the concerns you have with the sources cited in the disputed content and why you believe they're unreliable, and ask everyone involved to weigh in - the best decision regarding what to do (if applicable) will be reached and as a group of people working together. Remember: We're all here to improve Misplaced Pages just like you are. We need to collaborate, interact, discuss, and behave towards others knowing that we're all on the same team and wearing the same jerseys. If we fail to do this, coming to a decision that best reflects the content of the article to readers will be much harder, which is one of the main principles in which Misplaced Pages operates and grows :-) ~Oshwah~ 01:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

How is the sock-puppetry of the closer relevant? Would any editor have closed that AFD differently, based on the discussion? Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In this context, the closer of the previous AFD doesn't change the fact that consensus was a clear keep. ~Oshwah~ 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Below is a facsimile of my reply to Nfitz from my talk page, for context.

"For one, the user that closed the case last time was found to be a prolific sock puppet (20+ accounts, by their own admission). For another, the sources were a mishmash of the company's own website and "business-friendly" local media. Finally, if anecdotal evidence matters (it shouldn't, but did seem to in the previous AFD, so...), I've heard of every single other cleaner mentioned in the article...but not the one in the namespace. Please don't assume status quo is status correct. Like, did you look at the article? The AFD? Any references? The relevant WP policies??? I've spent the last hour and change doing exactly that, and I implore anyone who cares about keeping WP free of promotional material to do likewise. I, an inexperienced manual editor who has to flail around to get even basic things done, should not have to lead experienced editors (and admins!) around by the nose to prove my case. It's all there in black and white. Does anyone care to look?"

After that, Nfitz more or less accuses me of being a sock puppet and said I "just want to argue" . Thankfully, Jbh did care to look at the article, and came to the same (painfully obvious, IMO) conclusion. I hope this puts to rest the spurious allegations levelled against me.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've warned the user for edit warring on Bar Keepers Friend. If the reverting continues, I'm comfortable with blocking the IP for edit warring and knowing that the user was warned first and allowed an opportunity to correct the behavior. I'm going to hold off in the meantime and keep an eye on the user's contributions. ~Oshwah~ 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• Sent to AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination). The previous AFD had one good source and the rest was based on the age of the product/patent. I did a quick search and did not find anything other than how to articles and articles that looked like PR/product placement. As it stands the article is nothing but an advertisement for this product. Jbh 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It means a lot to me, given how other editors have deigned to treat the matter without actually considering edits and intent. I cannot believe Bar Keepers Friend wasn't deleted the first time around, and though I certainly don't speak for User:Eric Corbett (the former "Malleus Fatuorum" from the edit history, who proposed deletion within a month of the article's creation in 2009), I suspect that ed. might have been similarly incredulous at their deletion tag being unceremoniously removed without discussion. Cheers.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

user:184.145.42.19 Discussion after closure

• Except, my dear Drmies, 184.145 has continued his WP:BLUDGEONing tactics at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination), so has clearly not taken in the information presented here. I believe a short block might be in order, or at least a topic ban from AFD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot to ping @Drmies:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued Edit Warring by User:Xenophrenic after Expiration of Block

Admin: I withdraw my proposal, It was too soon for taking this to ANI. Thanks.

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

User:Xenophrenic has been notified of this report on his Talk page.--Jobas (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jobas: Diffs please. Claiming with a link to an archived thread that's quite long but shows fairly limited support for a TBAN that the user "barely escaped" a TBAN, and claiming with no diffs that the user is edit-warring, is not helpful. Nor is showing a diff of an admin who blocked the user encouraging them to edit other areas (contrary to what you appear to believe, admins are not allowed unilaterally impose topic bans on editors, so the advice is not binding). Their block expired a week ago, and they have made a bunch of edits since then. I'm seeing a fair few article edits (including some reverts) and some talk page edits. The reverts are mostly one per article, it would seem, which makes the edit-warring claim somewhat questionable. Apologies if I am reading this wrong, but if you don't provide evidence it's not my fault if I go looking for evidence for you and can't find it wihout excessive effort. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

聖 WP:EW, says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"

While User:Xenophrenic emptied a Category:Persecution by atheists of all of the articles therein As stated by the administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) admonished User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request), again before his last block he emptied the category without to discussing it; the CfD ended in "no consensus" and User:Xenophrenic was in the process of being topic banned for his actions. His edit summary stated: rvt insertion of unsourced, so I reverted some his edit pending the current discussion initiated by User:John Carter that covers keeping or deleting all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution.

Now after a week of being blocked he keeping making the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned without to discussing it, as you can see here, here, here, here, here, here. What I suggested in Marcocapelle talk page was: "There is a current discussion about rename and purge initiated by User:John Carter that covers the renominate all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution. it would be prudent if Xenophrenic participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter instead of keeping edit warning", So instead of keeping removing the category and edit warning or revert, I guess he should participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter and wait till we got clear consensus, but the problem he ignore to wait the result of the current debate and take unilateral side. Thanks and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jobas: Those edits all come from different articles. Even if they are all reverts (and they don't appear to be) they can only be edit-warring if he made reverts to the same articles previously. Reverting new edits once is perfectly in line with WP:BRD. And pointing out where other users disagreed with his edits previously also is not evidence of his disruption. You should stop acting like having x number of users disagreeing with someone makes them "wrong" or counts as a de facto TBAN -- for all the evidence you have provided, the two users you have named who disagree with Xenophrenic are tag-teaming with each other and with you, and are just as worthy of a TBAN as Xenophrenic. Above you say the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned -- you really need to familiarize yourself with the difference between a block and a ban before proposing bans. And the longer you refuse to provide evidence of disruption, the less likely I or other users will be to support any proposal you make. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jobas: By the way -- you may not be aware, but I am subject to an IBAN with one of the users you mentioned in the above post. If you could verify what I am referring to here and refrain from bringing them up in your responses to me, it would be appreciated. As I stated in another thread currently visible on this page, I have little patience for users who try to goad others into violating their own restrictions. I am assuming good faith at the moment (with regard to this issue -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with regard to whether Xeno has been edit-warring), but if you continue writing like you did above after I have requested you stop I will be forced to ask someone else to request you stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some advice needed. Fact is that the CfD discussion was closed as 'no consensus' implying the content of the page was restored to status quo ex ante. Fact is that the restore has now been unilaterally reverted, obviously by means of 1 revert per article. Now what? Should User:Jobas revert these changes and wait until User:Xenophrenic re-reverts them for the second time so that there is evidence of an edit war? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: "No consensus" means just that -- no consensus. Making edits that run contrary to what some users said in a no-consensus discussion is not edit-warring. Refusing to discuss said edits and continuing to revert regardless would be edit-warring, but all I'm seeing here is one user with a seriously flawed understanding of TBANs trying to propose sanctions on a user for violating a hypothetical TBAN that they are not currently subject to, and making non-EW edits that he doesn't like. It's becoming increasingly difficult to believe that Xeno could be the cause of whatever problem might exist here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty indirect answer, I'm just assuming that the direct answer is yes. By the way you've made it perfectly clear that it's currently too soon for taking this to ANI and User:Jobas may better withdraw this case for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It was not closed as "no consensus", it was closed as "no consensus - with caveats". There was no consensus in terms of a concrete next step, but the close explicitly stated 'I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy.' and 'as given, the current title is frankly original research.' Presuming that Black Kite did not intend to retain original research, as would be the case in a typical "no consensus" close, Xenophrenic was right to remove the original research pending discussion of renaming the category. The only reason he appears worse in the sense of edit warring is because Eliko007 joined Jobas in restoring the category. Eliko007 is an WP:SPA, the majority of whose edits are to present the same edits/arguments as Jobas (or, perhaps it's more accurate to say, to argue against Xenophrenic -- I don't know; I'm not making a socking allegation here). Removing the category was the right call. Xenophrenic has been rather aggressive in some ways, but hasn't had an SPA reverting to offset the edit warring allegation. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: There you go -- I learn something new every day. So Jobas et al. are the ones editing disruptively, and trying to force out a user who is undermining their disruption and being perhaps a little uncivil while doing it.

@Jobas: I am this close to proposing a WP:BOOMERANG for you (read: TBAN from all articles related to religion, broadly construed) following this. I have looked at a couple of your other edits unrelated to this, and they seem like, at best, we could do without them (OR -- in fact edit-warring -- to imply that Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians, implying without a source that one of the reasons there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis...). If you withdraw your frivolous and unjustified proposal below, this thread will likely be closed as withdrawn or be archived and fade into the either, but I can't honestly see this working out in your favour at this point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Acutely my edit here it doesn't claims "Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians", the edit acutely compares between Singapore Christians and other Christian communities around the world, there is no mention in any place of non-Christians or other religions. And the edit in Estonian article it was quote of reference (World and Its Peoples: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Marshall Cavendish. p. 1066.), and it doesn't claims "there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis", What the quote from the source said "This is in part, the result of Soviet actions and repression of religion". And the only mention in the quote about German occupation was "Many churches were destroyed in the German occupation of Estonia". Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

God, I'm such an idiot!

@Jobas: So are you refusing to withdraw your proposal? Your above comment completely ignored the substance of my request and replied exclusively to my parenthetical clause.

If you post here again with anything other than My proposal is not supported by evidence. I apologize for the disturbance. I withdraw my proposal. then I think a boomerang will be in order, and I'd be willing to guess that others would agree.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

How much harassment is OK?

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

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

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

• Well, I admit 1 or 2 may have veered into rudeness, after having suffered the same, and that shouldn't happen. However, for the most part, this seems to be retaliation by this frequently blocked user for my participation in the just-closed Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19 case, just above. As far as I can tell, this user considers any disagreement with his overbearing and overstated positions as a personal attack. A quick review of his talk page edits, show case after case of unnecessary sarcasm and aggression. Examples are: , , , and my personal favourites and . Perhaps I should just ignore it - but the combination of such rudeness and arrogrance I find intolerable in a group project like this. I mean, really, who tells other editors to fuck off and calls them motherfuckers? Indeed, how much harassment is OK? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your off-topic, ad hominem points-scoring is hardly worth a reply. I've done my time, so to speak, and now you're the one calling names. And you admitted it. I'll let the record speak for itself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• Is it usual to reply endlessly on an AFD to everyone you disagree with? Which so far would be everyone else who has offered an opinion on whether the article should stay or go. The only opinion that hasn't been commented on is your own. Just state your opinion, and wait for a week. If you've got a valid point, such as an inappropriate reference - sure. But to criticize someone reappearing to the debate after an absence of 5 years - really? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you're the snark police, you should do a better job policing yourself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no such harassment from Nfitz, and even where they admitted they may have veered a little on the rude side, that still doesn't constitute as harassment. On the other hand, I see plenty of uncivil behavior from the IP here, and I would propose quite a lengthy block for them based on their block history—three blocks within the space of two days back in January, even managing to have both email and talk page access revoked—and that they clearly haven't learned their lesson. This report is purely out of retaliation because of a personal beef they have with Nfitz. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any unacceptable rudeness from either party, let alone harassment.
  However, I do see two editors winding each up as they WP:BLUDGEON the AFD. Each of them has already made their case, so they should both now step back and let other editors have their say.
  And WP:TROUT the IP for an unfounded complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Nfitz (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• @184.145.42.19: Please read WP:BLUDGEON, stop replying to every comment you disagree with, and stop accusing other users of "personal attacks" and "harassment" just for pointing out that you are doing so and that it is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... this is the same IP that, two sections above and four hours before opening this thread stopped edit warring and thus staved off a block? @Drmies: Can you tell them to stop bludgeoning, making bogus accusations of personal attacks and opening frivolous ANI threads like you and a few others already told him earlier today to stop edit-warting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I was uninvolved in the previous edit-warring at Bar Keepers Friend, and only came into the ANI discussion above to point out the previous AFD, that the close was good, and the obvious futility of resubmitting it. Nfitz (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is Barkeeper's Friend a good cleaner for WP:BOOMERANGs? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Linton and copyright violations

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

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

We had some more exchange at my talk page which unfortunately did not help me to convince the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've posted some more information on this topic on his talk page. Hope that helps. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction: I placed my comments at User talk:Ymblanter#Souled Out (1997), and have now cross-posted my comments to the user's talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from new user Scrape2000

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

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

WP:NOTHERE is getting close. They've a warning and nothing since, so let WP:ROPE take its course. WP:AIV should be adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/harassment by User:MatthewTardiff

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

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

Doxxing threat right here: . 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WOW. Ok, Matt can have his editing privileges back when he can adequately explain that edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing IP inserting unsourced claims despite challenges

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

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

Blocked for 1 month. Apparently they did not take the hint from the last block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock with talk page access revoked

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

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

Thanks for clarifying. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Kinnonmaniac

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

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

User:Chocolatebareater

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

While the debate is ongoing, RLN must be applied as it is now, and no these are far from equal, two of the keep !votes on the latter are actually from you! – skemcraig⊗ 21:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "evenly split" – skemcraig⊗ 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

3-2 is even, and if you count my duplicate votes one is 3-3! Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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)

{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)

Ah, I didn't realise the nominator counted as a vote. Still not a whitewash though! Chocolatebareater (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Also, I've have not seen that discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)#Discussion of WP:RLN, I will take a look now. – skemcraig⊗ 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages hill, ask questions as you've done in this section, and have fun. It gets better. Randy Kryn 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully support Randy Kryn's proposal. Even as a veteran editor, I am fully aware of the learning curve that Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages, depending on which best suits your interests. DarkKnight2149 22:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

{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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rugby league instead? – skemcraig⊗ 22:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

IP editor 82.7.125.216 / 81.104.12.193 edit warring

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

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

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

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

Mabuska 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• one edit in two different articles in 2 weeks is edit warring? I'm more concerned that you referred to this edit as vandalism in a warning on the users talk page. 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)

Ben Swann

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

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

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

Consider:

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

A straightforward BLP violation such as this one would, I think, fall under this provision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BMK. The difference between protecting to avoid BLP violations and watching like a hawk to justifiably revert them is the difference between the dry and swampy road leading to the same destination. TimothyJosephWood 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, looks a good call. Alexbrn (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Good call by Guy, and the warning was appropriate. Clicking WP:INVOLVED and searching for "BLP" shows that removing BLP problems is desirable even in a situation that would otherwise be wheel warring. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• good call on the protection. The disruption is from an inexperienced editor and I have given them notice of the two sets of DS on the topic, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Its all good by me. Good call Guy on the protection. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• WP:IAR applies. Neutrality 04:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Straightforward enforcement of BLP, which sometimes requires discussion and action at the same time. That doesn't make an administrator involved. Acroterion (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some clarifications please?

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

Oh, it appears to me that this admin is in a haste to stop any discussion even in the talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"a fairly detailed reasoning which to me seems to have been rejected by all parties". I fixed that for you. Pretty much everyone understood your reasoning and rejected your argument. We do not present facts as attributed opinions. We certainly wouldnt even remotely consider doing so regarding child abuse and living people. You have stated your position. It was rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Gatorsfan25

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

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

Though recognizing that sports commentators are often retired athletes who have lost their trim, I hope it hasn't come to the point of literally paring them, at least not on camera. Could get messy. Less radical approaches such as Weight Watchers or Slimfast would be my recommendation. EEng 09:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide WP:DIFFs to show where he's doing this instead of making us do your work for you? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, you were supposed to notify Gatorsfan25 that you've started a discussion concerning him. I have done so. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

, , , , — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

An problematic IP

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

I have reported this IP to other administrators about this issue recently to Laser brain and Oshwah, but I didn't get a quick response. This IP just recently made these edits 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)

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~ 07:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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~ 07:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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~ 08:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attack by user MarnetteD

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

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

To be fair, there have been issues with an LTA trolling the reference desk with blatantly racist, degrading, and offensive questions in the past. I would understand that MarnetteD removed this reference desk question believing it to be another such disruptive post. I will also agree that the back-and-fourth reverting of the post should not have happened and a discussion should have taken place. If you reverted the removal believing the question to be legitimate, then it should have stopped there and a discussion should have been started by MarnetteD if there was a disagreement. MarnetteD - calling someone a "loser" and an "enabler", although not nearly as insulting or serious as the numerous edits we've both seen editors refer to another, isn't okay to do. You should always respect one another regardless of the disagreement at-hand. While I'm tempted to refer to these as just "pokes or prods", they are personal attacks no matter how big or small you look at it. I think that you two just need to shake hands, and discuss the matter with one another. I see no reason to take action so long as you both agree to do so :-) ~Oshwah~ 07:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked I have blocked MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for edit-warring, and for the misuse of an edit-summary to make a personal attack on another editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see that BrownHairedGirl placed a 24 hour block on you for the edit warring and the personal attacks you left in your edit summaries, MarnetteD. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond to this ANI report and discuss your side of the issue here. If you file an unblock request with the promise to not continue the edit warring and with the promise to refrain from any further personal attacks (and, of course, if BrownHairedGirl doesn't object to this) -- I will grant your unblock request. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond here. ~Oshwah~ 07:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have restored the disputed thread, subject to consensus to remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This is a case of edit-warring by an experienced editor who twice used edit summaries to make personal attacks, and followed that up with more incivility in a discussion on Mandruss's talk. I think that MarnetteD's explanation would be better made as an unlock request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - I was not aware of the talk page discussion that followed - thank you for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate your response and your input. While I absolutely do not condone personal attacks and edit warring, I do support the principal that blocks should only be made for the duration that puts a stop to the problem; If someone experienced such as MarnetteD makes an unblock request with the promise to stop the disruption, I see no reason to deny the request. However, you are the blocking administrator and I will respect and honor this and leave the decision in your hands. ~Oshwah~ 08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. I agree that blocks are preventive rather than punitive, so if MarnetteD makes an appropriate unblock request with appropriate assurances, then of course any admin should feel free to unblock.
I just don't think it would be appropriate to unblock without those assurances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not interested in "punishing" anybody or "teaching them a lesson". Although I strongly object to the PA, my main objective was to get MarnetteD to seek consensus for the edit, and regrettably an ANI complaint was the only recourse left. If there was a better way I'd be interested in learning about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is upset here, Gareth Griffith-Jones. Ignoring the other concerns expressed here... the bottom line is that we have policies regarding how we interact and collaborate with one another; they clearly disallow making personal attacks or engaging in similar behavior with others -- it's one of our core principles. Experienced and long-term editors (especially administrators) are expected to know and understand this policy and follow it. We are to treat one another with respect and we are not to threaten, name-call, intimidate, or make personal attacks towards one another. Period. Editors who do so repeatedly can be blocked for this. I also don't fully understand your response here. The person that the personal attacks were aimed toward is not an administrator, and the editor explained just above that his intentions were not to punish or retaliate to the behavior. Did you take time to read through the entire thread? What exactly are you trying to say here? ~Oshwah~ 10:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandal redirects to Donald Trump

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

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~ 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Problematic AfD

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

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

I have semiprotected the AfD page for 3 days; this should allow the discussion to proceed with less disruption. Lectonar (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! First Light (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)t