Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ivanvector (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 1 November 2018 (→‎User:EspinosaLuisJr1791: banned from article creations; close thread). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user

    John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: it seems like Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987; see Google Books profile) was cited, but without page numbers. I think Wikipedia:RX might be able to supply a copy? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexandermcnabb: Did you find any of the articles to be correct or were they all garbage? Natureium (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natureium: There were a couple of names were right (but they were still nine-word stubs with wacky pins), a couple of the settlements scraped through AfD. 98% cruft, I'd say. Are there any left to nuke? Thought I'd got 'em all. It's the non-UAE stuff I thought might need a bit of scrutiny!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken the liberty of slightly changing the title of this thread to emphasize the scale of the problem. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment even though he cited the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987), he never cited page numbers, ISBNs, etc. There really is a Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates published by the Defense Mapping Agency so hopefully someone gets a copy of it and actually uses it... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • support nuking all the articles. I will go through all the creations after 18 hours from now. If something that exists and is notable, someone would create it again eventually; and these creations can be reviewed as they come in. There is no point in wasting time and energy veryfying everything that this editor has created. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do think people are scared away of re-creating deleted pages, even if the topics do turn out to be notable. However I am not opposed to a mass-delete as John Carter did a poor job of citing things. By getting the index it can make verification much easier. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Funnily enough, I took another one of these stubs to AFD as John Carter pin-pointed the location directly in the sea. This is absolutely awful and the creator said that it is "a location in Fujairah". I support a careful mass-deletion of these stubs. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • All valid arguments. But I still feel this is the best option. Or maybe we can draftify everything? Upon verification, it can be added back to mainspace. Is there any way to avoid deletion of drafts after the inactivity period? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • We've already gone through and sent a number of these to AfD. I think we're nearly done. No reason to nuke everything now. A pinpoint into the sea for a coastal area is common where the point is only accurate to degrees and minutes, between 1.1 and 11km... see: Decimal_degrees SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think we need to be careful not to delete anything that has survived an AfD. A few of these places really do exist. The errors in the pin positions are largely due to rounding (not using enough decimal places) and are easily corrected. It would appear that an entry in the Gazeteer cannot be taken as proof of existence. That same data is also in online databases like geographic.org which contains all the many entries we now know definitely don't exist thanks to Alexander's work on the ground. SpinningSpark 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Spinningspark: do you think draftifying everything can be an option? (Kindly see my reply above.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It will just lie dormant for six months and then get G13'd. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WhisperToMe Asked me to share how I think this all happened. In 1959, the Trucial Oman Scouts did a survey of the area by basically wandering around and asking people where they were (imagine a couple of Brits in short trousers bombing around in a Land Rover Defender). So if they stopped (and they often did) at a well with a couple of tents by it, they'd ask 'Where's this?' and the locals would shrug and say 'Well' or 'Wadi Helou' (literally, BTW, 'sweet wadi') or whatever. As far as I can tell, the Brits also used data from John Lorimer's 1915 Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf which is compendious, but contains some very quaint spellings/transliterations from Arabic. So we have a couple of VERY out of date sources (given that in 1959 the interior of the Trucial States was still bandit country and even the oil companies were having a hard time getting access to the interior and then the breakneck development of here since then, it's safe to say 99.9% of things have changed. Some haven't, which is always nice to find!). ANYWAY, that survey was picked up and used as the source of a Gazetteer in 1974 by Abu Dhabi and that source was in turn picked up by the American Defence Mapping Agency in 1987. Hope they don't use that data for targeting otherwise a bunch of wells and seasonal Bedouin encampments are really going to know what's hit 'em. So the info you're looking at is at least 59 years out of date and features mad transliteration. We still have issues with transliterating from Arabic today and place names in the UAE can often be spelled 2-3 ways on different signs. I remember going to the village of HabHab and seeing a sign on the police station 'HebHeb Police Station'. End result? Mr Carter would appear to have happily banged all those place names into WP along with 'is a city in Sharjah' or 'is a location in Ajman' or 'is a mountain' or 'is a tribal area in Dubai'. I'd say the mess is pretty much cleared up now, but the above is how I reckon we got here. What scares me is the information STOOD FOR TEN YEARS mostly unchallenged. I mean, good grief. Best to all Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I could understand someone saying "well the Defense Mapping Agency has to know what they're doing!" Yet it turns out they had bad data. This is why I'm glad I inquired on the source: that way people can learn from this and take more due diligence on their sourcing. While I could understand Carter believing in the verifiability of the agency's work, I still think there should have been an effort to get page numbers, and also to get some background info on the source before using it. That's also why I have Wikipedia articles written on books being used by Wikipedia as sources: so people know about the sources they're using. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think he batch-created these articles from a geographic database which already had input the outdated information. I highly doubt he actually had the page number of anything in the gazetteer. SportingFlyer talk 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • wow. Under these circumstances, I think we should not keep any margin for error. What I mean is, we should not have articles about towns-settlements and similar things if they dont exist. And we have no way to verify these articles; as most of the usual RS are now flawed (and/or based on something which is flawed). As I said in my fist comment, we should delete everything. If it exists, and is notable; someone would eventually create the article for it. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • It should be cleaned up now. Someone might want to page through the thousands of JC's redirects and category creations and decide whether they're valid, someone might want to close the UAE AfDs now (the bulk ones, of course - after some complained loudly about the volume of individual ones - have attracted few votes) but the UAE geostubs are gone, baby, gone. We've retained the few valid/semi-valid ones. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Assuming John Carter did just batch create it... it's too bad. Anyway I got scans of the original Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987) and according to that work, these are the "principal sources":

    WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • oppose a batch delete of all articles created by John Carter. Some of the articles created by this user have passed AfD: e.g. Lulayyah, [1], [2]. The most recent AfD's can be seen at User_talk:John_Carter. It's true most got deleted, but not all of them.
    We need a list of the entire subset of 655 articles in question that are proposed to be deleted. We need an opportunity to consider all of them, and each of them individually, as necessary. Just because 100 have been deleted, doesn't mean that entire oeuvre of the editor who has been here 10 years is equally bad. Perhaps the 100 deleted are the worst ones, and the reason so many of the others have remained is because they are not as bad as those 100? I don't know. Without the list of what is left, I cannot assess.
    I do appreciate the work of Alexandermcnabb and Natureium in putting the questionable ones to AfD. It sounds like s/he might need help with that work. I might be interested in that, if the list is given and is easy to work with. Perhaps a work area that lists them all, offers opportunities for feedback on each of the articles proposed to be deleted, before they go to AfD.
    Are there other examples of mass deletions? If so, where? I am disinclined to any kind of mass deletion unless it is easy to prove that *every* item in the list should not be in the encyclopedia. I am not convinced every article created by John Carter needs to be deleted.
    If a group of articles were all created on one day with a piece of software as a batch file with little or no effort, and no one has touched those articles since then, I might support a batch delete of articles that were batch created. But we need to have some sort of clear standards on differentiating articles that have been around and improved and deserve to stay from articles that should never have been created in the first place.
    It would be nice to hear what John Carter would say. Does he even have talk page privilege? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel were mass-deleted (actually, by me) after an extensive community discussion and some salvage attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter Where is that discussed? I don't see it on his talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up, it has further links--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support mass deleting all of the stubs. While it's clear John Carter made a lot of friends on article talkpages discussing things (50% of his edits), especially in his first couple of years on Wikipedia, his mainspace edits were only 13% of his editing and left much to be desired [3]. The distressingly inaccurate and unresearched stubs, relying only on an inaccurate and extremely outdated source, are too problematic to let stand, and too numerous to pore over singly at this point after Alexander McNabb has found 99% of them to be demonstrably false (he has lived in the UAE for 25 years and has even driven to the putative sites to check on the putative locations of these inaccurate article stubs). The good will JC garnered on article talk has seemingly blinded the community to the problems of his mainspace editing. His indef is sort of symptomatic of that, in that we didn't see he was a disruptive or problem editor until well down the line. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: As WhisperToMe shows above, the stubs are based on hopelessly out of date information and archaic transliteration of Arabic that that's been through a sort of government to government Chinese Whispers process and bears almost (like 99%) no resemblance to the modern human geography of the UAE. ALL of the UAE geostubs that SHOULD have been AfDd have been nominated (it would be nice to close them all, BTW!!!!). So as far as this stuff goes, we're good. Whatever ELSE Mr Carter created needs to be scanned by an admin, IMHO, but the UAE stuff has now been cleaned up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nuke him Better that 100 valid articles be deleted than that one blatant garbage article remain. EEng 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this encyclopedia would be left if we nuked 100 valid articles for every 1 garbage article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant blatant made-up garbage articles from an editor known for making up blatant garbage. EEng 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'd be more productive if a couple of people could look for the AfD nominations and slip a vote in so we can get the bad articles deleted: there's a danger they'll fail AfD because of lack of consensus and remain by default simply because nobody's voted on 'em. This one Bani 'Udayd, for example. It's noteworthy that the individual AfDs I did created a fuss with some users shaking fists at me for overloading Articles for Deletion and yet the bulk AfDs have generally attracted fewer votes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alexandermcnabb, if you want the articles deleted, then !vote support for mass deletion. At this point no one wants to wade through another hundred AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There are a number of articles he created about the UAE which are still up, all over a decade old. Some articles are okay, like Habhab. Most are not. I support bulk deletion, but I think the articles should be carefully identified - either unreferenced stubs or only stubs referenced to the 1987 Gazetteer, which has been shown to be an unreliable source for this sort of work. SportingFlyer talk 12:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's better to err on the side of deletion, because if the article is legitimate, the sources for it will be out there and the article will be eventually reconstructed. It's far more damaging if misinformation is left in place, because as Softlavender has said, this misinformation has already spread all over the internet. This is not only very bad for Wikipedia's reputation, it's also terrible for internet users as a whole, since search engines (for some reason) have decided to use Wikipedia as a primary source of truth. In an era where "fake news" is far too common already, the deletion must be done as soon as possible to avoid further damage. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I went to the start of his creations and did an AFD on what I think might be some nonsense. I've just had to withdraw it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmait ua Tigernáin. Much as I'd like to mass delete him I think we're just going to have to go through them individually. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kokborok language / topic ban for editor

    Editor Abel Tiprasa has been active since March 2018 on topics relating to the Indian tribal language Kokborok. My first interaction with the editor was during NPP reviewing his article Kokborok script. The article had hallmarks of POV fork soapboxing while at the same time being poorly sourced. The deletion discussion led to the article being redirected to the main topic about Kokborok. By way of background: a) the Kokborok language is a tribal language spoken by various tribes in India; b) the written system of the language has been lost since the 19th century; c) the official writing systems are Bengali or Latin scrip; d) the choice of script is a contentious issue along a political and tribal divide; e) there is a faction within the native speaker group proposing to revitalise a native Kokborok script; f) since the ancient script is lost, the new script is at this point mere proposal, there are many proposals, none of which are adopted. This is supported by these sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). In this diff the user expressed his view that the deleted article about Kokborok script would serve as platform for editors to share ideas about the future of a new script and develop a script. This is clearly not a purpose of Wikipedia. Other disruptive edits include the arbitrary change of native speakers here, addition of a proposed script from a self-created file here, unsourced POV edits such as this. I appreciate the editor's good intentions, however his edits amount to Soapboxing. In line with WP:CASTE I therefore request a topic ban on Kokborok language and script for the editor. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not sure we're at the point of a topic ban right now. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions on October 23 [4]. Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive [5][6]. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I do not think action against him is warranted at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe. I'd get discussion going with him and see where that leads. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree with you, but since the notification about discretionary sanctions was made, there's only been two edits. Other opinions may vary certainly. But, I don't see there's a need to topic ban him under the discretionary sanctions when he's barely edited since being notified of them. If the pattern continues, perhaps. For now, I think it's too early. I'm not the final arbiter here. I'm just suggesting trying to engage him in discussion again, given that he now knows about the discretionary sanctions. It's worth a shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, however I'd argue that the discretionary sanctions had been mentioned in the AfD in April (in which he participated), the articles are tagged as in scope and there have been attempts to communicate with the editor in March, April and September about the purpose of Wikipedia, however the edit pattern appears to indicate either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum. Further clarification has been sought, the user has been made aware of this discussion. However, without response and participation, there has just been a new article creation on the same topic, Khorongma script. No sourcing, links to blogs as currently only external source. Essentially similar contents to previous soapboxing about a made up script. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User forcing their edits through

    jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forcing edits through on the Hot Wheels World Race article, despite being told that their additions are excessive; Their additions are a plot section at 3,500 words, when MOS:PLOT mentions that for feature films, 400-700 is enough, and this is a direct-to-video title. Eik Corell (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    To start, I issued a final warning... But the history of this and related articles suggest that's some socking and block evasion going on. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Logged-out editing, yes--but nothing major or (right now) blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Logged out editing is not blockable? --Tarage (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User officially warned on usertalk against WP:DE and editing logged out. If there is suspected socking via named accounts, please file a report at WP:SPI. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hot Wheels: World Race

    Following on from the discussion started yesterday by Eik Corell, Brigskick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding a ridiculously long-winded plot summary to Hot Wheels: World Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – over three and a half thousand words long, a major violation of MOS:PLOT, which recommends a plot summary of 400-700 words. I suspect the user may be a sock puppet of jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who yesterday made similar edits. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Citizen Canine, I moved this thread under the similar one, which I have unclosed for now. The appropriate place to file a sockpuppet investigation is WP:SPI, although it's so obvious it should probably be blocked as a DUCK. Ferret, Drmies, Bueller? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, he's breached 3RR now. Can someone block and save us the trouble of an ANEW report? Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Latest duck blocked, article protected. Changed jmyrtle13's block to indef. -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EspinosaLuisJr1791

    ARTICLE CREATION BAN
    EspinosaLuisJr1791 has been given ample advice and opportunity to improve their page submissions but has not. Per community consensus, they are banned from creating new articles except as drafts submitted through WP:AFC.
    They have been warned that if they continue creating new articles, or submitting drafts with cleary insufficient references, they will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have been trying to communicate with this editor since November 2017, and have sent about 15 messages during this time. Other editors have sent them multiple messages on the same topic - repeatedly creating unreferenced articles. They have edited their user talk page during this time and at other times, but only to blank their page. They have been editing for two years.

    Many of their creations have ended up looking like this: 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season, which has been moved to draftspace three times, but this editor just keeps moving it back to mainspace without addressing the issues. They have been offered help, links to Help:Referencing for beginners, support at the WP:TEAHOUSE, policies on referencing and communication, but they simply refuse to respond and continue to create unreferenced articles. After a year of this editor ignoring m y messages and seeing them ignore so many others, I have run out of other options and feel action needs to be taken.

    This was brought to WP:ANI by Barkeep49 here [7] but the discussion doesn't seem to have got underway really and was closed without any decision being made. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree this is a problem editor. Has not responded to a single talkpage notice; instead routinely blanks the page: [8]. Has not posted on a single talkpage, period. What do you suggest? Attention-getting block? Force going through AfC? Ban on new-page creation? Etc.? Pinging Vermont, who posted on the last ANI thread. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d support a requirement to go through AfC, and a block if they ignore that or continue to refuse to communicate. Vermont (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a decent solution, unless someone has a better one. I support that. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that - hopefully it will be enough to get them to engage. If not, a swift indefinite block would be best. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think their problem is new article creation as there's really only an obligation to communicate when someone raises an issue. This editor appears to be productive outside of that. I would suggest a ban on new article creation given their disruptive recreation of articles and because AfC would mean wasting time of other editors trying to decide what to do with poorly created articles on notable topics. I would support an Afc requirement as a second choice though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a ban on new article creation is a stronger option, but one that's possibly necessary if the new creations have been irredeemable and time-wasting as he creates them. I support that as well as the most efficient solution. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think now a full ban on article creation is necessary - they've continued to create unreferenced, uncategorised articles since this discussion was opened (e.g. 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season) and haven't commented here. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin) From a cursory glance, many of the newly created articles may fail WP:NSEASONS as well. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what sanction, if any, do you support SportingFlyer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin) I'd support either an AfC requirement or ban on new page creation - a full ban is probably cleaner - but was mostly just pointing out there may need to be some cleanup, as not all of these articles will be notable. SportingFlyer talk 20:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to administrators: There is consensus among five experienced editors that EspinosaLuisJr1791 needs either a requirement to go through AfC or a complete ban on new article creations, with the latter being the most efficient as it would prevent wasting AfC reviewers' time. Softlavender (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They are continuing to edit but not engage - can this please be closed by an admin? Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Humayun Akhtar Khan

    We've had ongoing problems for two weeks now with a SPA Jawswade (talk · contribs) who continually adds original research and promotional material to Humayun Akhtar Khan. When I tried to remove the OR, the user engaged in edit warring which led me to left numerous warnings on their talk page User_talk:Jawswade#October_2018. I tried to communicate with this editor via article's talk page Talk:Humayun Akhtar Khan but xe does not care to respond. --Saqib (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Might need a topic ban if he can't abide by Wikipedia policies. Pinging Diannaa and DMacks, who have also left him talkpage messages. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, refuses to abide by WP:V (mostly uncited or not-supported-by-cite) despite saying that the content is cited and supported. I don't know about the reliability of the claimed sources (this topic is not my expertise). And refuses to discuss it? That's not how we build a collaborative encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And now a newbie Maniiminhas (talk · contribs) has restored the OR. --Saqib (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the same user reverted again. I blocked them for 31h as a sock of Jawswade and for edit-warring. This is awkward, because edit-warring by itself would not be sufficient for blocking the user, and I can not prove they are a sock, otherwise the block would have been indef. The user also has a lot of noticed for deleted content, and the deleted edits show content was really inappropriate, which suggests WP:NOTHERE, but I got very recently some strong comments on AN which suggest that my understanding of NOTHERE is different from that of some other users, and I am hesitant to apply it in this case. If another sock emerges, the page must be protected. For the time being, I am afraid, by my revert of the edit of the presumed sock I made myself involved in the situation, and another sdministrator will have to make decisions and close this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter - Happy to take over and steer the ship from here ;-). The SPI report returned a result of possible when a CheckUser looked at the technical information for each user. Since they're indeed possible, I'll add that within one day after Jawswade was blocked for edit warring on Humayun Akhtar Khan, a user (Maniiminhas)... an account that has existed for over five years and with only three total edits to the project, which has been mostly completely silent on this project... suddenly begins to edit this very article and with the exact same edits as Jawswade by reverting the article and continuing the edit war. Given the possibility cited in the SPI, as well as the timeline of events that fit, the exact same edits made, and the extremely low probability that this user coincidentally decided to contribute to this article and coincidentally by making the same edits and continuing the edit war, I'm confident that Maniiminhas is very likely a sock puppet account of Jawswade and I have blocked it indefinitely based on my observations and findings stated here. While this would also indict Jawswade and justify a block against this account as well, I've decided to hold off on doing so and hold the user to a final warning basis instead.
    I've left Jawswade a final warning and notice on their user talk page, which gave clear examples of issues observed and discussed with the user in the past, and gave clear expectations regarding the user's editing and the behaviors and policy compliance expected as well as the consequences that will follow should further issues continue. The user was made aware that, should any further violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines occur on this article and related discussions and talk pages, he/she will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further warning or notice. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SheriffIsInTown

    SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) started with removing a lot of information on the 613 commandments article. His removals were major and of paragraph that were previously not tagged as in need of sourcing. When several editors reverted him, or tried to reason with him on his talkpage, like me, he finally consented to tagging them instead. His next step was to remove major unsourced portions of text from 79 other articles. All 79 were article that I had edited recently. This seems like a clear example of stalking and taking revenge resulting in disruptive behavior, so I have reverted those edits per WP:REICHSTAG. I would like this forum to assess both SheriffIsInTown's behavior in this case, as well as mine. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This seems like an accurate summary, and is certainly concerning behavior. I'm curious what SheriffIsInTown has to say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does look like they went on a bit of a reversion bender after the dispute at 613 commandments, mass-removing any unsourced content they could find in articles related to Judaism exclusively. That's ... not a good look. I would like to hear what SheriffIsInTown has to say about it as well. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I happened to notice his comment on one of the talkpages. In this comment he shows that he has no clue regarding our WP:RSPRIMARY/WP:PRIMARY policy. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • He is also reverting on Posek where I informed him that it might be better to tag/notify a project than mass delete of content. I also echo Ivanvector's concern. It is clear that we can always improve our articles and references but not this way. I suggest at the least he stop from deleting content from articles. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that SIIT is currently indefinitely topic banned from India Pakistan conflicts.[9] Though his recent participation on a closely related subject (Talk:Regional power) was beyond disruptive as he was misrepresenting both the sources and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Seeing him export the similar tendencies and disruption to an unrelated topic is probably not surprising. Rzvas (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The accusations made by Debresser are totally wrong and kind of an one-up action as I just told Sir Jospeh here that I might be forced to report them if they keep restoring unsourced information without adding the sources. If they add the sources to the unsourced content at the same time when they restore them, I definitely have no problem with that. I am just trying to enforce the policies such as WP:RS, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. I removed unsourced information from Royal Photographic Society which has nothing to do with Judaism. I recently got interested in Judaism and was researching information about it and countered unsourced information on articles regarding which I am not sure whether it is authentic or not. In-line with the Wikipedia policies, I removed unsourced information hoping that it will stay removed unless someone is willing to source it but to my surprise editors in that topic area are hell-bent to keep it unsourced and on top of that they are accusing me who is only trying to do the right thing here. What is wrong in asking them to add the sources if they want to keep the content? Why keep it unsourced? Furthermore, Debresser has over 98,000 edits and their main topic area is Judaism, they must have edited all articles related to Judaism out there so does that mean that me or anyone else who is trying to expand their reach into that topic area cannot edit any new articles just because Debresser have edited them before. Looking at the article history of few of those articles, I can say that I did not touch any of the content that they have edited recently so I am not sure how they can claim stalking or taking revenge. I just removed the unsourced content from those articles according to Wikipedia policies and being a long term editor for 11 years, Debresser should be endearing those policies more than me instead of being stubborn and keeping unsourced content. My role model in this is Yamaguchi-san, I have seen them remove unsourced content all the time and I support them in this that we should be keeping just the authentic information on Wikipedia and the only way to ensure that is to remove any unsourced content. Let me know how I was wrong doing the same as everyone else is able to do. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef The Interaction Tool makes clear that SheriffIsInTown is lying; he very clearly picked out articles Debresser had recently made edits on. There also is no rule that unsourced content must be removed (other than for BLPs); doing so en masse without attempting to look for references is disruptive. After already being troublesome in India-Pakistan, I don't see any reason they should stick around here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: the interaction tool results are more easily explained by the fact that Debresser went around reverting SheriffIsInTown's reversions afterwards. If you compare Debresser's contribs from before SIIT started their mass removals, there's little indication of deliberate article selection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to have realized their mistake; hopefully we can get out of this without an indef being necessary. I'll let other editors figure out what should be done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My reach into Judaism topic already started before my interaction with Debresser as I have edited 613 commandments, Ger toshav, Talmud, Tetragrammaton, Seven Laws of Noah, and Noahidism before interacting with them. The articles that edited after interaction with Debresser was continuation of my research and reach into that topic area. Nothing more than that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      And there are more. The last three I've listed could be coincidences, but the first four certainly aren't. You've done this on substantially all the articles Debresser edited in the past 10 days. This is WP:HOUNDING and disruptive editing, and you're repeatedly lying about it here. Good riddance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)x2 Comment I checked three of the pages where he removed information: Ger toshav, Seven Laws of Noah, and Posek. For Posek, the information is contained in a source just not in-line referenced, and Sheriff should have shown judgement when reverted rather than stopping only when he abutted 3RR, I suspect that the information removed from Ger toshav could be cited to either Lichtenstein or Novak but don't have current ready access to either of those sources, and while I suspect the information in Seven Laws of Noah to be true I think the removal was fair. I would suggest an editor diving into a topic that is not one of expertise exercise more caution and restraint in the removal of material, including by doing things like starting talk page discussions. These topics are neither promotional nor BLP (nor particularly high trafficked articles) so there should not have been any urgency behind removal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (edit conflict × a few) - our policy on the matter (WP:BURDEN) says that it's the responsibility of the editor restoring content to provide verification in the form of an inline citation, but a parallel policy (WP:PRESERVE) says that content shouldn't be removed without good reason. This is effectively a dispute between the two policies. Is the single fact that content is without a source a good enough reason to remove it, or is going around removing large sections of content from articles only because it's unsourced and for no other reason inherently disruptive? I think the latter, personally, but the policies are not unambiguous on this matter. I think SheriffIsInTown ought to tone it down, and maybe that ought to be in the form of a sanction saying they may use {{cn}} tags in articles but may not remove content just because it's unsourced. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what WP:PRESERVE says. It says: Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material, and that policy explicitly states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. So yes, lack of sourcing is considered a good enough reason to remove, our policies are unambiguous on this matter, and since it is our policy, cannot be considered disruptive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it is, if it is done to spite another editor. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I accept that I have made a blunder here. I did not review WP:HOUNDING recently. My understanding was that it only involved when an editor made direct reverts of another editor's edits on multiple articles. After having a conflict with Debresser, I should have been careful editing further articles in that topic area which I will try to avoid going forward. I also thought that I was serving the encyclopedia by removing original research from articles and it did not matter what topic area they belonged to unless I was not restricted from that area. I promise to be more careful in the future. This can be considered a one-off blunder from me which I do not intend to repeat! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    On Posek The user only started a discussion thread on the talk page when he ran out of 3 reverts. "Lack of refs", unless its a BLP violation isn't enough reason for repeatedly Edit warring. And a clear disregard for the WP:BRD policy is seen here. The reverts on a totally sperate Royal Photographic Society was also made just for good measure.
    On top of that, the confrontative and aggressive tone of the discussion at Talk:613_commandments#Sourcing is also does not inspire confidence.
    On seeing the possibility of an Indef block this user has accepted his mistake and is repentant.So I believe an indef is not needed here. I do believe a 1RR is in order though --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find it very difficult to believe if SIIT was only committing innocent mistake like they claim above, while they don't entirely accept they were at fault. I also find it difficult if we should continue sanctioning them indefinite times in place of giving them a more stringent sanction which would be an indefinite block. SIIT is topic banned from India Pakistan conflicts and has already violated the topic ban two times,[10][11] and have been already blocked once for violating topic ban. None of that has helped him. Given that their content removal seemed more of POV pushing and they continued to edit war and wikihound until they were brought here, I believe that a topic ban from WP:ARBPIA would be better. But then again, why we should use these smaller sanctions anymore when indefinite block is completely justified? Rzvas (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Block

    SheriffIsInTown has admitted they picked all of these articles just to take revenge on me for pointing out that their behavior was less than ideal. That is being disruptive, and a bad community editor. I think a limited block might be in order. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indef block or topic ban from WP:ARBPIA would be better per my comments in above section. Rzvas (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    These don't seem to be ARBPIA articles though, although there are a lot of them and I haven't looked at them all in great detail. If there's a topic ban it ought to be from the area actually being disrupted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked all either but Lifta, Hillel the Elder are clearly WP:ARBPIA. Rzvas (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lifta probably yes, but I don't see how Hillel the Elder is. It's under WP:ARBLONG though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The attack was made on Judaism-related articles. ARBPIA is not related. Debresser (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The removals were all from articles on Judaism. I suggest a topic ban on Judaism. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban from Judaism. --Tarage (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to a topic ban from Judaism since SIIT does seem to be a bit in over their head in a sensitive topic, but I'd prefer if we addressed the root cause, otherwise this is likely to just migrate to SIIT's next topic of interest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We could have a t-ban with a note that if SIIT shows this behaviour in future editorial areas they could expect to pull a block. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-Ban of JUDAISM project and broadly construed. Oppose block or indef Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My removal of unsourced content had nothing to do with Judaism, it could have been any topic. It was more to do with my understanding of unsourced content being not authentic as I removed unsourced content from Royal Photographic Society and previously might have removed from other articles as well but since it has been noted by Ivanvector and others that mass removal like that (even of unsourced content) was disruptive so I accept that and I would change my approach and would tag the content first instead of straight away removal so I request that I should not be t-banned as it will create an unnecessary hardship. I do not plan to be regular editor of that topic area anyway but I want to avoid the nuisance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear now that those reverts on a completely different topic Royal Photographic Society was done for exactly this purpose, i.e. to present it as it is being presented above. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for a sitewide 1RR restriction

    The user admittedly WP:WIKIHOUNDED Debresser and carried on Edit warring on multiple articles some of them just shy of the 3RR. The user is already on an India-Pakistan conflicts Topic Ban[12] and to avoid future disruption spilling over to other areas and to encourage this user to engage in collaborative and cordial discussion, I think putting a mandatory 1RR restriction across the site will be helpful here. The user should jump to the talk page after first revert and not after exhausting 3 reverts.

    • Support as a nominator. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Hothead editors like this need to be restricted. Still think a limited block would be better, though. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Although this does not address numerous other problems noted above , still supporting this as final straw. Rzvas (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honest question here: if the issue is that SheriffIsInTown responded to a content dispute by following an opponent to other articles, how does a revert restriction help? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no disregard for WP:BRD or for any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, actually in my mind I was trying to only enforce the relevant policies regarding sourcing. It's just that sometimes you cannot bring yourself to talk when there is clearly a policy matter and not a content dispute itself. Some times you just think that it is better to convey the message through edit summaries when there is a clear black and white matter such as in the case of content lacking sources. Furthermore, there are always two sides in an edit-war. In all those instances, there was another editor who made two if not three reverts. That does not exonerate me though and I think I should have engaged in discussion sooner than later but it is also evident that I did not violate WP:3RR in any of those instances. I was just at a loss regarding what else I can say in a discussion in addition to what I have already said in the edit summary that the content is unsourced. On the contrary, if you examine carefully, the editors on the other side of spectrum does not have any regard for any policy more specifically about sourcing. They edit-warred to restore unsourced content, a clear violation of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and their edits are still standing. They found one reason or another to restore unsourced content and keep it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The removal of article text that doesn't feature blue superscript numbers isn't an enforcement of policy. Yes, the text might be dubious or misleading, in which case by all means remove it, but it might also have been the case that no inline citation was given because the content was common knowledge supported by most of the sources and no-one imagined that it would be challenged. Apart from the obviously bad cases, distingiushing between the two is a judgement call that relies on content expertise. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:When to cite and choosing a different role model. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Uanfala: Please have a read of WP:OR and let me know how it was not a violation to keep original research in the articles and what policy did I violate to remove that content and I was not hell-bent to keep it removed. When they added sources I accepted the content but when they restored without adding sources then I was right to not accept it. Yes, it might be sourced somewhere else in the article but as I stated that I am not some super being who would just find invisible things! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      OR is not a synonym for "unsourced". Recognising OR is even more dependent on content knowledge. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My statement is being misrepresented by Debresser and DBigXray, I did not accept that I picked out these articles to take revenge on them. I was already expanding my reach into that topic area before interacting with them, I could have continued editing that topic area even if I would not have interacted with them and the articles would have been those which they already have edited as with 98,000 edits I expect them to have edited all Judaism related articles. I accepted that if I had a better understanding of WP:HOUNDING, I would have been more careful in selection of the articles. My understanding was that it is only bad if you directly revert the other editor on multiple articles. I wanted to check articles for unsourced content that afternoon and the articles which came in my browsing happened to be related to Judaism. I would have chosen some other topic to avoid the impression of hounding but my intentions were not to hound so I went on with editing that topic. Yes, I edit is sprees, I reFill sources at times and continuously do that. I edit Pakistani election related articles and continously do that. Yesterday, I was in a mood to check articles for original research and I continuously did that. It was not to target anyone, the intention was to improve encyclopedia but I unknowingly have given an impression of hounding with my editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This incident falls within the pattern that I've seen in Sherif's editing across various topics and areas of wikipedia. He would take up some task that's not completely within his expertise, he wouldn't quite do his homework, and then when the inevitable negative feedback comes he wouldn't take it on board but would instead carry on until several people have become involved and there's some big drama like the one we're seeing here. Something probably needs to be done, but I'm not sure I know what. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had another read of WP:HOUNDING and it reads Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. and there were violations of WP:OR on those articles as it contained unsourced content. Although, I accept that I should not have removed unsourced content from other articles in that topic area when I clearly had a conflict with an editor in same topic regarding a similar issue on another article but in face of the quoted excerpt above, would not this be a correct use of following someone's edits as resultantly the content violating the Wikipedia policies was removed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, not really. Content that isn't supported by an inline citation is not the same thing as content that's an editor's original research, and neither one is a "revert immediately" situation anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nonsense. If an editor is WP:HOUNDing someone else, how on earth is a 1RR restriction supposed to combat that? I could still hound someone if I could only revert them once - I'd just follow them round and revert all their edits. This is nonsense - either you block someone for this, or you impose an interaction ban. A 1RR is a ridiculous sanction, although it doesn't surprise me given that it's come from an editor who regularly opposes SIIT on many articles and has an interest in them being 1RR'd, and I suspect that's exactly what Ivanvector was getting at above. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had that in mind, yes, but in this case I do think the request is in good faith and something should be done. I don't think a 1RR restriction is that something, though, but I don't have a good idea what else to suggest. I don't think an interaction ban is it either, SIIT doesn't have a prolonged history of following Debresser around, nor a pattern of hounding editors generally. The problem really is with indiscriminate removal of unsourced content, and responding poorly when confronted about it (with revert warring and hounding). Furthermore SIIT seems to be digging in his heels on that issue. I'm still not sure it's the best solution, but I suggested earlier a restriction on removing content for being unsourced (he should tag {{cn}} instead, or {{or}} if he believes that's the issue although I also think he's confused about what constitutes WP:OR). I'm not sure how enforceable such a restriction would be, and regrettably enforcement would be based on editors following him around. But at any rate he should be warned that if he's seen to be doing things as purposeful retaliation again, he'll be blocked for a good long time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, the OP (Debresser's) request is definitely in good faith. I just don't think DBigXray's is. I see below that he's got annoyed by that, but I can't see any other reason why he'd suggest a 1RR. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am all for following the policies, if an admin points out the things I did wrong or violated a policy, I will try everything in my human power to avoid those in future. That is what I can promise, what is done is already done, it's not in my power to change the past. As for the regular visitors of the complaints against me, I will not accuse them of anything, although if I want I can bring and highlight diffs from those past disputes. I had forgotten them and never quoted them and I request you to please let them ago now! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral support No idea what this dispute is about or who the editor is, so no !vote, but 1RR is a good idea for everyone. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's suggestion is the only version of this sanction that I would support. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read WP:BLUDGEONING. Why you are replying at the bottom every time and repeating same thing you have already said more than 4 times? You can use indents to reply the comment you particularly want to discuss. Rzvas (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; SheriffIsInTown, this is a poll – stop "Commenting" here. If you have a response to someone, post it under their post, not as a bolded "Comment". If you have a comment unrelated to anything in this poll, post it in the thread above the proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SheriffIsInTown can reply to my comments wherever he finds most convenient, whether it's below mine, or below his, or on some different page entirely (but in that case please ping me). It's hardly bludgeoning to do so, and it is especially not bludgeoning to respond to allegations about one's own misconduct. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to the comment: @SheriffIsInTown: the benefit of a {{cn}} tag, even if it sticks on an article for a decade, is that it preserves content while signifying to the reader that further investigation may be required. When the information is not something qualified by WP:MINREF, that is preferable to blanking. Now, I presume someone's going to point out to me that the second item in the MINREF table reads: "Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)", and you'd be correct. That "by being removed" bit is meant to excuse newbie editors who don't yet understand how our consensus model works, but an editor who's been here 4 years and 4 months is expected to know by now that discussion is always preferred. To that end, the list describes two things you can do which are not mass-removal of content, which several editors here and elsewhere have tried to explain to you is disruptive. It's not our opinion that it's disruptive, we're telling you that it is disruptive, and you need to stop doing it. So with that option removed, you still have talk pages and citation tagging available to you to challenge unsourced content. But mind you don't tag bomb articles, you will be justifiably reverted.
    You also just absolutely cannot follow someone around the project that you're in a dispute with. The harassment policy is pretty strict on even giving the impression that you're doing something with the intention of causing distress to another person. If you have a problem with an editor that you can't settle through discussion, there are many noticeboards available to you to raise the issue for third-party review, WP:RSN for example, or this board if you really thought that Debresser was deliberately adding original research to many articles (they are not). Though I can understand your not wanting to comment on this board, what with the inevitable appearance of several editors in this thread who are obviously just out to settle ARBIPA scores (they should also take note of the harassment policy).
    And also, in general, when editors challenge your interpretation of a policy, you should discuss it with them instead of digging in your heels and insisting that your interpretation is correct. We seem to have been here a few times over various different things that you might have misinterpreted, and it seems to me that all of those times could have been headed off if you just asked more questions.
    I'd like it if you would respond here that you understand what I'm saying, or ask questions if I'm not being clear. If you don't get it, you're going to keep digging yourself into holes like this and a site ban is inevitable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: I appreciate such a thoughtful response by you and I plan to address my weaknesses in editing further. As this has been a very close call, coming out of this debacle I plan to start discussions sooner than later when my edits are reverted. I also plan to start the usage of necessary tags in future in place of removal of unsourced content to give others more opportunity to address those concerns. I cannot promise to stay away from Judaism related articles forever though as it would be a big promise to keep, I only want to make promises which I can keep but I plan to avoid editing that topic area as much as possible. As I have said, I learn from my mistakes and I try my best to not repeat things which already has brought me so close to getting in trouble. Although I was a bit disappointed and feeling like that it's a done deal now as I do not think I can come out of this thread without one restriction or another so I thought there is no point defending further and wanted to take a break from commenting in this thread because I feel like whatever I would say, in one way or another it can be interpreted to be used against me so instead of creating further problems for myself by commenting here, I thought I should stop doing so and let all of you decide whatever the outcome. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR, which will encourage SheriffIsInTown to focus more on discussing and listening to others in place of edit warring.. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as not addressing the central issues at hand, plus 1RR doesn't prevent edit-warring, it just slows it down a tad, and anyway, there was edit-warring only on a couple of articles. There was rampant unwarranted deletion particularly on many articles relating to Judaism. Perhaps a topic ban on Judaism is necessary. Perhaps also a requirement to tag with {{cn}} or {{refimprove}} instead of deleting. Then there are also the WP:CIR issues that Uanfala mentioned above: [13] (see two posts top and bottom); and [14]. If Sheriff keeps getting in trouble like this and going on incompetent sprees, we have to assess whether he has the competence to edit Wikipedia without severe restrictions, and thus whether an indef block is in order. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's more than what they have pointed out. Read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive300#Vandalism, which is another recent example of his aggressive POV pushing and it ended with warning from Nyttend These examples comes after he has been already topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts and was warned that any further disruption would get him indeffed.[15] We can easily assume that SIIT has reached well beyond that requirement. This is why I stated above that why we are still resorting to smaller sanctions? He has violated his topic ban two times as well (see my comment in above section). 1RR doesn't address POV pushing, source misrepresentation and battleground mentality. Indef block is completely justified at this situation. Rzvas (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; this new behavior -- rampant mass deleting, targeting articles on Judaism, etc. -- speaks to a wider problem of deliberate disruption, POV-pushing (in the form of targeting Judaism articles), and incompetence. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 1RR - it is indeed nonsense. Nobody has given anything even resembling a reasonable explanation for how a revert restriction addresses a hounding problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How do we parse the name "Sheriff Is In Town" ? The parsing "I am the Sheriff"+"Me and Myself, we are in town"+"Abide to Me, before I and Myself put you in jail" should be answered by a "please cool down a pair of months"+"remember that sheriffs are elected, aren't they?". Another parsing could be "Eternal Love to anyone, Peace and Success upon you". I have no doubt that a forceful Talmudist could infer such a parsing, I only want to see and believe, me poor ignorant person.Pldx1 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I encountered this individual a few months back. WP:CIR was an issue then around BLPs. Looks like CIR is still an issue now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 1RR because it doesn't seem to be any way a mitigation of the actual problem. I thought these sorts of measures were designed to be remedial, not punitive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 1RR in favour of a brief block for cooling down. The reason is that the energetic removal of un-sourced material discussed above, plus four years and 38,000 edits on en.Wikipedia, makes it impossible to believe that the user is unaware of WP:RS. The edit that brought me to this discussion is this edit on 24 October by the user under discussion, which added nickname = The Vulture<br />Vampire with the Beard to the info box of a BLP page that is presently close to the top of world news — Mohammad bin Salman — with the edit summary Arabic to English translation of his nicknames. This edit added content that was quite likely to be perceived as pejorative by a majority of readers to a BLP article and no reference was provided. 1RR would not have prevented this edit; the edit waited for 15 minutes before someone else reverted it. The heavy use of an automated tool for "filling out" reference information again makes it difficult to understand how the user could not have understood the need to have some solid references, and to preferably have also sought consensus among editors about the acceptability under BLP. I agree that WP:CIR is an issue here — avoid editing subjects, articles, templates, and other pages where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up — where here the "lack of skill and/or knowledge" is unfamiliarity with WP:RS and WP:BLP despite four years of en.Wikipedia experience, 38,000 edits, heavy usage of an automated tool for extending bibliometric information, and edit summaries clearly indicating the reason as "Unsourced" prior to the above episodes during July 2018, Sep 2018, 3 Oct 2018, 4 Oct 2018. Boud (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of semi-automated tools

    The issue is probably not completely ANI-worthy by itself, but it's part of the pattern of making edits that are sometimes problematic and then ignoring any feedback. SheriffIsInTown is a regular user of WP:REFILL, a tool that expands bare url references into formatted citations. His use of this tool was at the centre of some drama earlier this year, with some more recent posts on their talk page here and here. The major point was that when formatting the reference, any user of reFill should preview their edit and check that the url that their tool is getting the metadata from continues to contain the same page as the one that was used in the article, so that for example they don't end up adding a citation to what is now a website's "Page not found" message.

    Now, I've had a loot at a dozen or so of SheriffIsInTown's recent uses of reFill, and I'm seeing the same issues. Here the url currently redirects to the website's main page, so the added citation metadata is incorrect. In the second citation there the metadata doesn't correspond to the actual webpage. And here, there are two instances of expanded citations to what is now a "Content not found" error page, one instance (the second to last ref) where the url is now a redirect so the expanded citation contains, incorrectly, the metadata for the website's main page; and there's also one ref (the third from the top) where the |website= parameter is used incorrectly.

    Now, we can't expect everyone to know how the citation templates work, although if an editor has made (tens of) thousands of edits to citations, they really should be a bit better prepared. The main point, however, is that these issues have been raised on Sheriff's talk page several times, by various editors, but he has apparently continued to make the same errors over and over again. – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have made thousands of edits using reFill and corrected thousands of bare urls this way. These are only few edits where I have misjudged. There are times when I notice the issues right away and I go back and correct those for example second url here was a broken link and I went back and corrected it. There are other examples where folks have pointed out issues with citations which I later corrected. I will like to point out that my contributions in that area resulted in humongous improvements in look and feel of the articles overall while bare urls just look like a clutter at the end of pages. Some of the stuff Uanfala highlighted in their thread was already addressed in another ANI thread previously.
    For those who might not know, Uanfala and myself have a bit of history starting from our dispute at Saraiki language and Hindko (then both of them dialects) where we opposed each other vehemently, they were of an opinion that both are languages while I was in favor of them being dialects, we edit-warred[16] and opposed each other during the discussions[17][18] but I left on semi-break after that and never tried to come in their way, the pages were changed per Uanfala's wishes, I let it go but since then they seem to drop everything else and religiously show up whenever there is an ANI against me and tend to pile up stuff whenever I have been already lynched enough, they come and add stuff to exacerbate things further, I never stated this before but I feel like they are not letting go of those past disputes. If they get an opportunity to embarrass or demean me in front of community by pointing out any mistakes in my editing, they avail it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be so, but 3 bad edits out of a dozen or so, is too much. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That was three out of thousands not three out of dozens! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of introduced incorrect citations is 6, and all the edits are from 25th October. 3 bad edits out of 12 is itself not an acceptable error rate, but that's not what's at stake here. You wouldn't have made these errors if you had used the tool the way it is meant to be used and done what people have asked you to: preview your edits before saving them. Several editors over the course of this year have expained to you the need for previewing these edits. You have either ignored or dismissed them, as you are also doing now. This is the main problem. I haven't brought this up, as you suggest, because you have dared to disagree with me in a move request two years ago. I've brought this up because I'm frankly tired of having to both clean up after your every edit to an article on my wathclist, and deal with your invariably obstructive behaviour. I've had to do that for years, and of course that doesn't make me as unreservedly willing to continue extending to you the benefit of the doubt as someone who encounters you here for the first time. And, in the interest of fairness, this "history" predates the Saraiki and Hindko RMs: the first encounters I remember having with you were from 2015 at Talk:Kalash people#Scottish people from Germany were in Alexander's Army? and Talk:Bulgarian language#Redundant material about Proto-Slavic. They follow the exact same pattern, but of course, no-one should be judged for something they did years ago. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block proposal

    Replies from SheriffIsInTown on this thread fail to assure if they understand the problem.[19] SheriffIsInTown merely suggests that he would try to be more careful, however he won't really change approach as much as it is necessary to. He is instead trying to find faults in the complainant than addressing his own behavior.[20][21]

    After discussing this for long enough, I am seeing that people have supported 1RR or topic ban or block. While people are unsure if 1RR or topic ban will work, there maybe no serious objections to an indefinite block/site ban since SheriffIsInTown is already under a topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts and have already subjected to an AN thread.[22] He has violated his topic ban two times,[23] and had been once blocked for a topic ban violation.[24]

    He also considers anything a "harassment",[25] which shows his approach is not suitable for this environment.

    Except these issues, there are problems with his semi-automated editing as explained in the section right above.

    Enough editors have also raised concerns with SheriffIsInTown's WP:CIR. This means that a topic ban or 1RR, or in fact both restrictions would not be able to solve the problems with SheriffIsInTown, but merely push him to disrupt any other subjects. Even if any of these sanctions have been imposed, it seems that we will come back here with more proposals for further sanctions, and therefore I propose indefinite block (aka community ban) as the better option. Rzvas (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - this is redundant to Debresser's block proposal a few sections up. More to the point, if SheriffIsInTown has shown anything in this thread it's that they're willing to acknowledge their own faults when someone makes an effort to explain (versus the digging up dirt and finding fault that a lot of editors in this thread are doing). I get pretty frustrated with the "ban everyone" approach of editors experienced in the ARBIPA topic area, the approach that Rzvas has taken repeatedly in this discussion. There are better ways to build an encyclopedia than kicking out everyone who ever makes a mistake, in particular when there is an indication they're willing to hear criticism. SheriffIsInTown needs to be more willing to take on constructive criticism and work to improve their own editing, now that several people have pointed out problems, but a mob of opponents showing up here demanding that he must be punished does not accomplish that effect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That one was about "limited block" while this is about "indef block". How we can say that Sheriff is being honest with their claims? For example he claims he has bad understanding of WP:HOUNDING[26], contrary to his edits outside ANI which show that he has a far better understanding of WP:WIKIHOUNDING than what he is claiming here.[27] He is not actually accepting his faults but instead saying that he either had a misunderstanding or others are being disruptive, in place of accepting that he was sole responsible for his deliberate behavior. Rzvas (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was my acceptance of wrong approach and a promise to change it. The issue of edit-warring was highlighted and I said that I will start the discussions sooner than later. The issue of removal of unsourced content was highlighted and I said I will make more use of tags instead of straight away removal. I was honest when I said that I had a misunderstanding about WP:HOUNDING so as to your question how can you know if I am being honest, you can never know about anyone whether they are being honest or not unless you give them a chance so I will remind you of WP:AGF in this matter. So, if someone tells you that they will change their behavior, either you can assume good faith and accept it or you can assume bad faith and not accept it. I also said that I will try to avoid the Judaism topic area as much as possible but I cannot promise that there would not be occasional editing. In last four years, this was my first attempt to edit that topic area and first inadvertent violation of a policy. The topic ban violations you are highlighting were addressed when they happened. The first one was a misunderstanding, three other editors had that misunderstanding as well and we all four were blocked. The second was a ref fix which was also done inadvertently and it was discussed by ARBCOM and they already had a say on it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ivanvector, you state "There are better ways to build an encyclopedia than kicking out everyone who ever makes a mistake,", This is not the first time SIIT has done that, he has 2 topic bans already and now a third one (Judaism) is clearly coming. You say kicking him out is not a solution, what about the dozens of editors on multiple topics who after getting disrupted by SIIT lose interest and abandon editing. We should look at both sides, and overall benefit to the project. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DBigXray: You need to understand the circumstances of those two topic bans to understand their gravity. I am not defending my behavior but the first ban was issued without any warning and on just one edit, it was not even a revert or edit-war or anything. The second topic ban was issued to 10 editors out of which one was me. A lot of editors stop editing when they are topic-banned from their preferred area, I took the challenge of contributing somewhere else and I am continuing to do that because I have an urge to improve encyclopedia. Continued contribution comes with a risk of mistakes and challenges of its own, no one is perfect.
    As to your second point, can you please list the names of dozens of editors across multiple topic areas who got disrupted by me, lost interest and abandoned editing? Please remember you just survived a boomerang below, you should not accuse people of crimes they did not commit or provide evidence. As long as I remember, nobody ever pointed out to me that they are losing interest and abandoning editing because of my disruption. If that would have been the case, I would not have been here for this long already. As long as I remember, I always defended good contributors against bans and blocks and harassment from POV pushers so they do not lose interest and abandon editing. One such example is Saqib, despite all my disputes and conflicts with him in Pakistani Members of Parliament topic area, I defended him whenever I felt that he was right. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • SheriffIsInTown, You are not accepting responsibility of your behavior. Regarding the “dozens of editors” you should be aware that disruptive editors are site blocked so that they cannot damage the project or other editors. Regarding the topic ban you referred, I checked the topic ban page once again after you asked me to see the circumstance. You are the only one out of “10 editors” who is being discussed here, so focus on that. Understand that topic ban of somebody else doesn’t excuse your disruption.
    • Apart from actively participating, you have been seen defending disruptive socks,[28][29][30] copyright violations,[31] BLP violation, [32] among other serious policy breaches. It overall shows the big amount of disruption not only you engage in but wholeheartedly support. DBigXrayᗙ 18:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - can we at least try to not derail what is already a trainwreck of an ANI thread? zchrykng (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Apart from existing topic ban from conflicts between India and Pakistan, he was also topic banned from "Muhammad Images" in 2016.[33] On September 2018, he was brought to ANI[34] for supporting BLP violation on Nabil Gabol and the long discussions on ANI failed to convince him otherwise.[35] It is not surprising that this long term disruptive behavior is being moved to other subjects more frequently. Above bludgeoning and attempts to obtain "The Last Word" by SheriffIsInTown is just confirming that there would be no improvement in his non-collaborative approach. Lorstaking (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Indef is a bit extreme, especially considering that Debresser, the victim of the hounding, doesn't want that. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support- SIIT already has been topic banned from multiple ARBCOM sanctioned areas (Muhammad images, India-Pakistan conflicts) and has now established they still need more topic bans and a interaction ban. I dont think we should be adding more topic ban sanctions when overall problem can now be handled with indef block. DBigXrayᗙ 12:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wondering, what made you change your position from 1RR restriction (a milder restriction) to indef (the harshest restriction possible) despite my reassurances all around these threads that I am willing to modify my approach according to the guidelines provided by admins in this thread, does it have to do something with my comment at below thread Black Kite and his aspersions where I opposed your point of view regarding him and supported his point of view? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, You are misrepresenting my position. I have "not changed" my position. This is my opinion on this proposal that has introduced some facts I was not aware of. Your re-assurances and then violation of the re-assurance are nothing new or else we would not be discussing you here on ANI in spite of an active ongoing topic ban on you. (regarding your diff, you were clearly trying to falsely claim disputes then[36])--DBigXrayᗙ 18:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per his continued badgering and display of battleground behavior while playing a victim. Given the proposals in below section and history of sanctions, it seems that SIIT is getting topic banned wherever he moves. This only proves that he will be disruptive no matter what he edits. Indef ban is better. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose Debresser has been blocked ten times there is a clear concern with his contributions as well. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What concerns do you have with Debresser in this case? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a non-argument. Not to mention that the issue didn't start because of my edit. I just reported it here. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support because by this point the issues and problems have become too many and pop up too often, and point up an inability to edit substantively on this encyclopedia without recurring problems. We don't have time to babysit this editor. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my chat with user:Debresser here [37], [38]. I think being experienced editor, person should not support others wrong behaviour specially when it is about BLP's. 122.8.27.201 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The user has taken responsibility for their actions. At most a limited block should be warranted "to cool down", as I proposed above. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • They may have taken responsibility for their actions of the past week, but we can't ignore the fact that those extensive actions were only the latest iteration in a long-term pattern of deliberate disruption and incompetence. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Two issues

    After carefully reading this thread and examining the evidence, it seems to me that there are two issues here. The first is SIIT's WP:HOUNDING of Debresser. The second is the quality of SIIT's edit on articles related to Judaism. Obviously, an indef block would solve both those problems, but I think it's somewhat like killing a mosquito with a hand grenade. Instead, I would suggest:

    • (1) A one-way interaction ban from SIIT to Debresser, since there's been no evidence presented that a two-way IB is necessary, and
    • (2) A topic ban for SIIT from articles having to do with Judaism, broadly construed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to note explicitly that I'm supporting this sanction not because I feel it's necessary, but because I'm quite certain based on recent experience that editors that run in circles with Rzvas, DBigXray, and Lorstaking, will not stop hounding SheriffIsInTown about all of these old issues until some kind of over-the-top formal sanction is imposed. This is the only sanction suggested so far which actually addresses the matter at hand, and thanks to BMK for considering the entire situation and suggesting a constructive course of action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - this is what should have been proposed in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Frankly, I don't belive this is necessary. This long ANI case, I believe, has already taught Sheriff to stay out of trouble with Debresser, and I don't expect they would continue making major edits to Judaism-related articles. Judaism just happened to be the topic they were editing now, and Debresser the editor to stand in their way. The underlying issue is elsewhere, it's Sheriff's habit for jumping into things without doing his research, then arrogantly dismissing any negative feedback, and carrying on unless the matter has escalated to ANI or AE. He is likely to cause similar problems whatever area he starts to edit next, unless he fundamentally changes his approach to wikipedia and his attitude to the other editors here. – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I strongly object using the reference of ‘mosquito’ for SIIT. Clearly from the evidence of diffs posted above by Rzvas, Unfala and Lorstaking, the problem is much bigger than what has been described here.
      I agree with Uanfala above and don't think this is sufficient. If SIIT really sticks to his words above of no further disruptions towards Debresser and Judaism then this is unnecessary. I am not opposing this proposal, by all means we can put these IBAN + Judaism topic ban. Overall, this proposal underestimates the bigger problem of disruptive editing (reckless editing, edit warring and hounding) because evidence of actions of SIIT outside this area indicates that SIIT has failed to keep his words of not disrupting. SIIT has been already topic banned from multiple ARBCOM sanctioned areas (Mohammad images, India-Pakistan conflicts) in only 2 years. We can keep adding more topic bans, but ignoring the primary issue and hoping that these two sanctions will solve the overall problem will be a mistake. DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This seems more remedial than other proposed solutions. SIIT shouldn't be hounding people, especially when it leads to edits in contentious areas where they're not properly informed to edit correctly. And this action actually addresses that rather than just seeking to punish them for transgressions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sir Joseph (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both parts of this proposal. (I will comment that I disagree with the commonly stated view that interaction bans should normally be two-way. They very seldom should. Two-way interaction bans between editors who do not like each other often set up baiting.) This is a clear case for a one-way interaction ban and a topic ban. SIIT should see how close they have come to being site-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose Debresser has been blocked ten times there is a clear concern with his contributions Govindaharihari (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What concerns do you have with Debresser in this case? Sir Joseph (talk) 4:28 pm, Today (UTC−4)
    • Govindaharihari, Let me get this straight, you are opposing sanctions on an editor for their own behaviour because you think a different editor has problems? Seriously? zchrykng (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but with a 3 month time limit. Debresser's original proposed remedy was a short block. For the reasons smartly detailed by Uanfala, there is no evidence that there is anything particular to the topic of Judaism that motivated SIIT's behavior, and I too am skeptical this is necessary. Nonetheless, if a topic and interaction ban is preferred by the community to a short block, then let it be time limited, as a cooling off. As Uanfala says, only time will tell if SIIT keeps to the assurances made that there will be no further disruptions. Within the next three months, we will know one way or the other whether SIIT is demonstrating good behavior, and, if not, likely we will be back here to consider a stronger remedy. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with reservations. This will eliminate the immediate problem, but I feel this is merely a stop-gap measure for what is essentially a longterm WP:CIR issue (he already has one broad topic ban), and is not going to prevent further disruption, such as mass unwarranted deletions from articles unrelated to Judaism, and heaven knows what else. For instance, the user does not even remotely understand what WP:OR means, and other problems pointed up by Uanfala far above: [39] (see two posts top and bottom); and [40]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Doncram

    Over the past few months Doncram (talk · contribs) has developed a one-sided vendetta against me, stemming from a dispute over the proper title of Little Falls and Dakota Depot. The discussion is mostly at Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot; there were precursor discussions at User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations.

    During this discussion, Doncram challenged the maintenance deletion of Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state). This was a simple maintenance task, but he forced an unnecessary CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 4#Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state), apparently out of personal spite. At the same time, he challenged the notability of an article I'd just created (Depew station (Lehigh Valley Railroad)), and left a strangely-worded message on the talk page. I left several comments; he never responded.

    Anyway, that was months ago and I'd put it out of mind. He randomly turned up on my talk page earlier this month complaining about another move I'd made at the same time as all the others. Today, Doncram created Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad and linked it from Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (which is why I noticed, I've had it watch-listed for years and headed up the discussion that led to its current location). I determined from reliable sources that the correct name for the new article is actually Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway ("way" vs "road", it's a common issue), documented such on the talk page, and moved the article. I believe Doncram derived the name from the Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, which he also created. I made a few other changes:

    I was surprised when Doncram reacted negatively to all these changes:

    In addition, after all this, he removed the WikiProject Trains project banner from Talk:Crescent Warehouse Historic District. I have never edited this article. Inasmuch as the article is about a property which includes former Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad buildings, the banner seems appropriate. I cannot conceive of a neutral justification for this edit; it feels like retaliation, though for what I don't know.

    I reached out to Doncram on his talk page, but his response (which weirdly refers to "the other editor", as though I'm not the same person), showed no indication that he was willing to back down: User talk:Doncram#Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. This is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, it's harming the encyclopedia, and I'd like for it to stop. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, I created an article on a highway bridge over a railway right-of-way, and another about the railway that was missing from Wikipedia. I put in WikiProject Trains on one or both, because I thought they'd probably be thrilled or whatever, which perhaps caught Mackenson's attention and then they started. I reverted Mackenson where I perceived they were being derogatory in mainspace (my interpretation, but informed by interactions with this editor). I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree. I don't think there is anything for ANI here, unless to warn Mackenson not to follow closely and contend on new articles. --Doncram (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have a content disagreement, like they want to continue to assert that a 1902 new subsidiary of an 1866 railway is in fact a predecessor of the parent, they should discuss at Talk page of the article. --Doncram (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This illustrates perfectly the mentality I'm describing: I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree. I've added NRHP banners in the past, where appropriate. Did a good deal of NRHP categorization on Commons as well. Note that Doncram ignored almost everything I wrote (including why I noticed the new article). Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of quid pro quo proposal by Doncram, if it was serious, is not a replacement for editing based on Wikipedia:Consensus. It's concerning. I continue below. --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Doncram retitled this thread to "Historic sites intersection with trains-related stuff". I changed it back, because this is a dispute centered entirely around his battleground behavior. As far as I know there is no broader problem with the intersection between these two subjects, which obviously have a good deal in common. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding this to the discussion since it's relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram
    Frankly the fact that there is another issue with Doncram in this area makes me wonder if the topic ban should have stayed in place. --Tarage (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a complete topic ban would be the wrong approach. Doncram is one of the most productive editors in the NRHP Project, and the project would be worse if he could not continue to contribute. We need to find a way to curb his (occasional) BATTLEGROUND behavior, while at the same time encouraging his productive involvement. Perhaps a one revert limit? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, yet another incident of Doncram being disruptive for absolutely no reason. The fact that he is a skilled content creator does not excuse his behavior whatsoever. His bizarre obsession with preserving certain names for no apparent reason - including NRHP names, which are widely known to be unofficial and often inaccurate - needs to be curtailed. I think two rules would suffice:
    • 0RR for Mackensen's edits, given his demonstrated one-sided antipathy and history of attacking other editors
    • No interfering with railroad-related maintenance and cleanup, including moving articles to names that match WP:USSTATION and other relevant guidelines, or perhaps a topic ban from railroad-related articles period. There are plenty of non-railroad-related NRHP articles out there.
    Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the relevant edits, I see Mackensen's use of the talk pages to try to discuss, but no use by Doncram. @Doncram: why wouldn't you have discussed any of these disputes on the talk page, or joined the discussion Mackensen initiated? An editor with an intransigence about discussing on the talk page to arrive at consensus ought to expect the possibility of XRR-type sanctions.
    This cuts both ways, as I think Mackenson should Wikipedia:Assume good faith of Doncram's removal of WikiProject Trains project banner from Talk:Crescent Warehouse Historic District and revert and discuss on the talk page. Though I understand that this may have seemed futile after what had already occurred. --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm being harassed across multiple Wikis again

    This user with a single contribution on English Wikipedia left me a comment on my talk page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Clothpillar

    After somebody reverted it, they left the same comment on my Spanish Wikipedia talk page:

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:ChiveFungi

    They (I'm imagining it's the same person as it's the same tactic within a short period of time) have previously harassed me on French French and Meta.

    What should I be doing here? Previously I've report it here on ANI, then somebody tells me to take it to the appropriate Wikipedia's ANI (of course I don't know where the French, Meta, or Spanish equivalents of ANI are so somebody has to tell me), and then I report it there in English and I do it incorrectly because I can't read the instructions. That doesn't seem like a sustainable approach. Does Wikimedia not have a centralized way to deal with cross-wiki harassment?

    Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure if there is a centralized way of dealing with cross-wiki harassment, but those are serious violations of WP:NPA (and being their only edits, could get them indeffed for WP:NOTHERE alone). I'd say report them in each of the wiki's they're harassing you on and see how that goes.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you actually participate on other wikis? If not, you can turn cross-wiki notifications off. It's in the preferences tab under notifications. Of course if you do need notifications on other wikis, this won't help. In that case, you could try meta:Steward_requests/Global, where at least you don't have to worry about the language barrier. I'm not 100% sure that's the right place, but I'm like 85% sure... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Floquenbeam and ChiveFungi, yes, that would be the correct place. I've requested a global lock on the account for cross-wiki abuse. Home Lander (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I'm looking at this. Do you know the sockmaster's username? (You may email me, if you wish) — regards, Revi 15:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Asked local CU but they didn't have any idea as well. Locking anyway, I don't have policy-wide approval to delete on eswiki (they are way too big, and Stewards do not intervene on big wikis where there are enough admins who can do it locally [unless emergency]) so you will need to contact Spanish Wikipedia admins to delete that page. — regards, Revi 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @-revi: That's grawp. Compare User:Jetsslier et al. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That's awesome, zzuuzz. Thanks! — regards, Revi 16:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It's possibly also SoftSkin/RefDeskNazi, or Grawp mimicking SoftSkin. The format of the post mirrors the recent SoftSkin attacks, but the target is unusual, as is the cross-wiki problems. I suspect that makes it more likely to be Grawp. --Jayron32 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @-revi: I have to suspect Lad Blackpool as they've directed personal attacks at me for their entire short career as a Wikipedia editor, and have even tweeted about me [41]. I also contributed to TaylanUB being banned recently, so that's also a possibility.
    Thanks everybody for the help and suggestions. I know the harassment is pretty minor at the moment, but I'm not going to shut up and take it :) --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Crockmaris == sulutil:Parrymanes == sulutil:Cadizthais == sulutil:Scentgotta et al. Not sure if this one is the same one. — regards, Revi 16:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJMC89

    User:JJMC89 is making a lot of unhelpful edits and is annoying a lot of individuals. As petty as this might seem, they are undoing a lot of good work by a lot of individuals. Littlemonday (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give me some diffs? Hhkohh (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to purely be around the fact that JJMC89's bot (correctly as far as I can see) removed a non-free image from the page Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) that it didn't have a rationale to be used on, and the OP doesn't understand why. I'll grant the explanation on JMMC89's page wasn't hugely clear. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NONFREE enforcement strikes again. It's a hard concept for new and infrequent users to grasp, a hard concept for experienced users to explain. While I don't know JJMC89's work in particular, I've noticed that in general people who tend to enforce this are often not the most patient in explaining things. Which is unfortunate. That may or may not be a problem here. Surely someone has created a semi-decent, Goldilocks-like (not too confusing, not too oversimplified, but just right) explanation we can point to? WP:NONFREE isn't easy to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guessing most people focused on this area burned out their ability to explain the issues after the first few hundred people ignoring them or blaming them for something that isn't their fault. Just a guess, but it can wear on you. zchrykng (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • My explanation works like this: "Unless you took the picture on your own camera, and thus own the copyright yourself, don't try to upload it. It is technically possible to do so, but you'll screw it up and someone will delete it and you'll get mad and it'll be a bad time for all. So only upload pictures you yourself have taken, on your own free time, using your own camera." If anyone wants additional instructions, I direct them to the policy page and say "If you can figure this out on your own, and want to try, feel free to, but be aware that someone will probably try to delete your picture without warning and it won't be clear why that happened." That usually works for me as an explanation. --Jayron32 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, yes User:JJMC89's response was unhelpful and uninsiteful. If you look at their edits/the edit's of their bot you'll see this is effecting a lot of people. The issue I had was regarding the photo of Jim Griffiths, which is already on Wikipedia, I added it to a second article and it was removed. I fail to see any logical argument (or rule on this site) that prevents that. There are plenty of photos which appear on numourous articles, and the inclusion of that photo on the second page added something to the article. It's also not helpful (or polite) when someone is so dismissive of something you are trying to help with.Littlemonday (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, since you've given us a specific example, I can help you understand the problem. The image in the infobox at Jim Griffiths is currently a copyright photograph. Normally, we do not accept copyrighted photographs, unless the copyright own releases the image in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. HOWEVER (and this is where people get all turned around), in a LIMITED number of situations, we can republish a copyrighted work under the guise of fair use, which among other things under U.S. copyright law, allows us to do so only when no other alternative exists, and even then we may only use it in highly restricted ways. By a combination of Wikipedia policy, Foundation-level policy, and U.S. law itself, that usually means that we can only use a single copy of such a picture in a single article, where the picture itself is illustrating the subject of the article. There are probably a few other exceptions, but in this case, the picture at Jim Griffiths can only be used to illustrate that one article. You can read more about these restrictions at WP:NFCC. --Jayron32 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone is removing nonfree images with a bot? Anyone who remembers Betacommand should know that is a bad, bad idea. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FairuseBot managed to remove nonfree images without trouble, at least until bugs in the Wikipedia API made it too much of a pain to keep working. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage violating POLEMIC

    User earned an indef Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Norbson12's (talk) userpage seems to be a clear violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC; indeed, they rail against Wikipedia admins and are compiling a list of enemies. I noticed when I myself made the list for tagging one of the editor's articles for speedy deletion (G4, and later for violating copyright policy). I notified Norbson12 at User talk:Norbson12#Enemies list on your userpage, citing policy and asking they remove the list of enemies, but their response [42] to me makes it clear they are not understanding the message. Requesting an admin take a look.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have given him a second, slightly stronger wording. If that fixes the problem, we'll be good. If it does not, it will be fixed for him. --Jayron32 16:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed it for them. Having a "list of enemies" is not okay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine too. I tend to give editors the chance to self-correct, but the end result is the same. If he adds it back, he can be blocked. --Jayron32 16:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: [43], [44]. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming... No, put your hand down... --Jayron32 17:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That escalated quickly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've undone my close, Something tells me this is gonna need to stay open beyond 31 hours (which is how long they've been blocked for). –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think for that edit 31 hours is a bit generous. I'd have been tempted to go straight to an indef for that until they give a good unblock reason. Canterbury Tail talk 22:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the vile and libelous nature of one of the edit summaries, I have extended the block to indefinite. If anyone disagrees, please make a case as to why this person is an asset to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is going to take you up on that challenge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    205.189.94.17

    205.189.94.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    This editor has a habit of adding the {{linkrot}} tag to articles. Many of these have 50+ references and only one or two bare URLs; it would be far better to fix the links. When I brought this up on User talk:205.189.94.17, their response was abusive, and that IP has made hostile remarks in the past. I think some form of block is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And they just spammed another link rot tag into another article (Greenland) I left a warning for them. JC7V-talk 21:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Request not-here block. User has used slurs to describe other editors and refuses to collaborate in a positive manner. [45] [46] [47] [48] --Tarage (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that there is a misunderstanding here. To start please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs. If there is even one bare url in an article then the linkrot tag is appropriate. Fixing bare urls is something that a few of us work away at and having these tags added to articles is a help in finding the ones that need fixing. The person editing from this IP likes adding the linkrot tag (it can be seen as a form of Wikipedia:Editcountitis) and can seem to be adding too many of them, but, that is not the case. I should say that I used to feel that these were a nuisance like Power~enwiki does now. Then a year or so ago I started working with refill and reflinks and realized the mistake that I was making. There are times that I wish they would slow down a bit but, again, the bare urls need to be fixed eventually. Also, the IP occasionally adds the template to articles that don't have bare urls but that is not a major concern. OTOH their hostility is problematic. This is just one editors experience and others may disagree but I wanted to try and explain why some editors may be at loggerheads with the IP. MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I left out the fact that the IP is not the only editor who adds the template. There are several other editors including Northamerica1000 who add them to articles as needed. Maybe they can explain things from their perspective. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That does explain the edits a bit better. If they'll walk back some of their hostility hopefully they can continue to contribute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking from both perspectives, I add the template, and where possible make the corrections, using the same two tools MarnetteD does. Sometimes while running those tools, I'll get sidetracked on a different article, and by the time I get back to it to save the changes, Derek R Bullamore will have already made the corrections. Other times, I'll add the template (simply so I can run reflinks), run the tool, and it won't fix all the raw links. Those times I leave the template so that someone like Marnette or Derek will finish the clean-up. But anyone who looks at my talk page knows what a stickler I am for civility, and the IP really needs to make some changes to their tone. Onel5969 TT me 00:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The main complaint is invalid and the Level 4 Warning of the IP is abusive- the IP is performing a useful maintenance function. The uncivil comments in response to people complaining about his/her long history of useful actions are somewhat understandable and pretty tame compared to the rude uncivil comments glossed over on this very page in the last several weeks. This is clearly not actionable and one of the editors that reverted my very valid NAC knows it very well having argued that vulgar insults are perfectly fine. I stand by my right and ability to do good NAC's and urge other editors to respect them. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never called another editor the R word. Look, you made a close, I reverted it. That's how it works. If someone feels a close was hasty or incorrect, they are allowed to revert it to continue the discussion. You are not an administrator, so your close does not carry the weight of one either. Multiple editors have spoken about this issue and it's importance to being resolved. You coming in and making overarching statements is not helpful, especially when you are trying to apply your own frustrations with past issues to this one. That's not fair to any of us. --Tarage (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I should note that an editor who has been blocked for personal attacks and uncivil comments should not be making statements about how they are glossed over... --Tarage (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never been blocked for personal attacks or uncivil comments - so you can rescind your personal attack. The rest of your comment is pretty lame. Less established editors bringing such a weak complaint as the OP might face a boomerang. The diffs in your first response hardly support what you said about the IP. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block log says differently. 15:59, 16 May 2016, 19:21, 14 February 2018, and 11:13, 19 April 2018. Regardless of the rescinded nature of two of them, the comments on your talk page from the unblocking admin show that they were not unwarranted blocks. Again, please keep your personal grudges out of this section please. Your close was uncalled for. --Tarage (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) 205.189.94.17 was tricky, which keep asking to add the template in Talk:Juventus F.C. in September. All but one link were already fixed by this edit (Special:Diff/859662513). Instead of fixing himself by posting edit request of that specific link (the page was indef semi-protected since 2010, which may be too high), he keep asking to add the template, nor point out which link need to fix. Thus causing the personal attack in User talk:205.189.94.17#Link rot can be fixed with WP:REFILL. While the rest is depends on other editors on judging his communication and edits are collaboration or not. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the OP that spamming linkrot tags onto hundreds of articles when there are only one or two bare URLs and the majority of the the citations are filled out is disruptive editing, because the appropriate response to one or two bare URLs is to fill them in instead of tag. This is particularly easy to do with WP:REFILL. The editor already has seven or so warnings on his talkpage and several discussions about the linkrot tag and REFILL. I'd say it's time for a block unless he has stopped and agrees to fill out bares instead of blindly tagging. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Pinging Ad Orientem and Vaselineeeeeeee. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag exists for a reason and as long as it exists it is fine to use it. I have over 30,000 pages on watchlist, and many are new with bare urls. I see these tags added and then solved quickly all the time. The problem here is the editors attacking the IP for doing a boring but evidently desirable task. Lots of editors DO NOT use Refill and we can't and should not force anyone to fill in refs. Legacypac (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But people don't personal attack (see edit summary) or ask other people to fix the bare url for him. Sometimes we post task to some noticeboard for others to follow up, but not ask, command them to do so. Matthew hk (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer the IP was more polite but attacking them for doing a lot of tagging with a correct tag is not correct. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest a topic ban of using that template. From recent edit the finally fix some url by himself, but still some communication issue such as this one (Special:Diff/866669016). Matthew hk (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the template documentation for {{linkrot}}:

    Before adding this template, please head over to toollabs:refill, paste into the text box the name of the page with bare references, then click the "Fix page" button. Wait patiently for the program to finish filling in all citation templates for each bare reference. When the result page is loaded, please double-check the changes made in the diff preview on the result page and fix the errors before clicking the "Show preview" button at the bottom. References that could not be filled in with the tool will be listed on the page. On the actual editing interface on-wiki, you may wish to check the changes once again and use Ohconfucius's scripts to automatically correct some mistakes. When everything looks fine, click the "Publish changes" button to save your changes.

    -- Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • He uses multiple IPs:
    Multiple IPs

    Has used these addresses:

    Only two other IPs used in range; not necessarily related to him

    ...to elaborate on his activities.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the ip were linked to Scarborough Public Library of Toronto Public Library system. It just means more than one person using the library to edit wikipedia, as well as he can jump to another up of that range by change to use another public computers of the library. Matthew hk (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, very rude editor, and also very lazy in my opinion. Adding this template to thousands of articles as their sole job, probably half of which if not more can be fixed almost as fast by using REFILL—something that actually helps the problem. To me, this editor does not care about the bare links as an issue itself, and only wants to cause disruption, further seen at his talk page when more experienced editors try to give them suggestions to actually help fix the issue. If the bare links were actually an issue to them, they would try to fix some, especially where only one or two are broken instead of adding the template. Pure disruption in my opinion and a net negative to the project, especially with their toxic behaviour. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing admin requested

    Wrong venue. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Would an interested admin please take a look at THIS RFC and provide closure? -- has been inactive for close to a month. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for close go to WP:AN Mercy11. There's a specific section there for them. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Matthew hk (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock request

    Hi. Another rangeblock request from me. This time the return of the 39.57 IP vandal. Previously blocked for one week in September, after a previous 1 month block had ended. Now they're back doing the same vandalism to cricket articles. Some from today that I've found:

    I'd be grateful if this range could be blocked again, ideally for a long time. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonblocked three months. Although it is a /17 range, he accounts for the majority of anon edits and shares the range with UPE socks.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=866779875"