Misplaced Pages

• Support Seems obvious.--v/r - TP 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Simply for the battleground attitude in the area of AA2 is reason enough. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support and comment. As I said in my report, It's better to watch 94.180.X.X's activities too. That user will return soon. These users use Misplaced Pages as a War-Zone/Nationalistic forum not an Encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is just a tool for their own purposes! I heard Russian Misplaced Pages use a good system to ban them and solve problems like this one. --Zyma (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Spartaz 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Moved this out of the archiveCan someone please close this? Including me there are 7 supports and no objections, and this seems pretty much a slam dunk. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Block Review: User:The Banner

I'd like to request a block review. I approached User:HJ Mitchell about the block around 16 hours ago and haven't received a response. I see he's not been editing, so I don't hold it against him but I do think this block needs attention. The Banner was blocked for "belligerence", according to the blocking admin, and not his editing. Though that admin did point out this diff in particular after this discussion/"consensus". Now, when I see a block with belligerence cited as the reason, my first thought is 'this guy disagreed with the mass' and that's what I truly think this block was for. We have an editor who disagrees with the rest. However, considering the physical evidence I still oppose the block. I see a rough consensus at best and one that doesn't support a block for the diff provided. User:Laurel Lodged proposed that villages that were geographically within a parish of the same name would be covered in the same article, and those that were geographically separated would have their own article. He proposed that as a simple formula and it received consensus. The edit in the diff provided above seems to be supported by this consensus. The diff by The Banner clearly says "Doora (Template:Lang-ga) is a village in County Clare, Ireland." and then goes on to describe the parish below. I believe Dr. Blofeld's revert was knee jerk and as evidence of that, I'll note that he did not revert The Banner after The Banner was blocked. . Thus, I argue that The Banner's edit was supported by consensus, uncontested by lack of revert by Dr Blofeld, and that blocks for belligerence have a chilling effect on the development of consensus.--v/r - TP 21:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the context (or had the good manners to wait for a reply), you'd realise the block was not for one single edit. I think even The Banner realises that, even if he doesn't agree with the block. I explained myself here, but you seem to have decided that I've acted improperly, so I'll wait for some people with common sense and manners to comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you've decided to take offense at my mere disagreement with your actions. I've neither explicitly nor implicitly implied anything of the sort about you being unevenhanded. What I said was that I disagreed with what you've done. Are you above reproach, then? The line at the top of your talk page suggests your open to admins disagreeing and I'd like to see that attitude here instead of suggesting that I have no common sense. On the matter of manners, 16 hours of a weeklong block is nearly 1/10th of a block. Since I feel the block is unjustified, and since your user talk page makes the offer, I could've simply unblocked him. Instead, I gave you 16 hours to respond which is lengthy in my book. Perhaps if it were an indefinite block, then time would be of lesser importance. But even considered, 16 hours is enough time to check Misplaced Pages after you've blocked a well known and established editor to see if you have any push back. Sorry, but that's not a lack of manners. If I had given you an hour or two, unblocked the editor unilaterally, or even taken it straight here than you could criticize my manners.--v/r - TP 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do take offence. Not that you questioned my action—I fuck up from time to time (I don't think I did here, but it harms nothing to keep me on my toes)—but at the way you did so. You came to my talk page having already made up your mind, making a gross assumption of bad faith with language like highly inappropriate and accusing me of forming a consensus what consensus am I trying to from, exactly? I'm a neutral third party by blocking editors who oppose me. Had you posted something closer to "Hi Harry, I can't quite see your thinking behind this block, could you explain it to me?", I'd have been more than happy to politely explain my thinking, and I might even have brought it here myself if we still didn't understand each other. As it is, I don't think you've approached this with an open mind, and for that, I most certainly can criticise you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, that approach would seem dishonest to me. I had made up my mind at that point and suggesting to you that I hadn't would've done you a disservice. You should know what I was thinking instead of being led to think I hadn't formed an opinion yet. Wouldn't you rather know my thoughts and the motivation behind the question before you answered it? Not telling you and not telling you what was on my mind would seem to me like I was deceiving you.--v/r - TP 00:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not supported by consensus. It was still essentially denying the historical importance of civil parishes while having weaselly type words that acknowledged their existance but not their continuing relevance. This diffshows the difference between the Banner's poition and something that truly reflects the consensus, as acknowledged on the WProject Ireland talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you're bickering because he used different words? The substance is there and the diff you've provided essentially rearranges material but neither adds nor subtracts anything substantive.--v/r - TP 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• No comment on the block.
• I did find TheBanner's version more understandable than the revert , with one exception - it would seem that it is more correct to refer to the current Doora as a Village and not a Civil Parish in th Infobox. Whether right or wrong on this point, I would like to humbly suggest that everyone involved in this editing kerfuffle is too close to the problem to see that this article and the article on Civil Parishes are confusing to the reader uneducated on these issues.
• Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• No comment on the block, but I will say that HJ Mitchell's response to this is clearly sub-optimal. I'd hope that when questioned on an issue admins would respond with kinder words. It's actually fundamental if our governance model is to work. Otherwise people are much less likely to raise issues if they think they are going to get such blowback. Hobit (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Last thought before I turn in for the night (it's 02:30 in Blighty): the main cause of the disruption, as I see it, is the edit-warring against multiple people and taking the edit war from one article to the next. If The Banner (pinging so they see this; Banner: feel free to respond on your talk page if you want) were to agree to a moratorium on reverts pending discussion, I'd happily unblock them. If they agree to that while I'm asleep, any passing admin can unblock them without further deference to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Kneejerk? Why would I have waited many hours before reverting if that was the case? Banner has blatantly ignored consensus at WP:Ireland. HJ acted perfectly appropriately given the belligerent "I'm not hearing you" way in which Banner has responded even since the block. His comments on the Ireland talk page if nothing else were disruptive. Even now Banner states "are you serious" when HJ says he'd be willing to unblock him if he promises to stop reverting. If an edit can't accept consensus then there's no choice but to block or impose a topic ban which I suspect will be needed once the block runs out. Give HJ a break. If he'd done anything really inappropriate Banner would have been unblocked by now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that Dr Blofeld's analysis is correct and that HJM's block of Banner was perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. According to Banner's own comments at his talk page, he refuses to stop edit-warring if unblocked, basically on WP:THETRUTH grounds. I think the block needs to be extended, possibly even to an indef, until Banner agrees not to edit-war and to respect consensus even if he disagrees with it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

help!

can someone create a piece on whats on Newfoundlands mainland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.40.224 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The winter weather storm?--v/r - TP 19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Labrador? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget!

April Fools' Day is roughly an hour away - don't forget to enforce or abide by the new WP:Rules for Fools! Cheers, and have a good one, ansh666 22:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nooooo, Admins should not be spoilers. No rules should be enforced April Fools' Day :( . Count Iblis (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• My idea was to simply write protect the entire encyclopedia so we wouldn't have to police sophomoric attempts at humor, but no one listened. I will be away most of the day, thankfully. And yes, policies should be and will be enforced.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Umm....WP:Rules for Fools is not an official policy or guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It has a consensus: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/April Fools' Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • It actually makes sense, and I believe was based on a discussion last year, where I submitted my futile request for full protection for the wiki. From memory, that very much reflects the consensus in that wiki-wide discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As an information page, it's close enough. WP:Vandalism is a policy, though. ansh666 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Further do's and don'ts: WP:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-03-26/Comment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification requested: I don't seem to remember a consensus either way about the AfD log - there is currently a mix of "serious" and "joke" AfDs. Should jokes be listed there? ansh666 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let the admin that deal with that, deal with that. No essay on the consensus can reasonably contain every instruction, only a general guideline. When it comes time to log, it will be discussed and decided. You can join at that time, but we don't need to dot every i and cross every t at WP:AN. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, just wondering. ansh666 02:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • April Fools is just an excuse to shitpost and increase that edit count size. I've had my fun today, so I'll stop my share of it. Wasn't aware of the RfCs either. Citation Needed | Talk 03:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• I've been trying to close the joke AfDs as I see them. I don't have a big-big issue with the nominations other than them clogging up the board and making it more difficult to find the valid ones in a swamp of joke noms. I've moved the ones that are clear jokes to the bottom and I'd actually somewhat argue that we should probably move them to a separate page such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1/Joke nominations because well, some of them are sort of funny and we've kept worse things just for the humor value. On a side note, I'll be logging off to head to school in about 30 minutes, so another admin will need to keep their eye on the page for the time being after 7 am. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Separate logging makes sense to me, put me down for one of those. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

About VNG (company) and VNG on Wiki Vietnam

Dear administrators! I have a problem hope you can solve. I'm now editing content for VNG page in Vietnamese and when I tend to edit it in English. I can't search it under the name "VNG" itself. Even thought it was the same company. So I wonder if you may change it back to "VNG" only. Many thanks Nataliethaile (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No: VNG is a disambiguation page, and there is no primary topic - see WP:DAB for more information. However, I've added VNG (company) onto the page, so it should be easier now. ansh666 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) (oh, and apparently I was welcomed on vi-wiki in 2009! who knew.)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dear ansh, thanks for your help so now I can search for VNG and access VNG (company). Since we can't change the page name. So can you make that when user search "VNG Corporation", Wiki'll automatic go to VNG (company)

 Done by User:Darkness Shines - see WP:Redirect for more info on what he did. ansh666 01:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(Btw, may be it a sign you should learn Vietnamese now. I'm glad to guide you LOL) Nataliethaile (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Darkness Shines and ansh. Thanks for your help to fix and redirect VNG (company) page. But I just found out that Wiki can delete VNG (company) and "reborn" it under the name "VNG Corporation" (content will stay). Can you help me doing this ? That would be nice for the brand and easier finding it from now on Nataliethaile (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy April Fools

Happy April Fools everyone.Cyberpower | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user Redmen44 deleting unblock request comments (again)

Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked for edit warring by User:DangerousPanda, left my name as part of his current unblock appeal. I left a comment as a semi-involved admin, but Redmen44 has since removed my comment and his original mention of my name. Redmen's behavior of removing comments during an unblock request is repeat behavior from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Blocked_user_Redmen44_deleting_unblock_request_comments. Repeating my observations from before, "Community discussion in unblock requests is common. Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#What_happens_when_you_request_unblock says "Often you will find more than one user commenting on your block, or a mini-discussion happening". This discussion cannot happen if a user insists on removing these comments."—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While the individual incident seems under control now, do we generally feel it is appropriate for users to delete unblock request comments on their user page? A previous attempt to make it clear that it was not acceptable was reverted at WP:BLANKING with edit summary of "Longstanding practice, not a loophole."—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's my understanding that denied unblock requests may not be removed as long as the block is in place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mine too, its a record of the requests made and behavior between time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The technicality that the user is WP:GAMING with is removing comments from others in the community before an admin has handled the outstanding unblock request.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Typically, any comments left by admins or others related to the unblock are considered to be part of the unblock and should not be removed unless there are other issues (ie NPA, etc) at play ES&L 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? No reasonable interpretation of policy suggests so. Such a policy would mean that if an unpopular person gets blocked, then all of her worst enemies can add whatever they like to her talk page in support of her being blocked, and she is not allowed to remove any of it. True in practice? Hardly. You're an errant panda, please reform yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of having an open discussion on the unblock request, what benefit would deleting others' comments provide? The admin that handles the unblock request can sift through the merits of all arguments. I would agree that once the unblock request is accepted/denied, the other side discussions—excluding the original request and the final ruling—can be deleted if the user chooses.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A blocked user should not be obliged to leave unwanted posts on their talk page, other than the material covered at WP:REMOVED. If you wish to change that guideline, here is not the place to do it imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur, and I'll note that I would hope admins reviewing a unblock situation are capable of using the page history to evaluate any removals. NE Ent 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm going to disagree with you as well. Most of the latitude to remove things from your talk page is suspended when a user is blocked. The sidebar discussion may have been helpful to the Administrator who denied the appeal (contributing circumstances, sidebar discussion by the blocked, etc.). That sidebar discussion should not be removed by the blocked until they're no longer blocked. The blocked editor may appeal for administrators to evaluate off topic sniping via the {{Admin help}} template if there's crowd members throwing rotten vegetables. If the user succeeds on their first appeal, then they're no longer sanctioned and they can remove the entire thread for the block (granted that's not really the most friendly way to vanish it off your page). Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I think you actually agree with me: I was proposing that they should not be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Perhaps it's the wikilawyer in me reading, but your response suggests that once a block appeal concludes either way the blocked user can remove content. What I suggest is that commentary/discussion that happens in the context of appealing the block must not be removed by the blocked user until they successfully appeal the block or the block expires. For example: BadUser posts a block appeal on their talk page, various community members comment on it, the block appeal is denied. The user should not be allowed to remove the community discussion as it helped contribute to the determination of the administrator. Giving the blocked user the opportunity to remove unflattering commentary related to the block sets up the Admin corps for a "If Mom says no, ask Dad" Admin-shoping exception where all admins would have to be on the watch for Rose colored filters being placed in front of the appeal to push for the greatest success. Hasteur (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: We are in agreement that while the appeal is outstanding, comments should not be removed. That to me is the most crucial part. As for after the appeal, assuming the appeal fails, I'm ambivalent if it remains or not while the block remains active. I assume WP:BLANKING proponents won't see any point in keeping the comments if the admin has already denied the unblock; for that reason, I would accept it's removal after the block appeal as a compromise. At any rate, I consider it less important what happens to the comments after an appeal is over (even if the block remains).—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So, this comes down to "No consensus" on removing other editors' talk page comments in the wake of a block? I don't have policy to back this up, but it seems like context is important. Bagumba was posting in response to being mentioned as a part of the block appeal. That seems quite different than me going over to another editor's talk page and weighing in on their block status, where I am uninvolved. Liz 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin assistance (should be quick)

Would an administrator or really anyone double-check how I acted with the situation that recently transpired on my talk page, in which User talk:88.150.205.114 left a message at my talk that I perceived as harassment. I left a warning at his or her talk page, but wanted to make sure I did not over or under react. Thank you in advance. Phightins is Gone (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Templating people like this is I suspect is not a good idea. I'd just revert and ignore, unless they became verbally aggressive, in which case a block might be in order sooner rather than later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential edit warring

I don't know where to post this but there is a potential of edit warring on this page ]. A picture of a ruined mosque is deleted and added again. The first addition was by me and I undid its removal. I find the picture a good example of ruined Ottoman heritage in the Balkans due to Muslim persecution. Others claim its not related to persecution or demand a source with exact wording of "persecution". I think the ruin is directly related to persecution as the article's section states: Muslim heritage was destroyed or neglected after the Muslims were expelled. Can someone interested check the page and give a third party opinion. If its a mistake to post it here, sorry. Thank you for helping. Bye. Bangyulol (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can read WP:DISPUTE to resolve this situation.—Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed ban from creating articles

User:Banhtrung1 is indefinitely banned from creating any page which is related to sports (including people, teams and clubs) in the main and template namespaces, including by moving a page they have created into the main and template namespaces. Banhtrung1 may submit draft articles or templates through the articles for creation process.

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

For User:Banhtrung1. He continues to create articles on various athletes who do not meet the notability guidelines. This has been going on for years. He/she never sources properly, and at best we get a link to a sports site (apparently Bahntrung has been trying to create a Misplaced Pages page for a ton of soccer players whose only mention is on the website soccerway). See deleted contributions. The main issue is now we're stuck with a ton of articles he's created like this. They often cannot be deleted via CSD or PROD. Enigma 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, creating a stub cited exclusively to Soccerway is not a problem - it is, after all, a WP:RS. However, what is a problem is Banhtrung1's lack of understanding of how WP:N works, demonstrated by the number of articles he has created being deleted. WP:CIR - and this editor seems to be in short supply. He already has one active topic ban, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#TFD topic ban proposed for Banhtrung1. GiantSnowman 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What brought this up was not the soccer players and soccerway. That was stuff I found later. What brought it up was when I went to the expired PROD page and found about a dozen articles on NN tennis players that he had created. Enigma 18:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't view the deleted contributions. Do you have some examples of what was deleted and why? Lugnuts 19:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Only admins can view those. It was just an example of how many of these articles he's been starting. Hundreds and hundreds of deleted pages. Enigma 19:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Admins can thus presumably make a decision on the scope of the problem and the risk of imminent serious damage to the encyclopedia. Admins, we hope, are also aware that WP:CIR is what's called a WP:ESSAY around here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Any editor that I've ever blocked for a lack of competency has been for the disruption they caused as a result, not for incompetency itself, even though I may have cited it during the block. It's only because citing "disruption" on its own is a very non-specific justification for a block, and it helps anyone reviewing the block or considering an unblock. -- Atama頭 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone say CIR was anything other than an essay. Regarding blocking, no one suggested blocking anyone either. Enigma 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the entire content of one of the recently deleted articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

'''Axel Michon''' (born 16 December 1990 in ]) is a world tour ] player from ]. He plays regularly at the ] tournaments.

== References == *

] ] ] ]

• This user has over 1,400 deleted contributions, which is a staggering number given he's only really been active since 2011. You typically see that kind of number on vandalism patrollers and admins, not people creating articles on sports subjects. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• There are 100-200 deleted unique articles primarily on tennis players which have been deleted because they don't meet the notability guidelines that they've created and a few hundred templates mainly on squads, teams and clubs (eg 1 & 2). Given that Banhtrung1 is making constructive edits in both this and other areas (though primarily related to tennis), but just doesn't understand, I believe we should impose the least restrictive sanction which will both prevent the disruption and allow Banhtrung1 to continue to contribute to notable pages. So, I propose:

User:Banhtrung1 is indefinitely banned from creating any page which is related to sports (including people, teams and clubs) in the main and template namespaces, including by moving a page they have created into the main and template namespaces. Banhtrung1 may submit draft articles or templates through the articles for creation process.

I support this proposed ban. We don't block purely on WP:CIR grounds because we don't expect competence of new editors, but when your incompetence persists and/or is creating a massive amount of work for everyone else, competence indeed is required. Please note that I've edited the end of your proposal. Ban texts really ought to include only the provisions of the ban; statements of "behave or we'll expand the ban" are indeed appropriate, but separately, since they're not exactly something that can be enforced. However, if you want, you can propose that the ban be expandable without an additional discussion, e.g. "If Banhtrung repeatedly creates pages about NN people through AFC, these pages will be subject to speedy deletion even if they don't qualify under one of the standard criteria". I wouldn't support that proposal (it's too vague), but it's the format that you should use for anything beyond "he's hereby banned from X" — if he does action X, action Y is hereby authorised". Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for fixing that up. I wouldn't go towards including something about deletion, I'd be about removing the option to go through AFC, ie removing the last sentence. But it's just as easy to bring that back to AN rather than give the authority to admins in general. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also true. I really can't think of a situation when my proposal would be appropriate; it was simply a somewhat silly example. What's more, this ban proposal, if successful, will make any mainspace page creations eligible for G5 speedy deletions anyway. We might do well to expand the proposal to prohibit him from moving pages into mainspace or templatespace if he's created them; otherwise, he'd technically not be ban-violating if he were to create a page in userspace and then move it to mainspace immediately. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd consider that gaming the system and so a ban violation, however I've added a clause to make it clearer that this is a ban violation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'd just rather remove grounds for wikilawyering. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, 1,400+ deletions in three years is more than one a day. That has to be grounds for some sort of sanction based on disruption and damaging the reputation of WP. Yes, if a dozen or so deletions happened in that timespan, you wouldn't be too concerned, but for that many, something has to be done. Without going through their talkpage history, I assume they've been signposted to all the relevant guidance on notability, etc, many times? Lugnuts 07:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

...ahem, AfC is backlogged too... There was a recent case of another prolific page creator who was condemned to make new articles only through AfC. He was given his own category on the Category:Pending AfC submissions page so that his creations could be dealt with in batches. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - wording proposed by Callanecc seems spot-on. GiantSnowman 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Deli nk (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Enigma 14:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Recalling what the eventual outcome of the last editor we restricted from creating articles directly via a AFC review (They eventually became topic banned after the community/ArbEnforcement got tired of the disruption that was occuring) I have low confidence in just kicking the problem down the road. Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support proportional and appropriate. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per GiantSnowman. This user has no idea about WP:GNG as proven by the amount of non-notable articled deleted. JMHamo (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support In the absence of any rebuttal from the editor, this type of behavior unchecked is what frustrates others into quitting WP.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm concerned about this user's lack of communication -- only ~1.5% of his edits are to talk pages and I don't think he pays attention to his talk page. This is easily ending up as one of those "discover your talk page only after you've been blocked" cases. MER-C 05:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • True, he doesn't communicate and ignores messages on his talk page (there have been a number of complaints from other editors, and he ignores them). But I'm not sure what the alternative is here. Additionally, I guess someone should create an AfD for the 50+ NN stubs he's created. It's frustrating, because they shouldn't have to go through AfD, but someone always pops up and says since there's a link on the page it can't be speedied or PRODed. Enigma 06:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I recently created User:MER-C/payattention.js for this purpose, but I'm ambivalent towards applying it or waiting for the editor to earn himself a temporary block for violating the proposed topic ban. MER-C 13:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • On second thoughts, I have applied the script to point to this discussion. Once he has commented here, please delete User:Banhtrung1/common.js. MER-C 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - been here long enough, and presumably seen enough of their work deleted, to be expected to have read the notability requirements. Callanecc's proposal strikes a balance between allowing continued extensive editing while preventing further disruption. Euryalus (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Callanecc and GiantSnowman, but do share Hasteur's concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, appears necessary, although I also find the AfC exemption problematic. Nsk92 (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per Callanecc, but given the usual backlog at AfC, would it not be better to try to get him to interact with WP:FOOTY or WP:TENNIS? I would be happy for him to create userspace articles for review by the respective projects for notability. Still can't understand why someone would continue to create article after article in a competent manner, just to have the majority of them deleted. Looking at his / her talk page, there seems to be a bit of an issue around communication. If this can get them talking then they could be much more productive, especially in the football field where they operate in areas that need more attention. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This might sound like a weird question...

• Can I request an interaction ban against another user who constantly bothers me in discussions? If so, I'll start such a thread at ANI. Erpert 06:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You can start such a thread either here or at ANI. "Bothers" is a rather vague statement, so be cautious/solid about your policy-based links, and provide appropriate diff's ES&L 12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is that I feel as though another user has been trying to bully me for years because I don't share his/her viewpoints (I've seen it happen to other people too, but I can't speak for them). But I'll start a thread in a few minutes. Erpert 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done (didn't have time to do it before work). Erpert 07:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SALT Designemporia

Hello, please salt "Designemporia", "Designemporia.in", "Design Emporia" titles. Non-notable topics/promotional spam continuously being created directly in articles main space by SPAs. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

History:

(del/undel) 10:20, 3 April 2014 GB fan (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 07:25, 26 February 2014 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 09:36, 3 April 2014 Fram (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia.in (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 07:43, 28 February 2014 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia.in (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 10:20, 3 April 2014 GB fan (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Design Emporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

All titles now WP:SALT-d

There may be a valid article there. I'm happy to help with re-creation.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for an admin with oversight ability to look at an SPI

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc

Normally oversight-related requests are about suppressing edits, but this one is about peeking at what is already suppressed. If you saw my message to the functionaries mailing list, please note that I have amended and clarified the evidence (there may have been some confusion earlier). vzaak 22:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deskana and I are both working this one - Alison 23:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

UK Banknotes

File:Bank Of England10.png and others..

I note the permission needed to be renewed, any takers? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)