User talk:Laser brain/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Laser brain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Laser brain. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request (October 2016). The motion to open a case did not pass. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the article Belgium national football team is under review as FAC again. At the first FA review you raised several issues regarding citations and sources that needed to be solved. It took some time to cope with these and other comments, yet I thank you for your critical input as it helped to get the article forward. You are warmly invited to have a second look now. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What would you consider to be the proper way to invite reviewers to take part in a FAC without appearing to be canvassing? TIA. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just ensure the message is neutral and that you are asking for review against the FA criteria, not explicitly asking for support. Something like: "Since you are interested in this topic area, I invite you to review my nomination and leave comments about how it compares with the Featured article criteria." --Laser brain (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Is there any way to engage in quid pro quo in FAC without being accused of practicing canvassing? Liebe99 (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with asking someone for a review as long as the wording is neutral—see directly above. --Laser brain (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, LB, I hope all's well at your end. I currently have an FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor Swift/archive2, which is awaiting final judgement but the other coord has rescued from his duty on it. I'm looking forward to the final judgement you have to make that I think is due. Tks – FrB.TG (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I've been a bit slammed with RL since I got back from traveling, but I will look at your nomination within the next 1–2 days. Sorry for the wait! --Laser brain (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder. :-) – 77.20.251.243 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain. You placed Political positions of Donald Trump under DS restrictions, but you forgot to log it here. Also, would you mind adding an edit notice to the article? Many thanks. - MrX 17:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrX, the page falls under American politics DS regardless of the Talk page notice. The notice makes it more difficult to claim ignorance when they cause problems. We don't log individual articles unless we apply some restriction like 1RR under DS. I'll look into the edit notice. --Laser brain (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that's correct. The notice that you placed on the talk page states that the article is restricted (1RR, consensus required, etc.). Page restrictions have to be logged and American political articles are not automatically restricted; they are authorized to be restricted at the discretion of an uninvolved admin. Please see WP:AC/DS and WP:ARBAPDS. - MrX 23:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I'm sorry, you are correct of course. My memory was that I simply clarified that the page falls under DS, but I see that I actually placed restrictions. I will remedy the logging error when I'm home and not on mobile. --Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

First, let me assert that I admire you for your 3 FAs. Really, I do. But even though I voted for Hillary, oh, I am so glad that that bigotted, mysogonistic demagog will be POTUS. I am glad! Now please increase that duration pronto, Andy. Pronto.--172.56.1.155 (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember the first time my parents let me on the internet unsupervised. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#De-linking Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you put a long URL in your ES without a link (which is very annoying). Infobox person (which I put in the note) says, "Per this RFC, this parameter should be included only where significant to the article subject..." That's what we go by. If (local) consensus is that it shouldn't be used, that's fine. As you know, there was a discussion about this, but it wasn't conclusive. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I annoyed you. You have to admit the parameter in this case is more hassle than it's probably worth. --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably so, but I'm sure someone (if not the same editor) will attempt to add it again. I guess just like they say to never discuss religion or politics because it'll bring conflicts, it's the same for infoboxes (or WP articles in general). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently nominated this article to be reviewed for GA. I've noticed your contributions to the music-related topics, and therefore wanted to invite you to review it. ArturSik (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Laser brain, thank you for your helpful advice. I've cleaned it up and removed a lot [1]. Look better ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input, I guess it made things clearer for you and another [2]. I agree with you the report looks much less confusing for the reader now. Sagecandor (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laser, can you explain why you closed the FAC for the acne vulgaris page, please? This was actively being worked on and I'm rather unclear on where this perception of it being "stalled" came into play. I really would appreciate clarification here since issues were being actively discussed on this FAC page and actively being addressed (and were nearly complete). I think a bit of a heads up that you were concerned about it stalling might have also been a nice courtesy (perhaps a ping to the active users would have been inappropriate since I was at work and do need some time to respond). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Thanks for the note. Once nominations pass the three week mark (and into the "Older nominations" section) we start taking a look at how long they should remain open and what kind of progress has been made toward consensus for promotion. If there have not been any declarations of support, the nomination is much more likely to be archived. This one had been open for well over a month, and we do tend to allow a bit more leeway considering the holidays but the support just wasn't there. My "stalled" remark was simply in reference to the fact that there hadn't been much participation from reviewers in the last week or so. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I still say it would have been a nice courtesy to ping us before closing it. Seppi had said they're busy but a reminder note may have helped. Same with Opabinia. Now I have to start from scratch again and that's very frustrating. Please consider that before unilaterally making a decision like that. There was significant forward progress. Something like this is a good example of what I mean [3]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a unilateral decision. I'm a coordinator at FAC which means the community has entrusted me with the responsibility of determining consensus for promoting or archiving nominations. In the example you noted, Seppi is not a coordinator nor is he correct about the "two month" statement. Coordinators may occasionally prod reviewers or nominators in cases where a single issue is holding up a nomination, but keeping a system going where we would warn nominators about pending closure is just too much overhead to keep fair and consistent. I definitely understand your frustration, but your nomination had not earned any support for promotion and it's better to get a fresh start in two weeks than have it languishing at the bottom of the list for weeks on end. You can always contact those who have commented thus far and ask them to revisit and consider making a declaration of support or opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As a member of the Wikipedia coomunity, I maintain that's still very annoying and think it's more redundant to go through the whole process a second time. Besides, pinging people requires minimal effort. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As one of the other FAC coords, I also understand the frustration but concur with the closure -- we try to maintain a reasonable throughput at FAC to help prevent noms becoming 'stale', and when one's been open almost six weeks without any clear support for promotion, a break (during which any outstanding comments can be actioned, possibly in collaboration with some of the original FAC reviewers) followed by a re-nom and pings to those earlier reviewers is generally the next step. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked TonyTheTiger who in Wikipedia is a good writer. One name he mentioned is currently ill and not active. Two former FAC are also not active. Current FAC's, like you, were deemed as good writers by Tony.

What I seek is merely an opinion for me to learn and confirmation that my judgement is intact. I seek to avoid redundancy in prose and want your opinion. Note that, although the topic is political, I have no political motivations and even have declared that I will not edit the particular political article except to correct the first 1-2 sentences.

The background is that I merely want to address redundany. Donald Trump has never held elected office and is not a career politician. I believe that if the term is used in the same sentence as President or President-elect, it is not optimal prose because of redundancy.

Base sentence, which I believe has redundant aspects:

1. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States. He is expected to take the presidential oath of office on January 20, 2017.

Instead, I believe that a second sentence should be used to expand on the first. This 2 sentence structure reduces the redundancy of the base sentence/sentence 1.

2. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American real estate developer, television personality, and politician. He is the President-elect of the United States. He is expected to take the presidential oath of office on January 20, 2017. (possible variations include, but are not limited to replacement of "businessman" with real estate developer or other ideas.)

Other examples of undesired redundancy are sample #3 and 4. This is redundant because the only wine that Trump sold was Trump Wine (just like the only political position he held is President-elect, never mayor or senator or a career politician):

3. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American real estate CEO, winemaker, and maker of Trump Wine. The only wine he has ever marketed was Trump Wine.

4. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American businessperson, businessman, politician, and President-elect of the United States.

Again, my focused question is that of redundancy and prose (if a 2 sentence structure with the 2nd sentence expanding on the first and not jammed together helps address the redundancy issue. No editor in the Donald Trump talk page has commented on redundancy and may not have the editorial expertise to make a judgement, unlike you. Thank you. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Usernamen1: I'm sorry but I have been involved as an administrator in the American Politics realm and therefore do not wish to get involved in editorial matters. I do advise you to centralize your discussion of the content of any article on the article Talk page. Posting on editor Talk pages about it makes tracking the discussion difficult for other interested editors. Good luck to you! --Laser brain (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm planning the merge the paragraphs with already existing information and just editing the announcement part with the release part, so I'm making the edit again and this time I'll add the edit summary to explain my edit better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkunsoylu (talk • contribs) 12:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Three years ago ...

featured pet projects
... you were recipient no. 700 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My edit for Kasparov.com (a website I very much support) was deleted for lack of citation but I found Russian sovereign territory as citation enough via an elite proxy server. You can go to Russia and check for me, but until then leave my work alone.

Most Russian native speakers can read Russian. Are you one of them? Or are you a foreign Russian reader who can't make common sense out of Russian I will cite through the portal on the website for you verify by a scholarly cited source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylecrabtree (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Re [4]: Is there ever a reason we'd want to move this page? Retaining indefinite move protection for pages like this is commonplace, assuming there's no conceivable reason it'd ever need to be moved — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Not in the slightest! I suppose my reading of the protection policy is that we default to unprotected unless there is disruption. I don't mind if you want to reinstate the move protection. --Laser brain (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Laser brain,

Thank you for your message. I don't know whether this is the right way to reply, as I have never received a wikipedia message before! Nor do I frequently edit articles.

In this case, I came across the article when searching for some information, and I noticed some inaccuracies and ommissions on matters I am familiar with (I have authored several text books on EU institutions), so took the liberty of editing a couple of sections of that article.

I am familiar with the subject matter and can assure you that what I wrote is accurate. I don't think I deleted much of what was there before, though I did re-organise the order of some paragraphs, which might make it look as though I was deleting whole sections, which was not the case.

I see that you or someone else has reverted to the previous version, thereby deleting ALL my changes, not even attempting to make adjustments where it is considered that I have gone wrong. I think that is a pity.

best regards

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.155.82 (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That is an unbelievable decision regarding Etienne Dolet. The editor is assiduous, careful: exactly what you need for an encyclopedia. That care was demonstrated by the concise presentation of evidence in their complaint. I wish I could say the same of the admin response, but I'll be blunt: it was a hack job, and suffered from the worst of academic faults: laziness. I'm sorry I can't be any more charitable here. -Darouet (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: There has been no decision yet, as the filing is still open. You seem to be confused about what exactly is on the table. No one has proposed that ED be banned from Wikipedia—only that he be banned from filing and commenting on AE requests. The board has become ground zero for a handful of deeply involved and entrenched editors to file complaints about each other, and this particular one is a poster child for wildly inaccurate portrayals of events. I'm a bit surprised by your comment, to be honest. As an academic, are you in the habit of calling your colleagues lazy hacks when their conclusions differ from your own? Get some perspective, please. --Laser brain (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)r

@Laser brain: I understood it was a ban from AE, not wikipedia. I'm also not calling you a lazy hack: there is a difference between people and the work they produce, and I think very good editors sometimes do very poor jobs. I've been guilty of (plenty of) mistakes myself, and I wouldn't call you that. Lastly, I'm glad that your proposal hasn't been formally adopted, though it would be quite unjust if it were. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What I expect most editors find concerning is that compelling evidence of VM's article disruption is barely addressed in admin responses. Instead you (pl) see the problem as gaming AE to control content. ED's behavior in this regard is scrutinized and - as with evidence of article disruption - VM's behavior, having submitted the most politics-related AE complaints of any editor, is ignored. Not even mentioned. It suggests evidence and behavior have little bearing on outcome. D.Creish (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There is this IP making these unnecessary edits that doesn't go by WP:MOS. Edits like this, this and this. These edits had got reverted by several editors for these kind of edits, even an editor tell him about MOS but it got ignored. Are these edits are disruptive? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Yes, it's disruptive. If they won't respond to notices about minding the MOS, they will have to receive a block because they are making a lot of work for other editors. --Laser brain (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, I let you know when this IP try to make the same disruptive edits after the block expired. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

After the block has been removed, this IP continue making the same disruptive edits as before, just recently the IP has made this edit. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the talk page. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Laser brain. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

hi i just created an article for Joshua travagli but for some reason you deleted it can you please help me to get that published as the guy is notable you saw all the refrances.

Even Joshua Travagli and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Etienne are same notable Please check again and allow this article to be published on Wikipedia.

Even we have article for

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefano_Bonomo
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_(footballer)

which are less notable than this guy

Hi. I think [5] this is pretty convincing; an SPI would be pointless because EscoLaFlare edits from mobile (note, as usual, the persistent addition of unsourced material). My inclination is simply to indef both - thought I'd get your view first. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi. I've ended up here when Black Kite recently removed a couple of reports at WP:AIV and I had wanted to review which ones were removed, Within that time, I came here and wanted to bring up another user; JayPe who could also be related to this (they are blocked for 3 months, same as Xboxmanwar). Here is the edit analyzer. Regards. 172.58.40.158 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Anon: These rap articles are somewhat of a walled garden and attract many well-meaning editors who are enthusiastic about filling in details. At first glance it's easy to think we're dealing with a sockfarm because of the overlap in editing interests. However, we have to look a bit deeper at communication style, habits, and so on. I have no doubt EscoLaFlare and Xboxmanwar are the same person, but I'd have to see a lot more evidence re: JayPe. --Laser brain (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: That would be my inclination as well. --Laser brain (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And then I found this [6]. Now of course WilkesJacob2 is a sock of WilkesJacob ... who was created the very day that Xboxmanwar got blocked for a week. I have indeffed the whole lot of them. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain,

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star of Bengal/archive1:

I kindly ask you to move forward with our conversation. If there are serious problems with the article, I would appreciate a chance to learn what they are. Then I will withdraw the nomination, work to fix them, and resubmit later, if I can. It's important for me to find this out sooner rather than later, because I keep working on other large articles, and I'd definitely welcome an opportunity to learn ways to improve my style/approach early on. On the other hand, if there are only minor issues that are easily fixable, I ask to move forward with the nomination. I understand that mentoring is not required.

Please don't misunderstand me: I appreciate your work, and I know that with a few other editors, you took on a major task of safeguarding the quality of Wikipedia FAs. That's an admirable and respectable task. Please understand the other side of it though. If a very large piece of one's work is rejected or indefinitely delayed on the basis of six m-dashes and four periods, this editor might feel denigrated and discouraged. These feelings are bad ingredients for quality contributions which in your position, you presumably seek. Hence, I kindly ask you to be more specific and engaged. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Laser brain, thank you very much for your time. I'd appreciate a full review from you when the time comes. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, I was simply reverting the edits Kurzon made. You recently extended confirmed protected the article due to Kurzon socking. He was mistakenly unblocked for about a day, and during that time returned to the same disruption. If you think it was a good edit then I won't revert, but still, I have to wonder. What was the point of protecting that page if now you're just going to let his edits stick? Sro23 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: I apologize—I hadn't followed the latest Kurzon development. I had blocked several of his socks and advised him to post an unblock request using his main account, which he did. The last I saw, he was unblocked, and I didn't realize he had been re-blocked. Sorry for the mix-up, I should have done my homework! --Laser brain (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you please close the "Vandalism and ignoring varning" section from the ANI? The user admitted that he deleted fully-cited sentence by a mistake and I do not think that he is a sockpuppet anymore. Also the edit-war has been stopped since 21 January. Regards, 88.254.94.183 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This IP is making unnecessary edits like this to hip-hop related articles, these edits goes not follow WP:MoS, this IP has made this edit here in this article. I've have reverted the edits made by this IP, and in a few days later this IP made this bold edit. I request a block should be necessary if the IP continue these disruptive edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Laser brain, be aware this user has already requested this action at User talk:Ferret#Disruptive editing (@Ferret: for good measure). --Izno (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: What are you replying? I just wanna hear a second opinion of this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: This is called WP:Forum shopping when done without notifying the other people from whom you've requested an opinion, and is, if not forbidden, definitely frowned upon. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Well, I didn't know that was against the guidelines. My mistake, I won't do that again. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: There is definitely nothing wrong with asking an administrator directly for help, but of course there is a potential for duplicated work or confusion if you ask in multiple places and that's mainly what we want to avoid. --Laser brain (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for bugging you about this IP, but this IP has made this edit in the Rodeo (Travis Scott album) article, not only this IP linking phrases, he also removed a large portion of the content without explaining why. This IP has made this edit here in the Dark Sky Paradise article just recently. I thank the edits is made by the same person you blocked earlier is possibly using multiple accounts, here a simple of the edits by the IP you have blocked in this article [7], you can see the edits look almost the same. Again sorry for bugging you these edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: That is indeed the same editor. Thanks for the heads-up. --Laser brain (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey again. You have blocked this IP a week ago and after the block has expired, the IP continue the same disruptive editing to articles, edits like these just recently [8] [9] [10]. Another editor Ss112 have reverted several edits by this IP and after the edits been reverted, the IP made this edit. I'm here to requested a longer block because this editor is clearly not listening. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, this editor is making edits that are unnecessary. After you blocked this IP for two weeks, this editor has returned and still doing same thing right after the block expired. Edits like these just recently [11] [12] [13] [14], the editor clearly didn't learned a lesson from the block. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Laser brain, I am nominator for an article currently at FAC, Nyuserre Ini. The article has received three supports and no oppose so far. My question is double: is there a minimum number of supports required for promotion ? If so what happen if an article does not reach this number simply because not enough people have reviewed it (that is suppose there are no oppose but too few support votes)? This problem is important for me as I work on Ancient Egyptian pharaohs and typically few people will review the articles. Thus I worry about the lack of review. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The traditional absolute minimum is three supports, along with satisfactory image and source reviews, but it can vary owing to several factors. Are the supports based on a comprehensive appreciation of the FAC criteria or are they basically just drive-bys? Is the subject of the article complex or controversial, meaning there should be more reviews and, hopefully, more support before promotion? Are all the supportive comments from editors in the same wikiproject (e.g. Roads members for a Roads article, MilHist members for a MilHist article) or are there one or two from outside the specialist area to help ensure that the article is accessible to a wider audience? And so on... To get down to specifics, Nyuserre Ini has had one quite comprehensive review, and two brief ones, so I'd prefer to leave it open for further comment, but there is no serious danger of it being archived while we await that -- it's been open a little over three weeks, and that's not a particularly long time at FAC these days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose Thank you for this info, I am still a bit worried though because often pharaoh articles only get reviews from people belonging to the Ancient Egypt Wikiproject, of which I am also a member. That said, the articles are totally non controversial. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry for any difficulty at the Garage rock article talk page and apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused you. I have never before edit-warred, but this time I felt I had to make a stand. There was that past situation that caused me to doubt the good faith of the person who kept putting the tags there. While I am proud of my work in the article, the never-ending processes surrounding it have become frustrating in a way I could not have predicted. I nominated it for GA in November 2015 and went through that whole process to get it up to GA. Then, after doing another big expansion, I sent it to peer review (in preparation for FAC). Then, there was the whole split controversy in November, which resulted in a host of discussions and changes. I listened to most of the editors' wishes to see a smaller article, and since then I've reduced 150Kbs (compare November [15] and now [16]). I expressed to Ilovetopaint a willingness to make the changes in text statements he'd like to see (after I get the article trimmed down to only the bands and acts who will remain there). In light of my efforts to work with everyone and make changes, I think that the whole GA challenge proposal was unnecessary and disruptive. Quite frankly this whole process is turning into a nightmare. I just want the article to arrive at a good destination. I've put so much love and dedication into this, but it now all seems like a pipe dream. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: It's no bother to me. I was merely commenting on an edit-warring situation. My main point is that it would cost you little to leave the tag in place. It's not a black mark upon the article—just an indication that it may need independent assessment. It takes a lot before I'm willing to think someone is not acting in good faith. Someone fresh could have come along and said, "Nah, this is a strong GA" (if that is the case) and that would have been the end of it. But edit warring cost you more, as it got you involved in a dispute and a noticeboard filing. Hope that makes sense. Pinging TheGracefulSlick since their edits are being discussed here. To be clear: This is not an invitation to continue the dispute on my Talk page. I'm merely observing that I think it's OK to ask for a third opinion on whether the article should undergo GA reassessment and then just leave it at that. --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There is not a person here whose collaboration and friendship I have cherished more than TheGracefulSlick. I just wish he had the same regard for me, or at least would have some sense of propriety about how to treat friends and close collaborators. I have reviewed three of his articles that went GA. He knows good and well how much the Garage article means to me and how hard I've worked on it, and to do something like attempt to influence another editor into challenging the article's GA status is just plain unbecoming. Working on the Garage rock article, though a lot of work, used to be a joy, but now it has become an unending hell. I'm just trying to work with people to see it though get it right, and just when there seemed to be light at the end of the tunnel, comes this. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me Laser brain, but I have no interest in this since Garagepunk66 is once again dramatizing the situation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just telling you the truth. Try having respect for others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Who's scruffy looking???? Ribbet32 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you've had to deal with them before. I thought you'd like to know they've had behavior problems elsewhere before. They are currently topic banned from even discussing pro wrestling on Wikipedia, due to their incessant creation of unnecessary re-directs and adding of non-notable nicknames. It spanned months because they refused to listen to warnings given to them. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 06:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of Ranze's disciplinary history. Thanks for the note! --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to make sure because they can be a hand full. lol. Have a good one. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 16:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see you blocked Ranze. The animosity between Ranze and I not-withstanding, I do feel it is fair to say that both Brock Turner and the victim were drunk. It was reported as such in the news and to not include that in the lede borders on POV, in my opinion. It doesn't soften him towards the reader, because the fact is he committed a crime, no matter how someone looks at it. So, I don't think that would be a valid argument, in my opinion. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: I have no interest in debating the content of those articles, and I made it clear to Ranze that he should steer clear of the domain because he's pushing an agenda and his edits are not innocuous as he would have you believe. His response was to keep pushing it, to engage also at Zoë Quinn (which is also clearly within the domain), and then just tell me about how his position is correct. If he wants to appeal to WP:AE and other uninvolved admins believe he should be unblocked, I'll go along with such consensus. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no contact with him what-so-ever so his appealing is of no consequence to me. However, I do feel it should be noted that they were both drunk, as it was reported on the news. That's my point, as I saw that one of his edits did state this, I looked at the diff. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Laser brain, Many thanks for your extended source review on the Morgan article. It's a shame the review ended up where it did, but your efforts were much appreciated, even if I did not make that clear at the time. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm three years older and wiser and should be given a chance to contribute. If it doesn't work out, just ban or block me again. We all agreed to discuss the highly contentious topics on the Talk page and then edit the article. It seems that I'm the only one being forced to follow that agreement, but I have followed it. The administrators are complaining about recent edits, but have you actually reviewed some of those edits. In one edit, a sentence said "authors said xyz", I added several citations so that readers would know exactly which authors made the statement and where they could read more about it. The article was enriched. What is there to complain about?Rod (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dailey78: Thank you, and I do think it would be a benefit for you to post this to your AE request so the other commenting admins can read it. I'm willing to extend good faith generally and I believe you can make useful and productive contributions. When when conflicts occur, and they will occur, how will you react? --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

All the editors of the highly contentious article(s) agreed to post contentious edits on the Talk page and discuss there, without edit warring the posts on the actual article. It's the only workable solution, because editors disagree strongly and often about this topic.Rod (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, not sure what you mean by improper tone and poor sources - can you please clarify. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arktseytlin (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you too! It's been so many years haha. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have transcribed Ranze's appeal to WP: AE --Kyohyi (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking about submitting the Garage rock article to FAC soon (not too soon--I can give it a little time if need be). But, I was wondering if you could take a look at it and give me your thoughts. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the talk page at the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain, I am re-adding the image with better wordings which may add value; if you are not happy, please feel free to revert.Miriammee (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated the article about the episode Eve Russell for Featured Article consideration. I have received a note that it could use more commentary on comprehensiveness and source reliability, and I was wondering if you could help me with this. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eve Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the five image and source FAC reviews you did during February, on top of your coordinator duties. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! And thanks for putting the stats together. --Laser brain (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Could I get help with this, or some matter of opinion? MCMLXXXIX 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: I'm not clear on what your question is. Help finding the particular source in question, or help in general addressing that editor's opposition? --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The source already exists in the article. The second option. MCMLXXXIX 18:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well the editor seems be arguing that doing a search of scholarly literature (academic journals, etc through library searches) might turn up material that you've missed. It would be helpful if they could provide other examples, but they have a point, especially if serious academic work (like literary criticism) has been done on the subject. This may help: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches. --Laser brain (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that more of a suggestion than a serious problem? MCMLXXXIX 19:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I'm being harassed on my talk page over my oppose vote - and it's only been a day. I thought my request was pretty cut&dried and actionable, and I tried to base it on the FA criteria. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wanting clarification and explaining how your vote isn't valid is not harassment. MCMLXXXIX 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• The comments are germane to criterion 1c, so they should be considered actionable especially since library searches are turning up new sources. It's not a "problem" per se, just something to act on to make sure the article is comprehensive and well-researched. It is quite normal for a reviewer to oppose a nomination until they feel all the criteria are met (I've done so myself many times) so try to see it as help rather than hindrance. --Laser brain (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• For the fact that this person has added scholar sources on their own, and have not removed their vote, I view it as a hindrance. Also, I have tried finding "new sources" about the character, and I can't find much of anything. MCMLXXXIX 18:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• If you feel you have demonstrated that the opposition is no longer actionable (i.e. that you have found and added sources as appropriate), then the coordinators will take that into account when considering the article for promotion. Try not to worry too much about it. I did a cursory search through my university library and didn't come with anything new, so maybe we've gotten what we can from academia. --Laser brain (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• What does this sentence mean from WP:FAC? Who does this apply to? None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. MCMLXXXIX 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• @1989: If your nomination gets archived, you have to wait at least two weeks before renominating it, or nominating anything else. You can ask a coordinator for an exception if you have a reason and we're usually pretty laid back about that. --Laser brain (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Even when it gets promoted? MCMLXXXIX 16:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) There is no two-week wait if your nominated article is promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Laser brain, you were involved with a decision to impose a 6 month block on user HughD [[17]]. Starting about a month before the block was to expire I believe that HughD started to engage in a campaign of edits intended to harass me via various topics I'm interested in. I've presented evidence on The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)'s talk page and he agrees that the evidence that this is HughD is strong [[18]]. I wanted to ask if you had suggestions for how to deal with this behavior. A previous SPI resulted in a no conclusion but I don't think the behavior evidence was there at the time. At this point I think the behavior evidence is strong. Additionally once one of the Amazon Proxies the IP was using was blocked [[19]] he quickly moved to another[[20]]. I understand at some level with IP editors you are always playing wack a mole. While the current IP editing is obnoxious, in and of itself it isn't violating the rules that would apply to editors in general. However, if these are all the same editor using a series of Amazon proxies then HughD started editing before his block was over, he has edited a climate change article (topic ban violation) and I would argue that given the broadly construed topic ban on post 1932 politics discussions of the GM bankruptcy and firearms and crime would be violations. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks! Springee (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: I'm afraid I don't have anything to offer other than what other admins seem to be paying attention to already. My normal action with trolls is not to feed them (i.e. give them the attention they are looking for). If there are a handful of articles where the socking is particularly egregious, we can consider semi-protection until he finds a new hobby. --Laser brain (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

Could I make a change about musical genres with sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintboxing (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I brought back an entire section that was on the page for years and was unnecessarily deleted for no good reason, I simply restored it I was not looking at the finer details. You noticed a spelling error? Great, simply make a minor edit to fix it don't delete an entire section. I have made contributions to the Amityville page for years and added many of the new films as they were released and made articles for some of the later films. The section which lists the films, release dates, directors etc. is a good section and has served the page well for years so why now all of a sudden the section shouldn't be there anymore? SuddenDeth (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@SuddenDeth: What in the world are you talking about? Look at the edit: [21] All you did was introduce a misspelling and change a column size (which is pointless). I have no idea what "section" you're on about. --Laser brain (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you actually look at the 2 versions you would see that the "Films" section was left completely empty. It may look like my edit only did that because the section was MOVED not added in. You need to actually look at the page not just the undo section. You can do that by clicking on the date on the edit history not the undo button. You're an administrator you should know that. SuddenDeth (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I see what happened. In this edit an IP user removed the closing bracket from the Films table so it disappeared. In your edit you re-added the bracket and that caused the table to appear again. That was my mistake not to see that, and I apologize. --Laser brain (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Could you create a page for "John Latham" by Pink Floyd, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintboxing (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Paintboxing: I'm not sure what you're asking for. There are several songs that fall under that name and they are detailed in our article The Early Years 1965–1972. I'm not sure if any one of the songs should have its own article. I don't know much about it. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to draft an article if you wish to write one. --Laser brain (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again as recommended by the closing admin. I will only go ahead and renominate it once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: I'd be happy to review it when you renominate. One caveat is that if the other two coordinators review it, I'll have to stay out so I am still capable of acting on it as coordinator. Good luck! --Laser brain (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Here is the second nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive2. Look at it when you can. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any of the other coordinators are going to review it. Would you like to give it a review? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall that you and User:Black Kite were the blocking admin for Xboxmanwar. Would you have a moment to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar? User Bloomdoom2 is editing with a very similar style. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Laser Brain - working to update some articles with information and noticed you undid the two test edits, which i thought were nice and useful additions to the articles. Please let me know how to contribute without getting hard work deleted. I saw the comment that the additions were "unneeded" but in general anything could be viewed that way.

For example, adding the style of music and the univ. beginning for PPP is a nice thing to know. And with AMS, the website is everything, so why not have a mention and a link to it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.182.162 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

1. 1 - Re: AMS - It's not a matter of promoting anything inappropriately, but i didn't see and still don't see mention of the website or link to it there.

1. 2 - PPP - if the content is valuable and a reference to original content should be allowed as long as it is not an abuse, which it definitely adds to the article, then it should be allowed so i would petition that.

1. 3 - however if you are deleting because of bad code or format, can you please fix that instead of deleting? And, if you show me the proper format i am glad to comply with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.107.51 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to communicate with you because you keep changing IP addresses—please consider creating an account. At any rate, Wikipedia is not the place to promote AMS or link to articles within AMS. You have a link to your site on the AMS main article and that's sufficient. --Laser brain (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware, but both Ian and I are recused on Alan Shepard. So that's a first! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As you got the last account created by Lurulu, I thought you should know that it looks like they created a new sock called Duck.walker. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and Japanese.silk. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

And now White.leader... DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this editor has "returned to productive editing" after your unblock. On both March 30th and 31st she edited over 100 articles, and once again -- as she was doing before -- her editing seems to be without much concern for how the addition of her images affect the article. When she does do layout adjustments, they do not seem to be functional or visually attractive: they seem to have been done more to be able to squeeze in her image than to improve the article. I leave it to your judgment, but I think it would be worthwhile for you to take a look at some of her edits to see if my description is accurate, and, if it is, for you -- as the admin who blocked her before -- to repeat her the advice she's gotten before, to slow down and pay attention to what her additions do to articles, and if they are necessary at all. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24.178.2.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 66.169.145.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Somebody is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing in rap related articles in recent months. They don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or Manual of Style, and they are continuing to be disruptive and change the prose on articles, such as Hurricane Chris (rapper), if you look at the edit history of this article, these IPs keep coming back changing the grammar all over again as a sandbox. I believe these edits are made by same editor because their grammar is terrible, and their changes are disruptive as they keep making them and add nothing constructive.

Here are the examples of these IPs edits on other articles in the past months.

• [22]
• [23]
• [24]

These IPs also have a bad habit of linking common phrases like "rapper", "recording artist", "producer" or any other common words to articles, especially in the lead section, it doesn't really need to be linked because a majority of readers would already understand the basic concept. Linking common words are a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:OVERLINKING), please look in to it. Thank you. Also I already reported this at ANI, but didn't get much of an response. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @Ss112:, @Magnolia677:, @IndianBio:, @Sergecross73:, @Cornerstonepicker:, @Dan56: and @Jennica: because they mostly edit mostly music related articles, and I like to hear their opinion of this grammar issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the IP's edits need to be monitored, but this seems like a WP:COMPETENCE issue and not something necessarily actionable through ANI or by an administrator necessarily. Just add Hurricane Chris (rapper) and such to your watchlist, keep an eye out for changes, revert sensibly if necessary, send them warnings if you think they've added original research and so on. Anyway, that's my two cents. Ss112 12:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ss112. It can test our patience surely, to deal with new or inexperienced editors, but it's just part of the normal task of monitoring watched articles. Correct and revert good faith edits as necessary. Dealing with IPs is a game of whack-a-mole but we can certainly semi-protect articles where there is sustained disruption. IPs that are sources of pure vandalism or bad faith edits should be warned and blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Laser brain and Ss112. I did send a warning in the talk page recently, but if I did report the edits at AIV what should I reported for, because the edits are not considered as vandalism by some administrators. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't vandalism, so AIV is not appropriate and it's not really even an administrative matter until they reach a level 3 or 4 warning. I will keep an eye out but you will probably get the fastest results if you bring the matter to any active admin's talk page once they've received a final warning and are continuing the behavior. Bear in mind that blocking a user for MoS violations and things of that nature is kind of an edge case and it may not even happen. Unsourced edits are more serious and I'd generally apply a series of escalating blocks. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well most of the IP's edits are unsourced, like these edits here [25] [26], I could report them as unsourced material, like another editor did. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I also believe you should warn them as unsourced/disruptive edits. That's certainly not vandalism (so far), but may be really annoying. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: Most of the recently edits are minor so far, but however if the IP continues to unnecessary changes grammar that doesn't make sense in articles, I will send a warning only if necessary. For now I keeping my eyes on the edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP has made these edits [27] [28] just recently. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at the edits but it's not obvious to me why you are undoing them wholesale or what's wrong with them. They seem like good faith edits and you should, at the least, be using an informative edit summary and trying to work with the user if they are doing something wrong. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You're are right, I should be using an intormative edit summary and trying to work with the user, but the problem is the user don't respond to anything at all. I don't like editors who do not respond to their follow editors and continue doing the same thing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand but as I said, I can't even tell why you are undoing their edits. I'm sure I could spot some things wrong with them if I looked closely, but at a casual glance I'm not sure what's going on. I would be aggravated if you did that to me. For example here you undid at least some changes that were helpful to the article, like adding periods to notes that are full sentences. --Laser brain (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the sentences doesn't make any real sense and some of them are not supported by sources (the lead section). The IP changes the word five to number 5, which is not in the guidelines, zero to nine are spelled out in words (WP:NUMERAL), and the notes are not full sentences they do not require periods. Any editor who only do articles based on music can tell it's correct or not, I understand the IP try to help, but it's not in the right way to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice the comment about your "misuse of the duck test" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar.

I thought my assertions at that SPI were quacking pretty loud, but these things happen.

Anyway, this afternoon I was online trying to find more information about the book The Bible Cure for Irritable Bowel Syndrome when I came across a Reddit editor by the name of "Bloomdoom2".

Bloomdoom2 began posting to Reddit in the summer of 2016, and much like Bloomdoom2 the Wikipedia editor, he only writes on Reddit about hiphop and rap.

Bloomdoom2 has made about 40 or so edits to Reddit, and has started nine discussions there.

(Bloomdoom2 on Wikipedia bagan editing in February 2017, a month after Xboxmanwar was blocked)

In the summer of 2016, Bloomdoom2 was in this Reddit discussion where he talked about discovering that Kodak Black used to go by the nick-name "J-Black". What a coincidence that on August 28, 2016, Xboxmanwar made this edit to the Kodak Black article, adding that his nickname used to be "J-Black".

In the Fall of 2016, Bloomdoom2 announced in a hiphop chat room on Reddit that he had "made the news" by unearthing information about a rapper named "Young M.A". You can ever see Bloomdoom2's name mentioned in the Complex article here. What a coincidence that on October 18, 2016, Xboxmanwar created the article Young M.A, and used that very article from Complex as a source.

Bloomdoom2 has created nine discussions on Reddit (see [29]), which I have organized below by date. I have added comments below each of Bloomdoom2's article titles.

1. "Kodak Black's Old Twitter (Apparently he used to be Called j-Black) (twitter.com)" (August 2016)

AND

2. "Kodak Black in the good ol' days (August 2016)"

• Xboxmanwar was a major editor of Kodak Black, and created Kodak Black discography.

3. "Unreleased French Montana x Migos Artist/Title Missing (clyp.it)" (August 2016)

• Xboxmanwar made 24 edits to French Montana, 37 to French Montana discography, and 8 to Migos.

4. "Young M.A's really old youtube account, talks about lesbians and relationships (youtube.com)" (Oct. 2016)

• See above.

5. "Your Eyez Only by J. Cole Full Album Credits. (i.redd.it)" (Nov. 2016)

• No edits by Xboxmanwar to J. Cole.

6. "Radio Interview with Drake's super producer Allen Ritter (Produced Work by Rihanna, also produced for Travis Scott, Future, etc.) (soundcloud.com)" (Feb. 2017)

• Xboxmanwar created the article Allen Ritter, and participated agressively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination).

7. "Desiigner's Old Twitter (twitter.com)" (Feb. 2017)

• Xboxmawar created the article Desiigner.

8. "Smash David (producer of Bounce Back by Big Sean) addresses TM88 controversy by saying that TM88 stole his beat (soundplug.net)" (Feb. 2017)

• On Xboxmanwar's user page, he/she describes Smash David as one of the two articles "I contributed to significantly that were deleted".

9. "Theory Behind the Beat of Act by Juicy J and Bounce Back by Big Sean (self.hiphopheads)" (March 2017)

• Xboxmanwar edited Big Sean five times, Big Sean discography seven times, and Bounce Back (Big Sean song) 15 times.

Anyway. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ivanvector but I'm not taking the comment about misuse of WP:DUCK personally. If Ivanvector sees it as a non-obvious case then it's a legitimate criticism. I do see it as obvious, as I've been involved in dealing with rap and hip hop editors as an administrator for quite a long time. At any rate, we'll continue to treat Bloomdoom as a different editor and AGF unless/until they have problems again. --Laser brain (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can the SPI be re-opened? Magnolia677 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have more evidence to present you could open a new case. However, unless a CheckUser somehow finds more convincing technical evidence, you are unlikely to get a block issued from that venue. I'm guessing this guy edits from a school someplace where the IP range is similar but we can't peg him down to one IP address (hence the "possible" outcome). I think it will be better to treat him as a new editor and he can be blocked like anyone else if he fails to follow policies. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll look into that. Thanks again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)