Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

BLP revdel on the Gamergate Talk page

Discussion

I am asking for a review for a revdel made on the Gamergate Talk page. The edit was made by MarkBernstein, who has since been topic-banned (not for this edit or anything directly related to this). It is verbatim, a passage from the Washington Post article, so cannot be deemed "unsourced or poorly sourced", which is the criteria for BLP removals without consensus. Ironically, the passage which was redacted is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations. I am not even allowed to refer to what it was about, since my edit was also revdeled. The link to the Washington Post article is here. The relevant passage starts with: There is, to be clear.

Various rationales have been advanced on the talk page (see discussion here), but none of them stand up to scrutiny. IMO, this is a wild overreaction. The normalization of this kind of overreaction and weaponization of BLP on the talkpage has poisoned discussion and led to lots of strife, both pro- and anti-GG, for more than a year. Anyone who has engaged in discussion on WP knows how aggravating it is to have your comments refactored or redacted, by people who you don't particularly like. It's time this behaviour was rolled back. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or anything else unrelated to development of the encyclopedia. Is someone suggesting an article should include mention of the person named in the linked article? What is the purpose of posting the link other than because we can? Editors should stick to discussion of actionable proposals that might plausibly improve the article, not prolong the agony of gamergate. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I am quite unclear on what criteria are used to determine when to delete a revision on that talk page. Further, the practice of deleting verifiable information about claims which are relevant to (or already in) the article from the talk page is infantilizing. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• WP:BLPTALK is quite clear that where potentially problematic BLP info is *being discussed for inclusion in the article* a link to the source that will be used as a reference should be included on the talk page. Pasting an except from the source is not required (or even recommended if it turns out it is an issue) likewise if the material is not actually going to be included in the article at all then there is no need to discuss it on the talk page. From looking (briefly) at the talkpage, it looks like this is a case of the latter rather than the former. Washington Times (a reliable source) excerpt pasted by Mark Bernstein, no actual discussion for anything to be included into the article, so its basically pasting BLP-sensitive material for no purpose. It probably should have been removed and rev-del' unless there actually is going to be a discussion about incorporating it into the article. Then a link to the material should remain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is so clear. Here's what BLPTALK has to say "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." I cannot interpret that as an injunction against talking about it there, considering how much was on the talk page about the subject before. And given that amount of discussion, we shouldn't expect that the content would never appear on the page. If it were to appear, how would editors working on a contentious topic discuss the changes to the page, the author's meaning or the veracity of the claims without running afoul of that interpretation? Protonk (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well its not an injunction not to talk about it. The point is that you talk about it *if you are attempting to work it into the article* - I cant see that anyone was. It was just Bernstein doing his usual soapboxing - which is why I support it being removed on that basis. If it was intended to be a proposal to incorporate it into the article, it should have been linked to and discussed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • We're talking about this edit, correct? Sure, it's turned up to 11 and what-not, but the underlying ask seems clear to me. As I say below, they contrast it with an extant source in an ongoing discussion about how/if the subject should be portrayed in the article. How is that not a reasonable interpretation? Protonk (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• The revdel was appropriate. The content included highly defamatory material about a living person. Just because some newspaper decides to publish unsubstantiated rubbish doesn't mean we can repeat it when not particularly relevant. Wikipedia era on the side of protecting the reputations of living people. Mark was trying to make a point, but in the process exposed this defamatory material. It would be sufficient to say Gamergqte tactics include opposition research and publication of unsubstantiated claims. It is not acceptable to repeat the unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia. Our standards are higher than many newspapers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Horseapples. On what planet does that article contain defamatory material? I guess if we jumble the words in the article and re-arrange them to recreate the defamation the article was discussing that could work. Protonk (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well technically the linked Washington Post article does repeat allegations about a living person *which if untrue* would be highly defamatory. However it would not be Wikipedia defaming the subject, it would be the people making the allegations. The Washington Post would probably get a free ride too given they are merely reporting said allegations. But I repeat, unless any of this is actually going to be incorporated into the article (which it could theoretically be, given the subject was fired from her job after allegedly a long period of harrassment by Gamergate) it shouldnt be on the talkpage at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I edit conflicted w/ a reply above that might related here. There was and is talk page discussion about the subject, so inclusion of the material is not a remote consideration. And I'm not clear on your meaning about the Post. We make countless claims on this encyclopedia that if false would be defamatory. To justify this, we rely on sources like the post as a matter of course. I'm not saying quoting out the gate is the right route. BLPTALK (as you say) warns against it. But certainly redaction of the quotes is strongly preferable to deleting the material from history. Especially since if you read the comment from beginning to end it's clearly about including the material in the article and makes references to ongoing discussions about a different source they feel is inferior on the same subject. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah clearly I didnt read up far enough on the talkpage as I was stopping at Kingsindian's posts where he states that it wasnt about including it in the article. Since concensus already existed to remove the material from the article, revdel'ing what is clearly a BLP1E issue on the talkpage where no one is actually having a current discussion to include it still isnt that bad. (I get the feeling from the above talkpage discussion that the only person really for inclusion was Bernstein, and given his anti-GG viewpoint, unsurprising). Personally I would have just archived the lot which would be complaint with the BLP policy, but some people are more zealous about it. Re to Kingsindian below: If it isnt being currently discussed to go into the article, then it really shouldnt be on the talkpage. This isnt problematic in 99% of articles. It is potentially problematic with regards to living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To some of the comments above. Nobody said anything about free speech, so that is a red herring. Also, the discussion is about discussion on the talkpage, not the article. I find the standard that "if it shouldn't be in the article, it shouldn't be on the talkpage" rather silly. Nobody uses such a standard: otherwise 99% of the talk page history would consist of revdels. And please don't make me laugh with the claim that Wikipedia's standards of defamation are higher than the Washington Post. Not to mention that there is nothing defamatory in the paragraph: it is literally the opposite of defamatory; it is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations.

The main point is that WP:BLP is not a micromanaging tool to get rid of stuff one doesn't like. The effect of such (arbitrary) redactions is to inflame matters and confuse people. The redaction was a tit-for-tat action against an earlier redaction. This kind of stuff has to end. Follow policy as written and roll back the new normal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted your changes to the format. I doubt there's need for a poll like that in this discussion. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk: In fairly adequate experience in the Israel-Palestine area, I have found that in most discussions, most people don't change their mind. This format of "Discussion" and "Survey" is routine in RfCs I have participated in. I have reverted to the format. I meant to do this from the beginning, but forgot. There is no harm in it anyway. The closer would take it all into account. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have left notices at WT:BLP and WP:VPP. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose revdel. See my reasoning above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - any quote showing up in a reliable source, used in a discussion as evidence to your side in an argument, shouldn't be redacted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose revdel if for no other reason doing so might cause, at some later point, the same thing to be discussed again. Having a record visible of exactly what was discussed, and, presumably, found not worthy for inclusion makes it less likely that similar discussion on the same topic will be actively initiated in the future. If the source were a more questionable or less reliable one, then, maybe, I could see some point in removing it, but I don't think that would necessarily be the case here. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  @John Carter: The first revdel removed a single word; the second a quote from an external source that was (and still is) linked in the discussion. I don't think those two removals make the discussion unclear—they simply avoid the allegations being repeated onwiki until a consensus is formed about whether it should be included in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what question this is a survey of. Whether or not an edit is violating BLP policy is a judgment call by an administrator and shouldn't be a matter put to a vote. If an admin believes the specific content maligns an individual's reputation and has no place in an article, they remove it. If you have a specific complaint about this particular rev-del, I'd take the issue to admin responsible for the action. If you are interested in a meta or policy discussion about whether the interpretation of BLP these days is too broad, I'd go to the policy talk page or the Village Pump, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Liz: For what it's worth, it has been brought to me. I stand by the the revdel, and will not be undoing it myself (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=715839454}). I too was a little surprised to see this at ANI—for some reason I thought revision deletion was discussed at WP:DRV—but I suppose this works too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  The WP:revdel policy says that "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus." Do you have a suggestion of another way of establishing clear consensus to reverse a revdel other than discussion and polling? Sperril (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can't view the deleted revision but I looked at the Washington Post article and it seems fine to me. BLP1E is about whether to write an article about a person, not about revdelling a link on a talk page. For one thing, BLP1E deletions are usually done after a week-long community discussion at AfD with the article visible during the discussion, not unilaterally by admins at their whim before anyone sees what happened. It's hard for me to understand how this revdel is justified. I'm open to persuasion but I'd appreciate a more detailed explanation from the defenders. As someone who likes to look at page histories, I get that revdel is sometimes needed, and it doesn't bother me too much if occasional inappropriate revdels get through. But if they're being done too casually and not being restored when challenged, it contributes to a perceived tension between admins and users that sometimes gets remarked on here and that could potentially escalate various ways. It doesn't seem good. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Added: I'll have to look at some of the diffs given later. I won't be able to post again for the next few days. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The increasingly widespread belief that BLP enjoins us from ever saying anything defamatory about a living subject is a fallacy: Wikipedia has many things to say about tens of thousands of living subjects that I expect they would desperately prefer be censored, if they weren't backed up with the ironclad sourcing that is what BLP actually requires. Jehochman's airy belief about we have higher standards than most newspapers is very well and good (if both unsubstantiated and unwarranted), but we're not talking about the National Enquirer or the local supermarket free weekly. We're talking one of the half-dozen newspapers that constitute the gold standard for journalism in the hemisphere. Ravenswing 07:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- unquestionably reliable source and relevant to the discussion. No possible harm, since the original source is very widely read, and trying to keep it off WP is in contrast of minor significance to the individual. Had this been a miscellaneous blog, wheere it would be us that is primarily publicizing the matter, I would have said otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This article and subject should not be given some sort of special status with its own rules because some people for some inexplicable reason continue to obsess over it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping troll back?

A troll who has been hopping on IP range 86.187.x.x (last discussed here) seems to have returned on 31.55.89.19 (talk · contribs). Can somebody investigate and see if a new/revised rangeblock is appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, same chap. See also 31.55.127.56 (talk · contribs), 31.55.93.53 (talk · contribs) and he reverted Eik Corell, his other m.o., using 31.55.112.2 (talk · contribs) [1] last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katie^talk 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't come into contact with the 31. range, rather, it's still the 86.187 range for me, with the latest being 86.187.161.103 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

They're both BT ranges, Eik. We realised that the 86.187 range meddles with airline articles as did the 31.55 range who also reverted one of your edits. I've blocked the latest IP as straightforward block evasion and will look into this a bit more later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered: One of the first IPs this year doing edits in the style of the 86.187 range was indeed an IP in the 31. range. Eik Corell (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that pretty much confirms that it's the same person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor also edits under 31.50, 31.54, and 31.49 I believe, as well as other closely numbered 86.15x IPs. Tends to focus on video games and television from what I can see, and deliberately ignores establish project guidelines and edit war with any editor that reverts, including walking through contribution histories and mass reverting. Talk page messages are undone with no reply. It's a constant back and forth. I haven't been gathering a full list but some of the more recent Mar/Apr ones have been 31.54.6.123, 86.155.134.8, 86.158.232.106, and 81.158.219.34 ... Those four just from Quantum Break. The unfortunate thing is the editor would be making solid contributions if they wouldn't fight against various project guidelines.... -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Latest IP, only one edit so far but it was to revert @Eik Corell again... 86.187.161.15 -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Now on IP 86.187.162.253. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• And now on IP 86.187.167.37. What can be done about a range block? @KrakatoaKatie and Malcolmxl5 -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ferret, I've blocked and semi-protected pages. I'll have another look at all this and the range block.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• And now 217.38.96.72 (talk · contribs). My, does this guy have nothing else to live for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And now 217.38.179.4 (talk · contribs). This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of contacting their ISP remains. I have contacted them about this user twice. They did respond the first time, after an incredibly long time, but at that point, I was being asked to provide server logs, which I didn't and do not have access to, and the user had stopped their disruptive behavior, so I let it go. With the recent editing, I contacted the ISP again with any and all details I could, including AN/I reports, all IP's used from the beginning of 2016, all the way back to some of the IPs used by the user over 6 years ago to establish that this was a recurring problem. No response so far, but maybe you guys will have more luck if you swing around some big words and phrases when you contact them; Adminstrator on Wikipedia, entire ranges of their dynamic IP's being blocked from editing if they don't act, etc. Oh by the way, new IP. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The most recent IP addresses are BT Wi-fi ranges so they may not even be a BT customer. If they are, it could be that without server logs the IP addresses are not enough to identify the user. Peter James (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And 217.38.81.161 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, this one: 78.145.31.100 (talk · contribs), just came back to edit the same article it had edited a few days before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

109.156.64.61 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

These look like two different editors - one undoing edits by Eik Corell on video game articles, the other editing airline articles. This one looks likely for the airport editor (although this time on BT Broadband) but the 78.145 (TalkTalk) IP may be unrelated. Peter James (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest with aircraft is 217.38.126.10 (talk · contribs). The guy now uses each IP in short bursts for a few pages, then moves on. Previously, the reverting of Eik and the fiddling with aircraft were done by the same IP while it was in use. Another IP editor with a momentarily coincidental editing pattern could easily be mistaken for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought so at first, too, but immediately after I reverted some of of the 217. IP edits, this happened. Circumstantial I know, but quite a coincidence. Eik Corell (talk)

I haven't found any IPs that connect them (although I've only looked at the 86.187 range) but haven't found both editing at the same time either so a connection looks likely. Peter James (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several articles which this editor returns to war on again and again. Can I suggest that we semi-protect them for a while, until other measures can be refined? Happy to compile a list of the aero ones if asked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again in the guise of 217.38.148.252‎ (talk · contribs). Pages re-abused this time include:

• Rossiya Airlines
• Thomas Cook Airlines
• Thomson Airways
• TUI Airlines Netherlands
• EgyptAir
• Air Transat
• Jet2.com
• List of airlines of Cyprus

So please, can we do some damage limitation and semi-protect while the negotiations drag on. This is a hot edit war not a UN negotiation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hot war now

• Jet2.com [2][3]
• Rossiya Airlines [4]
• China Eastern Airlines [5]

Can somebody PLEASE semi-protect the worst afflicted pages! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm working on it. I've blocked 217.38.0.0/16 for ten days (which is a big freakin' range but there's 150 edits in last month with lots of disruption), and now I'll look at this guy. Katie^talk 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've blocked 86.187.160.0/21 for three months - I've blocked this range before, in February, and Future Perfect blocked it previously as well. I've blocked 86.163.94.157 on its own for now and I'm going to leave your articles unprotected because I want more data from the range. I can't rangeblock him with the other /21 because that's an ISP-level block. Katie^talk 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess being in the front line makes one nervous. Meanwhile I made a request for page protection, you may wish to close that - or should I simply withdraw it myself? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a note there. The bot won't archive it until an RFPP template is added so it will stay up until we act. Katie^talk 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Today it has been 86.163.94.37 and 86.157.42.20 across Thomson Airways, Jet2.com, TUI Airlines Netherlands, TUIfly and Air Côte d'Ivoire, all abused before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Today, 109.156.65.250 (talk · contribs) at Air Transat] and Jet2.com. 85.150.133.234 (talk · contribs) made similar edits to Turkish Airlines, but that is a fairly busy IP so may not be connected. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272

Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) has been told several times that he is showing page ownership or making personal style edits to this and other articles. A strong message that the editor needs to edit cooperatively. When he makes edits like this, reverting a correct change to formatting of references because he doesn't like it, he's stepping over the line. He also reverted correct date formats per MOS:DATETIES. Check the editor's talk page for additional complaints. While the editor is providing some constructive edits, his WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is troublesome. Either a short block or a warning of some sort would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• From what I can see, this looks to be early in a content dispute. It's also not a great idea to template a regular at the beginning of a content dispute. Perhaps a better place to have gone first is WP:DRN. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's just a content dispute. It's not. I like the changes he's made. I like the additional sources he's brought to the article. I don't like that he's showing page ownership. I don't like that he's reverting correct changes to the refs because they're not in a format he likes. I don't like that he's applying the wrong date format because it's not a date format he likes, or at least isn't one he thinks helps him edit. I don't like that is treating the article (and as you can see from the comments below, almost every article he tries to improve) as a battlefied. If that's a content dispute, you have no clue and should stop commenting here, or anywhere. The issue is clear, the editor I am reporting is WP:NOTHERE at least when it comes to disruptive behaviour and having little or no interest in working collaboratively. Aside from that, the editor is a good researcher and has improved the articles he's worked on. I would like the editor to reconcile those two ideals.

As for tagging the regulars, he was clearly showing page ownership and I explained that to him, but he kept it up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• This user seems quite prone to tagbombing as well. The article Merlin Mann is a real piece of art after he marked the issues it had, and I also came across some rather obnoxious tagging on Fugu and Tetrodotoxin that he had done, and that I have since cleaned up. I asked him to clean up the Merlin Mann article some time ago on his talk page but he refused. The Scum of the Earth Church article earlier is also heavily tagged, not difficult to guess by whom. -- turdas^talk 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I also asked him to stop tagbombing after reverting this horrifying mess, and he's still doing it. There are many more complaints throughout his talk page history. KateWishing (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really want to pile on here, but I've encountered this user's disruptive massive overtagging of articles as well (see history of Sodium dodecyl sulfate, for example). Common behavior involves tagging the top of the article for various issues, tagging each individual paragraph for the same issues, then tagging each sentence for the same issues - often putting multiple tags per sentence. The extent of the problem may be greater than what can be seen by looking just Leprof 7272's contributions because he often does the same thing while logged out as well (50.179.252.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc). ChemNerd (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have also has to same poor experiences with this editor as noted above. More examples of en-masse tag bombing can be currently found at; Chromosome conformation capture, Acetone peroxide & Villa Baviera. Leprof 7272 shows the same behaviour regardless of who they're interacting with, when challenged for more reasoning they then bombard your talk page (see here & here - they then get personal). XyZAn (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Leprof 7272 hasn't commented here yet and he really, really should. Because I'm inclined to block for disruption. The article he's working on now is almost unreadable. Katie^talk 18:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• This serial tag bombing behavior from Leprof 7272 is nothing new. As is clear from their edit history, It has spanned many years. I have attempted to reason with this editor concerning excessive use of attention banners (for example here) but without success. Boghog (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) knows this is here. He has been informed by three editors. He has been active since all three notices were placed on his talk page and has not come here to explain. It is safe to say that the editor does not care to do so? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• The editor went through yet another day of editing without coming here to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have encountered Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) in other pages and indeed the behavior seems totally consistent with the present complaints, tag-bombing followed by road rage and expression of anger with bombarding your talk page. Limit-theorem (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User ChristensenMJ is summarily reverting an entire page merely to prevent clarity on uncomfortable issues for his church

I made many good faith edits to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_of_the_Mormons%3F

and ChristensenMJ showed up not to edit anything in good faith but to merely revert the entire page back to the status quo WHICH INCLUDES reverting the page to a state where no references were in the reference section (a problem I had fixed in good faith).

ChristensenMJ falsely claims that I made personal opinions in the changes, when I did no such thing, yet he did not challenge any specific change, and he himself injected personal opinion in wholly reverting the page and undoing all my good faith edits, in a way that clearly denoted that he ignored ALL of my good faith edits. I consider what ChristensenMJ did to be a form of vandalism and CENSORSHIP of those attempting to update pages in good faith fashion. ChristensenMJ is clearly a mormon apologist who doesn't want pages updated that would provide any clarity on behavior by the mormon church. Protecting his church from being clearly and accurately described violates the rules of wikipedia and I believe his privileges should be suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.56.195 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2016‎

• Yeah, I just reverted you: your commentary needs secondary sourcing. See WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have responded to the user's personal attacks made in postings on my talk page there, but to briefly respond here, I certainly don't believe anything inappropriate was done in reverting what I clearly noted were good faith edits. There is no protectionism taking place. Just looking for well written, appropriately sourced, npov edits - which these didn't seem to be. The lack of those traits and the writing style/content that seemed to imply some sinister effort on the church's part were all that made me "uncomfortable" - to use the IP's words. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This user went overboard. I have known ChristensenMJ for several years, almost during the entirety of my Wikipedia experience. In that time, I have found him to be an invaluable contributor to Church-related articles. His attention to detail has been appreciated by me. I have personal knowledge, and my experience with him backs this up, that he has never been selfishly motivated in any edits he has made to Church-related pages. I also know that some anonymous editors come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. I was called into question once by an anonymous editor for the "bullying" way in which I edit Church-related articles. Best to let these nutjobs blow off steam and then contribute constructively to Wikipedia, if they choose to do so. I think, ChristensenMJ, that you would be fully within your rights to remove this whole topic from your talk page. Don't let the blustering of an anonymous editor keep you from doing the amazing job you continue to do in working on Church-related articles. In the meantime, if something like this ever comes up again, I would have no qualms about speaking in your defense. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Scolaire

User Scolaire has shown a pattern of uncivil behavior and disruptive editing which I think requires an administrative response. This issue was raised in a previous Administrators’ Noticeboard incident discussion, during which I was asked for evidence of Scolaire's behavior. However that discussion was closed before my evidence had been reviewed. In the intervening time I have prepared the evidence more carefully and added more evidence. I am posting that evidence now.

This will necessarily be a long post, because it contains evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than being a complaint about one specific act.

To summarize my findings: Scolaire seems to regard himself as having the power of a judge or inspector over the pages he edits. He acts as if he were authorized to remove at will contributions made by other users, and from that perspective he makes frequent disruptive cuts. There is a quibbling and arbitrary quality to the intention behind these cuts, even though they may be backed by technical justifications. Sometimes this disruptive behavior escalates to uncivil comments on talk pages, often in an imperious and demeaning tone, and accompanied by stubborn reverts to the opposing editor’s changes. The clear intention is to intimidate and wear down the opposing editor rather than to achieve consensus. In short he seems to want to assert that he is always right, and that anyone who disagrees with him, or does not defer to him, is automatically less authorized than him to make edits.

Scolaire’s deletions and disparaging remarks often provoke other editors into heated replies, which he then labels “personal attacks” or “harassment”. This is not just a form of grandstanding, it is in fact a veiled threat, since the terms "personal attack" and "harassment" constitute punishable offenses in the Wikipedia rules. This move also provides Scolaire with a justification for removing (or "redacting") comments critical of him from article talk pages and from User Talk pages. But in spite of this alleged sensitivity, Scolaire himself has very often intimidated users critical of his edits, especially if they were less experienced than himself, or less adept at citing the rules of Wikipedia.

I think this constitutes disruptive editing (or more precisely disruptive deletion and tendentious editing) accompanied by a kind of incivility that violates many Wikipedia guidelines - including “Don’t bite newcomers”, “Wikipedia is not a battleground”, “Wikipedia is not compulsory”, and “Be bold” (the latter because Scolaire is preventing other people from being bold), and probably others I am not aware of. To put it simply, he is acting against the spirit of open discussion and constructive consensus which is the hallmark of Wikipedia.

Listed below are some examples of Scolaire’s disruptive editing and incivility, along with links to the relevant pages. Examples involving myself have been saved for last, because I want to make the point that this aggressive behavior has also been aimed at many other editors besides me.

Article: The Troubles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1.1. On the page called The Troubles, Scolaire systematically removed and undid changes made by other editors, without trying to reconcile differences or improve the text. (Examples here, here, here, and here.) On the article talk page, user Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. (But by that very statement, Scolaire was conceding he had not tried to improve the content.) Scolaire also accused Gob Lofa of bad faith, saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.” The discussion continued in this way for several days, with Scolaire adopting a high-handed and suspicious tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.” Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling. I have made my position crystal clear. Unless you have something new to say and you say it in a civilised way, I’m not going to continue with this any longer. Goodbye and happy editing.” 1.2. Still on The Troubles, user Lordofsharks added a new section, after having proposed it on the talk page. The material was well-referenced, but Scolaire deleted it wholesale. Lordofsharks wrote in protest on the article talk page: “I do not believe that you should speak for other editors as you were the only one that brought up this specific issue. ... perhaps rather than simply deleting this information you could provide some specific problems with my submission rather than just stating that it has too much information.” Scolaire replied: “If you could present the ‘take-home message’ of your sandbox page in 100 words maximum, I believe it would be a useful addition to the article, but it is up to you to do the editing down. Trying to re-add massive blocks of text will only result in the edit being reverted again.” The tone of this last remark is typical of Scolaire's talk page comments. His ire in this case is perhaps explained by the fact that he had earlier offered editorial advice to Lordofsharks, which it seems Lordofsharks had not heeded. “I recommend you start small,” Scolaire had advised, “with things like copyediting, correcting small errors of fact and providing citations, and get the feel of it before working up to more major edits. By the way, don’t forget to sign your posts to talk pages by typing '~~~~' at the end. Good luck, and happy editing.” Lordofsharks ignored this patronizing advice, and suffered the consequences. But after his edit war with Scolaire, Gob Lofa and Cliomania came to the defense of Lordofsharks on the article talk page. Cliomania made the following comment: “Scolaire, could you not try editing the text contributed, rather than removing it wholesale? You might disagree with the length or weight of the entry, but suggesting that all of it is unworthy of inclusion seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe all editors are encouraged not to bite the newbies. The alternative to reverting is to make constructive suggestions about what you think is really wrong with LordofSharks’s contribution.” Scolaire replied: “I haven’t said that it is “unworthy” of inclusion. ... I have suggested what might be done: that if Lordofsharks (or you) could present the ‘take-home message’ of his sandbox page in 100 words maximum, it would be a useful addition to the article. So now, can we stop the criticism of my behaviour and start talking about the content?” – This last exchange is a good illustration of Scolaire's intractability: another editor gently reprimanded him for having an overly harsh attitude, but Scolaire was not willing to accept the criticism or work with it. Instead he recast the criticism as an ad-hominem attack, and stuck to his intransigeant position. 1.3 In the controversy outlined in 1.2, Gob Lofa defended Lordofsharks against Scolaire. Scolaire then took to Gob Lofa's User Talk page to accuse him of “abuse”. The supposedly abusive comment which Scolaire objected was this, from the talk page for The Troubles: “I find your summary of that discussion wanting, Scolaire.” Gob Lofa then replied, still on his own talk page: “I don’t come on article talk pages to abuse you, neither at the talk page you provided a link to nor anywhere else. ... I pulled you up on misrepresenting the views of others there and now you’re misrepresenting my actions. Almost as if you were concerned with scoring points.” 1.4 About a year before the above controversy, but on the same article page, Scolaire removed a whole section of the article. He had proposed the removal on the talk page about ten days earlier, but the section in question had been part of the article for about a year and a half. About two months after Scolaire’s removal, user Jxm remarked on the same talk page: “I obviously wasn’t watching when Scolaire removed this section!” Jxm went on humbly: “I agree that it probably doesn’t merit its own section, as Scolaire notes. Instead, I suggest that we think about reinstating some revised form ... perhaps a few sentences in a footnote or a reference entry directing attention to some suitable sources as appropriate.” In essence Jxm was politely suggesting a compromise where Scolaire would add back some of the deleted text. Scolaire refused this compromise, claiming his existing edit "ought to suffice".

Article: Derry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2. The talk page for the article Derry featured a vituperative dispute as to whether to change the article's name to “Londonderry”. Among the participants was a user named Dubs boy. Scolaire and Dubs boy took the dispute onto their User Talk pages for some additional sparring, which both immediately deleted (e.g. this, this, and this. Eventually Scolaire posted a comment addressed to Dubs boy on the Derry talk page, saying that he didn’t want to pursue the discussion with him; and he then immediately posted a comment to Dubs boy's User Talk page saying: “Once again, when I say I’m going to take no further part I mean I’m going to take no further part. Please don’t continue baiting me on Talk:Derry. Also, please do not respond to this by posting to my talk page. I don’t want to say anything more, regardless of whether you think I have engaged or not. Please respect that.” Dubs boy replied on Scolaire’s talk page: “You can’t tell someone to not post on your talk page while posting on theirs. The sort of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from you. I have not baited you, you have simply fallen into your own net.” Scolaire then initiated a complaint on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, which he titled “Harassment on my Talk page”. On the Noticeboard, no administrators made any comment, but Dubs boy posted many messages in his own defense, including one which resonates with the themes I have been highlighting: “Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.” Later on, Dubs boy posted a note to his own User Talk page asking Scolaire what the outcome of the Administrators Noticeboard discussion had been. Scolaire admitted that the case had been dropped by the administrators “for lack of interest”. A third editor then commented: “These guys [i.e. Scolaire and others] seem quite determined to block all opposition to their agenda. I don’t know what that editor [Scolaire] means by ‘opened ani’ but it is so indirect and avoiding of the important issues, that it must surely be a threat to comply.” - This exchange provides insight into the psychology of Scolaire’s pattern of objectionable behavior. The behavior seems to stem from willfulness, condescention, and over-sensitivity to criticism. These factors funnel into an aggressive use of Wikipedia rules and procedures against less educated or less experienced users.

Article: Guy Fawkes Night
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
3. On the talk page for the article Guy Fawkes Night there was a debate about whether to merge the page with another one called “Bonfire Night”. This led to a heated exchange between Scolaire and an editor named Cassianto, during which Scolaire complained twice of Cassianto’s “ad hominem attacks” (here and here). When the exchange died down, user SchroCat then took the whole text of the exchange and put it into a collapsible box with the title “Complaining about ad hominem comments while insulting others and being petulant isn’t constructive or vaguely sensible.” The implication of this title was that Scolaire’s own comments had been provocative, and therefore to construe the heated replies to such comments as “ad hominem attacks” was hypocritical. Scolaire then insisted on changing the title of the box to “Unrelated discussion”, over several reverts, and gave as his edit summary: “removed personal attack”. SchroCat reverted with the edit summary: “If you want to delete all the vaguely personal comments on this page, do so, but stop editing my signed text. Should I delete all your comments?” SchroCat then posted a message to Scolaire’s User Talk page which said: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable, unless you want to strip out all such comments on the talk page. Try that and see how quickly a block will descend.” Scolaire replied: “That was not a comment. It was a hatnote. Hatnotes should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. I seriously considered taking you to AN/I but I can’t be arsed.” The disupte was nonetheless brought to ANI by another editor, and the involved parties were told to calm down or face a block.

Article: Constance Markievicz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
4.1 On the page for Constance Markievicz, a user giving his name as “Joe kearns” added cited material in support of a point. Scolaire meticulously removed his edits, though giving innocuous-sounding edit summaries for his removals. Joe kearns reintroduced his edits and there ensued a revert war (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Joe kearns protested on the talk page; Scolaire then replied that he had added a few lines back in to please him, but “the rest of your post is nonsense. ... The ‘controversy’ ... is non-existant outside of the posts on this page by you and your alter-egos 78.18.211.113 and 78.16.86.228. Just peppering the talk page with your assertions doesn’t make it so.” Joe kearns replied: “I don’t have any alter egos, Scolaire. It would appear that more than one person disagrees with you, that’s all: it happens.” Not long after this Joe kearns was vindicated, because the point he had been defending was proved true and incorporated into the page. 4.2. On a related page (Casimir Markievicz), Scolaire removed an item added to the page by the same Joe kearns. Joe kearns protested on the talk page. Scolaire replied: “That’s all bluster.” Kearns then wrote: “You are using Wikipedia to perpetuate a falsehood, for reasons I can only guess at. ... I made my edits in good faith and backed them up with solid citations, and I want you to reinstate them. ... Instead of addressing the facts of the matter, you’re preoccupied with laying down the law on Wikipedia citations (as you see it). If you were interested in finding out the truth and making this article reliable, you would look at the evidence and address the questions it raises instead of quibbling over whether a source is primary or secondary.”

My own controversy with Scolaire
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
5.1. Over a three day period from 29 March to 1 April 2016, I did a large amount of work on the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, adding a lot of material, but basing my additions on the framework that was already present – so that my modification improved the accuracy, style and referencing of the existing material without challenging it substantively. On 4 April, a user named CanK9 commented on the talk page that among my additions one fact was wrongly cited, and he then supplied better references. On 8 April Scolaire replied to CanK9’s post, confirming that the references I had provided were inaccurate, but claiming as well that the references provided by CanK9 showed that the mis-cited fact was “not of great significance anyway,” and Scolaire therefore concluded: “I’m taking the sentence out.” Which he did. About an hour later he also went on to cut several other passages from the article in quick succession (see here, here and here – in each case without attempting to improve the wording. Another hour later Scolaire posted a note to the talk page stating that the material I had added made the article “totally lopsided,” and suggesting that a related page could be created into which the added material could be parked. Another editor replied disagreeing with the creation of a new page, and Scolaire then replied: “What do you suggest, then? Just cut out the added content?” The casual tone and aggressive implications of Scolaire’s comment upset me when I read the comment on 10 April, two days after it was posted. I responded in a rather heated fashion on the article’s talk page: “ ‘Just cut out the added content’ - thanks a lot, a-holes, I actually put several days work into that added content that you speak so lightly of cutting. And the added content is most certainly relevant, given that [etc.]. If you’re so concerned about balance with his suffragist work then why don’t you ADD content to that section, instead of achieving balance by CUTTING good content??” I admit that the foregoing was heated language, but I think that given the context this was not so bad. A dismissive suggestion to cut large blocks of text can be provocative and even offensive. The term “a-holes” in particular was later dug up and used against me, but I don’t think that term is particularly offensive in the context of online discussions today. Nevertheless, I now admit that the above language was a regrettable lapse and distracted from my main contention – namely that Scolaire’s proposal to aggressively delete a large amount of material from the page was a disruptive misuse of editorial privilege. 5.2. At 08:09 UTC on 11 April I posted a comment about Scolaire to the talk page of an article about Sir Francis Vane, a person linked to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington. The comment read: “User Scolaire deleted material from this page which is informative and valuable. I am undoing his deletion accordingly. The material links this page to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington’s page, and one of Vane’s chief claims to fame is his righteous role in the story of Sheehy-Skeffington’s murder.” To understand this note it is necessary to add that in the course of my work on Sheehy-Skeffington I made several changes to the Francis Vane page on 31 March 2016. Then on 8 April, Scolaire removed a hatnote from the page which had been there since before I had begun editing, and which Scolaire himself had left standing on several previous edits (e.g. here). The hatnote directed readers to the Sheehy-Skeffington page for details on a murder Francis Vane had helped to expose. At 08:15 I then posted to Scolaire’s talk page: “User Scolaire, your edits to various pages related to the 1916 Easter Rising show alarming signs of political bias. In particular, you are removing material critical of the British Empire. Please cease from doing this and restore wantonly removed material!” Scolaire replied at 08:28: “Tone it down, man! I’ve responded at Talk:Francis Vane.” But the response Scolaire was referring to (made at 08:27) had nothing to do with my message to him, and was only about the minutiae of the edit to that particular page. 5.3 At the time of the discussion summarized in 5.2, and because of the rather heated exchange with Scolaire on the previous day, I had already begun to look over Scolaire's recent "user contributions" (i.e. the pages he had been editing recently). I noticed that they were mostly pages related to the Irish War of Independence. Later I noticed that on the page Partition of Ireland Scolaire had removed an info-box which linked the page to the series History of Ireland. Scolaire gave as his reason for removing the box: “Doesn’t belong here”. The box was in a subsection of the article rather than in the lead, so I presumed Scolaire meant that it didn’t belong in the subsection. Looking through the history of the page I saw that this info-box had been on the page for eight years, but at some point it had migrated from the lead into the subsection. So at 08:33 on 11 April, I put the box back in its original place in the lead of the article. Scolaire undid my edit, claiming the article was “not part of the series”. I wrote a note to Scolaire on his User Talk page saying: “On the page Partition of Ireland you removed a series box linking to other articles on the History of Ireland. You say you removed it because it did not belong in a sub-heading. Fair enough, but why did you not then paste it into the main title section? Instead you removed it completely. This type of edit is not justifiable - it would have been better to simply leave it there in its imperfect place, than to remove it completely. When your edits of this kind also have a political bias it is hard not to reach the conclusion that you are censoring Wikipedia to conform to your tastes.” Scolaire replied: “I’ve been editing Wikipedia for over ten years. I don’t need you or anybody else telling me what constitutes proper actions. If an article is improved by removing something I remove it, and if somebody disagrees they can make a case on the talk page. The infobox didn’t belong anywhere on the Partition article. It is specifically for articles in the ‘History of Ireland’ series, and that article isn’t one of them.” – Note Scolaire’s one-sided logic here: he himself can delete at will; anyone wishing to add material must make a case on the talk page.

Scolaire's removal of critical comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
6. After the above controversy had escalated to the aforementioned complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard, Scolaire deleted most traces of my ever having criticized him from active pages where other users could see them. He deleted talk page comments of mine that were critical of him here, here, here, here and here – generally under the excuse that they were “personal attacks”. And he even “redacted” a comment of mine and then “replied” to the manipulated comment! The messages Scolaire described as "personal attacks" were clearly not personal attacks according to the Wikipedia guideline. The offending messages did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. They were not taunting, jeering, malevolent, or in bad faith. They were not ad-hominem attacks, but substantive criticisms of his editorial behavior. In short my messages were aimed exclusively at his acts as an editor, not at his personal dignity or safety. I have encountered several other places where Scolaire also removed criticism in a similar fashion: in June 2015, Scolaire and another editor engaged in several rounds of mutual removal of criticism on their respective talk pages (e.g. this, this, this and this). In August 2015, another editor who had experienced Scolaire's mindbending "redaction" of his own talk page comments replied to Scolaire: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable.” In October 2015, Scolaire removed another editor’s critical comment from his own talk page and transferred it onto the critic’s talk page.

Conclusion

Scolaire’s practice of arbitrary deletion, and his aggressive reaction to criticism, constitute an unhealthy combination of factors which is both coercive and intimidating to come up against. When this goes unchecked, it creates around it an atmosphere of tension, suspicion and ill-will. I therefore request that some form of non-deletable caution be issued to him, which other users could see in the event they became involved in similar types of conflict with him. Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are empowered to question his authority.

- Wwallacee (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wwallacee: This really needs to be condensed down. Anything more than a third of what you write here is likely to be ignored. Wall of text posts are not the way to ask for help. Blackmane (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to hat all of the content for ease of reading. Blackmane (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have not interacted with Wwallacee since his block on 12 April for harrassing me (see previous ANI case here), and he has not interacted with me. The fact that he has spent those fifteen days preparing this "case" against me shows that he did not, after all, learn anything from his block. I'll say no more, except to note that the whole "case" relates to articles that Wwallacee had no involvement in, with the exception of three consecutive edits to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and one to Francis Vane. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane, thanks for "hatting" the content. I have taken the liberty of editing the section titles slightly. I agree this post is lengthy, but I am attempting to show a larger pattern of behavior, beyond the incidents that concern me directly.

During the last ANI discussion, I was asked by the administrators to provide evidence. I did provide some evidence at the time, but the discussion was closed before a proper discussion of that evidence could take place. In the meantime, I have considered the evidence more carefully and have provided additional evidence for my complaint against Scolaire. -Wwallacee (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a simple question, do any of these diffs happen after your ban on April the 12th?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: The answer is no. The diffs concern Scolaire's behavior prior and up to the time of my controversy with him on 8-11 April. I have not done any research on Scolaire's behavior since the ANI complaint he filed against me on 11 April.

With reference to the block of my user account, I want to add that it was a temporary block for 48 hours. The administrator who imposed the block wrote on my User Talk page: "If you wish to persist in your case against Scolaire after the block expires, then do so with diffs and a calm, neutral explanation of why the edits are problematic." - Wwallacee (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he's preventing people from being bold by reverting them is your complaint or at least in part?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD. What I'm seeing from you is really a complaint about WP:BRD. Be bold and make a change, if it reverts go to the talk a page and discuss it. This very much seems to be the case for Scolaire. This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is preventing people from being bold. But that is just the beginning of it. Scolaire's pattern of reverting often involves large-scale deletion of material, and he usually does not attempt to compromise or improve the content. There is also intimidation on talk pages of anyone who questions this behavior, and then also removal of critical comments, justified by him with allegations of "personal attack" and "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you posted to the talk pages of articles where you had no dispute with me, saying that my edits showed alarming signs of political bias, that my procedure was to remove and strip away potentially interesting content, and that my behaviour was wanton. None of that is about content. It is all personal, it is all adverse and it is all untrue. Hence, an unwarranted personal attack (which you repeated 21 times on pages where you had no involvement, hence harassment). Are you seriously saying I should have allowed that smear to remain on the talk page of every article I work on, just because you were mad at me for reverting you once? Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all. If you have a problem with people doing large reversions then make smaller incremental changes. The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise.. The main thing that I really question is if you are here to build an encyclopedia. JzG told you to come back in a calm neutral manner. Not really seeing the calm or neutral. He also suggested you simply drop the stick. The only thing I've seen with your wikilawyering is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. Wikipedia is not a battle ground.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Scolaire's comment above: I don't think my own prior behavior, which has already been sanctioned, is fair grounds for discussion here. What is being discussed today is Scolaire's pattern of disruptive editing and incivility.

But for the record, let me give my own account of the messages Scolaire is referring to. On 11 April, I attempted to bring Scolaire’s disruptive editing to the attention of other editors by means of a naive and unorthodox tactic: posting warning messages to a number of article talk pages that I had identified as being Scolaire’s primary territory. These notes stated (with some variation in the specifics) that I thought Scolaire had been arbitrarily deleting material he disagreed with rather than make any attempt to improve it. I solicited other contributors to monitor this and restore wantonly deleted material. Here is an example. These messages were deleted by an administrator about 45 minutes after they were posted, and 30 minutes after Scolaire had opened an ANI complaint about them. I now regard this as an appropriate action, and I regret having posted the messages. A better forum for airing my complaint about Scolaire's behavior would have been the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is where it is now being aired. However, I don't agree that those messages constituted personal attacks according to Wikipedia guidelines: they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. Nor were my messages taunting, jeering, or malevolent in tone. Nor were they written in bad faith. In truth, my messages were essentially a kind of grass-roots attempt to raise awareness about Scolaire's editorial behavior without going to the Administrators' Noticeboard – however misguided that may have been (as I now freely admit).

That said, those messages are not relevant to the present discussion. What Scolaire was replying to just now was my allegation that he has deleted comments critical of him. He did this to a number of other messages of mine which are not among the offending messages just described. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Scolaire removed (or "redacted") these comments on the grounds they were "personal attacks", which they clearly were not. Again, they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire.

I am saying that this removal of criticism by Scolaire is a harmful pattern of behavior. Other examples can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.

-Wwallacee (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). Any posts of yours that I deleted or edited were insulting and disparaging, and were not about content. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Serialjoepsycho, I don't see how my comments here, or the evidence I am presenting, lack calmness or neutrality. I am just trying to present evidence that I was asked for by administrators during the previous ANI discussion (e.g. here). - Wwallacee (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To get back to the question of whether the main issue here has to do with WP:Be bold... I want to be clear that Scolaire's disruptive editing goes way beyond this. For example, he stubbornly reverts other users when they want to restore material he has deleted (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) He also engages in wholesale deletion of blocks of text (examples here and here - with talk page objection to his deletions here and here). He also has a pattern of interpreting other editors' critical comments as abuse, and thus shutting down productive discussion of his deletions (examples here, in reply to this; and here, in reply to this; and here and here, with response here). - Wwallacee (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he revets and they want to restore? how do you know they want to restore? Have the perhaps went to the talk page and made that known? This is all sounding alot like WP:BRD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, there is an authoritarian quality to Scolaire's deletions and to his talk page comments - as if he does not admit the possibility of error, and so he doesn't think it necessary to compromise - ever. The pattern goes like this, in escalating order: (1) revert the opposing editor; (2) if the opposing editor objects, revert again as often as necessary without attempting to compromise; (3) if the opposing editor objects, intimidate and discredit the opposing editor on the talk page; (4) if the opposing editor objects, make insinuations of abuse; (5) if the opposing editor objects, report the opposing editor to ANI for harassment or personal attack.

In order to get a full sense of this you have to look at examples in context. For instance in example 1.1 above under the heading "Article: The Troubles", I've profiled a sequence of stubborn reverts, followed by a protest on the talk page, followed by a reply from Scolaire that is both dismissive ("nonsense") and attempts to discredit the critic, and this goes on for several cycles until Scolaire accuses his critic of "haranguing" and "trolling". Or look at example 4.1 under the heading "Constance Markievicz", for a similar story. And look at the example given under the heading "Article: Derry", for an example of Scolaire taking his critic to ANI over a critical comment which Scolaire characterized as "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide, the early ones you provided that I reviewed I'm not actually seeing your narrative. MAybe someone else well look and see your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would really like an admin, before this gets archived, to quietly tell this person it's time to stop. I want to be able to log on in the morning and not find that another "case" has been opened against me. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the above, Scolaire's interventions in this discussion have all had as their only point to avoid the substance of my allegations by trying to discredit me personally. There is nothing objectionable about what I have done here. I was asked to provide evidence and I have done so, scrupulously. Scolaire's latest comment again illustrates one of my main contentions, namely his need to control all criticism of his editorial behavior. - Wwallacee (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Again, I would ask that an admin tell Wwallacee that what he is saying is not so, that he has had it pointed out to him repeatedly that it is not so, and that it is unacceptable to continue to repeat these allegations. To ignore this campaign of harrassment is to send a message that it is okay to keep doing it. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

AonoTsukune95 / DawgDeputy

• AonoTsukune95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DawgDeputy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There appears to be an ongoing dispute between these two editors regarding content in general. What got my attention was this edit made here [6] which promted me to warn the user about the edit. AonoTsukune95 has responded on my talkpage, but I am concerned about the tone struck in his/her replies with things like "I CAN 100% ENSURE YOU that I WILL AND NEVER DO TRASH EDIT", and "THIS CAN GO ON FOREVER IF he do not be more understanding and he call himself a senior editor/wiki editor. cannot even recognise good edits and shit edits". [7] This comes after I responded that he/she should wait for a reply from the editor they had the dispute with before losing their cool. Any input would be helpful, hopefully this wont be ongoing going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions there appears to be more of a longer running heated dispute than I had originally realized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're spot on , AonoTskukune95's edit summaries show shouting, and general ill-mannered comments directed towards other editors . KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel the issue is a lack of communication hindered by a possible language barrier. The bothersome thing is that Aono doesn't appear to own up to any wrongdoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, another shouty angry anime/manga superfan. Throw a rock and bounce it off the heads of 5 before it drops. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The conduct of AonoTsukune95 is terrible and he should come attempt to explain himself. Plus he's edit warring on Strike the Blood, for which he just received my 3RR warning. Katie^talk 16:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

AonoTsukune95's talk page edits read like a trainwreck. This needs to stop now. --Tarage (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

firstly i do keep to my stand that i did nothing wrong. i am sick of terrible edits by others. i keep do the best i can and others keep make it worst. how can i be not sick?? trainwreck?? oh? sure..as you are to judge someone. i am here to say this only, i only get annoy when someone does this kind of edits. i do realise that perhaps my tone of clarification was rude and after thinking about it i should apologize. But i will never stand for any bad edits. call me what you want. it takes one to say another. But i am well aware of my weaknesses. If my work for wiki edits is that bad compare to tons of others trash edits i see then good job. this community is 'improving'. i may be an angry superfan or whatever like describe as above but i never do rubbish edits. very disappointed with this community and to those who judge me above all i can say 'job well done'. You are the best and i am the worst. No matter what i do for the wiki page and so i will never be appreciated and the credit goes to trash editors and people who judge a book by its cover. I have nothing to say anymore as i cannot believe how terrible here is. Well, i am not in a position to say anything either but generally i can say millions of trash page editors are out there that edit the way they like it and end up looking like a fool. and guess what when i do good edits? i never get a compliment. well yeah this is a page. but then 'someone' does a 'genius' edit to my edit and mess up the whole shit. JOB WELL DONE guys :) credit to all of you. well done. i am the wrongdoer here so i am not even shocked if any of you guys EVER get what i am trying to say.

to all those that commented on me above. well done. you are the great one. i do believe whatever i edit is of good or at least acceptable standard. if you guys have the time to judge me then do me a favor by taking a look into the millions'billons of rubbish edits made by others. ALL i did was get angry when my decent edits were remove and THOSE THAT MAKE 'fantastic' edits were remain . is it a joke or is it a conspiracy? well i do not know and i do not even wish to know

i end my explanation with a apology to dawg for my tone. since he is so 'understanding' on 'great' edits i wish him the best. continue on leaving out 'fantastic' edits made by others and removing mine. and that goes for others. you can say anything you want but i will stick to my stand. i will not tolerate rubbish edits. and whatever i edit i make it the best if possible. and i do have the right to undo whatever edit i made myself as the information was provided by me. if i did not provide it that info would not even exist. Provided by me and i cannot remove it?? WHAT A GOOD JOKE. that shows the community is how 'great'

i just remove all my edits i ever made for strike the blood regarding yukina. EVERYTHING i provided i removed it. now you can see the difference and what i provided. since i cannot EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO remove what i did so i have to take drastic action and remove all. so now it is almost back to where it originally was before i provided it more information. and as now i will remove all edits on that page. that informations was provided by me and i do believe i have the top right to remove it since i cannot reduce the information i provide then i decide to totally remove it.

suit you guys. i provided info for greater good and this happens. so ok i remove all on that page done by me. i will not touch others but only mine. so go and see what i provided and how 'good' it was before i added in. CANNOT BELIEVE THAT I DO NOT EBEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO reduce the info I PROVIDED. good joke. i cannot change my own information. i provided it and when i want to reduce the infos provided by me i get undo by others. what a joke. so i remove all. so now nothing on the page is mine. but if i do find out anyone who takes what i edited and put it as they themselve edited THEN i will undo it as i would not stand others taking my information for their own credit.

look this way..i do not have the right to reduce the info i provide WHEN THE FACT IS THE INFO COMES FROM ME. who is right?? you editors tell me. my info and i cannot reduce it? what is this ? job well done guys. well done all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AonoTsukune95 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tantrum and toys being thrown out of the pram aside, the only thing that belongs to you is copyright of the material you add to the article. However, whenever you hit the save page button you have released your contribution per the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. You are certainly free to remove your contribution, however, other editors are similarly free to revert your removal as they are free to copy, distribute, adapt and transmit your work. The link in the history page is sufficient attribution, per your agreement when you hit the save button. Feel free to remove your contributions, but be warned that other editors can and perhaps will revert your removal if the material is, in their eyes, good enough for inclusion. If you edit war with editors over this, be similarly prepared to be blocked. Blackmane (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, despite being warned by @KrakatoaKatie: [8] for edit warring Aono went and undid the same content with this edit here: [9]. Aono please read WP:LISTEN, other editors are saying your edits are not okay so you need to discuss not click "save" or throw out a tantrum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. I hope the block lets him settle down and get over his ownership issues. Katie^talk 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope so as well, a read up on some of Wikipedia's guidelines might help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest folks take a look at his talk page. His response to being banned was not optimal. --Tarage (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone's clearly WP:NOTHERE. If that block was indef'd it wouldn't be a loss for the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So indef block per WP:NOTHERE? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so, but I don't think it should be me. Katie^talk 20:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, would an uninvolved admin then take a look at this user's conduct? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, but surely this is not allowed?

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

---

User:Doctor Papa Jones (who apparently also goes by User:Jonas Vinther) is allowing some unspecified number of random people to contribute from his account, according to his userpage (it's right at the top):

"I have some friends who occasionally make edits using my account."

This is not allowed -- in fact, it's so not allowed that I can't find the rule right off. It's kind of like "Users will be subject to gravity". Presumably an admin can find the rule, if that's even necessary.

There is this Meta page which states "To use [role accounts], consensus must be made". Roll accounts, though, would be for entities such as User:BritishMuseum (or more likely User:VBC_PR_Department etc.). I'm pretty sure that if roll accounts are allowed (which I'm pretty sure not, on the English Wikipedia), they're for properly constituted organizations and not for "me and my housemates and anybody else at the party" or whatever, with no prior OTRS permission required.

In fact, this is a copyright mess now, since the copyright remains with the contributor (it is released for use by others under CC BY-SA 3.0 by pressing the Enter button, but not waived entirely). It's impossible now to know who wrote what, and in theory all of contributions made by people using this account should be rolled back (I'm not advocating going that far though). This is even putting aside potential for the the whole "Well it was my housemate who called you an asshole, not me" sort of thing and so forth. It's just a mess.

(FWIW, I came this user's page after being directed to this ANI thread where it apparently has come that the user is a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally, although the thread was dropped for whatever reason. This isn't directly related to my complaint, but it sure as heck does not incline me (nor should it incline anyone) to be of the mind "Well, yeah, but he's a nazi, so let's cut him a break")... Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

THe policy you're looking for is WP:NOSHARE, and yeah that's an admission that their account is shared, which is clearly not allowed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus I guess you didn't look at his user talk page where I posted a message to him about this earlier today. Ideally, you should talk to the editor about issues to try to resolve them before bringing a complaint to ANI unless there is active damage being done to the project. This problem could be resolved by Doctor Papa Jones stating that this was a past practice and he no longer allows other users to edit from his account and remove that statement from his user page. I would like to hear from the editor before passing any judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Immediately starting an ANI discussion rather than simply going to my talk page is extremely dumb, to the point of embarrassing. In this particular case, Liz sets a good example, so thank you for that. And Herostratus, comments such as "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" are obvious personal attacks. Refrain from making such untrue and rude remarks in the future or I will report you! You should instead use your time to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Anyway, I have ensured that only I will edit from my account in the future and also removed the statement from my userpage. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Discussion Continues

My closure has been called into question. So, by all means - discuss the topic further here. Sorry for stifling the discussion here. SQL^{Query me!} 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close: The ideal situation would be that Jonas had a committed identity in place that he used to verify that he was the person who changed the password. Unless there's a pressing need to indef him and force him to start a new account, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done. Except perhaps screaming "WHEEEE". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  What if I still feel like a nazi when I scream "WHEEEEEEEEEEE"? SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness - The rules were explained to this guy. He appears to get it. Fan-flippin-tastic. He says he made a change to comply with our rules. Is this an ongoing threat to the encyclopedia? Can you explain to me how a block would improve the encyclopedia in this case - without using the word 'nazi'? SQL^{Query me!} 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Let's not make a big fuss out of an innocent misunderstanding. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy. Herostratus's complaints are both insulting and baseless. Referring to another editor as a nazi is a great way to get blocked. You said "this issue is not going to go away", well I think it is going to go away as it is really nothing to make a fuss about. HighInBC

Well yes but here's the deal. It turns out I was right, and WP:NOSHARE says (emphasis added):

"Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked.

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

And as a matter of fact it is regularly enforced. One editor -- an important and useful editor -- had to crawl through glass to save her career her just because another person was using her computer (not her account). She's not the only one.

There are very significant copyright considerations here -- orders of magnitude worse than copy-and-paste moves for instance -- and it's a WMF-level problem if the admin corps no longer cares about this.

But OK. Maybe the admin corps has decided it doesn't like this policy and isn't going to enforce it. Can't make 'em I guess. But it is very very significant and major policy change if you are going to stop enforcing WP:NOSHARE. We have to have an RfC, a CENT RfC I guess, and the copyright people are going to want to weigh in, and the WMF will probably need to have input. It the result of all this (as I would guess is likely) is "Well, no, we like WP:NOSHARE fine", I'm not sure what happens then.

Or you could, you know, enforce the policy, as you've supposed to do. I'm just saying.

As for the nazi thing... it's not related to the matter at hand, but I like to look at the whole situation: the person egregiously, incredibly stupidly, and for a long time, violated a core rule for which the required sanction is termination, and in addition he's a fascist (at the very least, and apparently a nazi sympathizer I gather), which we don't want and cant really have here (see Jimbo's take on the matter, if you care) so getting rid of him is win-win. I linked you the thread earlier (it's here. It was a ANI thread that was initiated by this person and should have boomeranged against him probably, but (losing badly; efforts such as ""But that's like me saying you should not edit such articles either because you're an anti-Nazi -- and that doesn't make any sense!" probably didn't help) he withdrew his complaint and was allowed to do so (a failure of diligence IMO) and so here we are.

Some excerpts:

• "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW)
• "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus)
• "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)
• "he quits Wikipedia, complaining that WP is 'anti-fascist and pro-democratic' and claims that '99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap'" User:Jeppiz
• (Addressed to this person): "I do hope you are aware that I quite openly self identify as Jewish around here. I think you should accept a period of mentoring in terms of the material and methodology you adopt in Nazi - related subject areas" ( User:Irondome)
• "I suggest that anyone checking his editing history, will observe his facist sympathies." (User:David J Johnson)

According to User:Nick-D, this (which just says it can't be displayed) shows that user self-identified as something -- a nazi or else a fascist, I gather, and complained about the Wikipedia being anti-fascist. Apparently some combination of deletion and page moves have made this material unavailable to view (the intent, obviously) but I would think an admin could restore that.

Apparently according to User:Drmies, speaking at at another thread, this user was issued a topic ban at some point... the thread ("User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS") is here but I haven't read it, as this is getting above my pay grade -- I write articles. It's supposed t be you guys's job to handle people like this. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You would do well to keep your issues separate. There is no call for a block for shared accounts because that has been addressed. HighInBC 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that Jonas was already close to exhausting the community's patience due to the previous stuff (in short, self-identifying as a fascist and adding large quantities of pro-Nazi material to articles concerning Nazi Germany, leading to a broad topic ban which was instituted last November, and a "not yet" conclusion to a simultaneous discussion of whether he should be blocked outright), a light touch response to blatantly violating a core Wikipedia policy here seems inappropriate. I also think that Liz may have erred in her reading of WP:NOSHARE: it states that shared accounts will be blocked on sight. More importantly, if Jonas has been sharing his account it has to be treated as compromised until proven otherwise - how do we know who reset the password and is currently operating it? WP:COMPROMISED seems clear on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D holds a deep personal dislike of me, and I of him, so any comments about my conduct on Wikipedia made by him carries absolutely no weight at all. He would be more than happy to see me blocked and I suspect it's the sole reason he participates in this discussion. And since we're playing a game of Godwin's law, you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too, Herostratus! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 12:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You have self-identified as a fascist on your user page, where you also stated that "This user supports far-right politics", and "Make no mistake, 99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap and should never be considered anything else." So herostratus is well within his rights to call you a fascist. Do you have, on the other hand, any evidence that Herostratus is "a fascist and Nazi sympathizer"? Otherwise it would be best if you immediately removed those statements. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram, you live in your own little fantasy world; there is no evidence whatsoever that I'm a Nazi sympathizer and I have never made any pro-Nazi edits to any articles, yet I've been sanctioned for such. Also, bare in mind he called me a "nasty piece of work generally" which is pure horseshit. Face fact! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont see how one could expect more evidence for your being a Nazi sympathizer than the fact that you explicitly stated so on your user page. This is a fact. You may regret that now, but it is a fact you need to face with more integrity than you are doing now. I dont think you are "a nasty piece of work", but your lack of sound judgment and critical thinking in writing about Nazi related topics is obvious to any one who looks over your contributions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It sort of seems like the "shared account" thing was burying the headline here. If the user is being disruptive in other ways then the shared account is just a red herring. If there is a problem we should be blocking the user, not the account(people blocked for having shared accounts are often welcome to create another). HighInBC 16:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Claiming_FA_contributions for other concerns about this editor. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have cleared up these so-called "other concerns" on the talk page. Case closed. And stay on topic. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Re: premature archive, my bad. Somehow missed the subsection. Consider me self-trouted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, please confirm that the issue you referred to here is solved. I'd appreciate that. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure, I think removing that star was the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Papa Jones and I have been in contact throughout his Wikipedia career due to our overlapping interest in our suite of articles on Nazi Germany. There's definitely a pattern of him not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines ahead of time, and he's been in trouble several times because of that. In addition to the stuff already mentioned (sharing his account and the topic ban on Nazi topics), there was the following things, some of which are historical and are not being repeated, and some of which are more recent:

• quick-passing articles during the GA Cup in 2014. He withdrew from the competition. The best link I could find was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 1
• Copyright violations at Leni Riefenstahl in summer 2015. Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. There may have been other instances of copy vio as well. I am pretty sure there were, but Riefenstahl definitely.
• Canvassing for votes for the RFA for GeneralizationsAreBad (March 2016). Diff of User talk:Doctor Papa Jones
• Most recently, he sent me an email on April 16 asking if I would like to work on User:Doctor Papa Jones/Nazi power, a planned article on material that is the subject of his topic ban. I never replied to his email, so he followed up on my talk page, User talk:Diannaa#YGM. I guess he was not aware of our policy against proxy editing, which this email was not quite but almost a violation of. So what we have here is an enthusiastic editor who is not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines, and is repeatedly crossing over the line. However, he is obeying policies and guidelines once they are brought to his attention. — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is eminently clear that the discussion has digressed from the "shared account" question to general conduct issues. Not sure how much I can add to this besides asking for all involved to please remain calm and avoid any name-calling that will divert attention from the legitimate issues at hand. This has the potential to generate far more heat than light. My apologies for stating the obvious, it just needs to be said, especially since the last thread got very tense. GAB^Hello! 21:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're correct about that User:GeneralizationsAreBad. I'm entirely at fault for that. So, sorry. My reasoning was on the order of "Well, if you ever do want to bend this rule and make an exception, maybe this is not the person you want to do it for".

Anyway, at this point my main interest is just knowing what the rule is. I was blocked without warning or discussion for sharing much less than this person did (or anyway of having been thought to have shared, it was actually a misunderstanding), but that was some years ago, and if the de facto rule has changed, its changed, and fine. Just want to know. To that end I've opened an RfC, here: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE?. Herostratus (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked Doctor Papa Jones for 24 hours for his personal attacks against Herostratus higher up this page ("you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too"), after I had given him a chance to withdraw them (or provide evidence for them), which he didn't do. Attacking someone on his political or ethical beliefs is not the best thing to do here in general; but accusing someone of having such leanings or sympathies without any evidence for it is way out of line. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That would probably be a block well-placed in both directions. "Do nazis get special consideration that admins don't?" SQL^{Query me!} 01:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Herostratus received no block or even warning for calling me a "nasty piece of work generally" or for being extremely rude to SQL on his talk page following his initial closer of the discussion. I smell favoritism! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 11:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems odd, Fram, that Doctor Papa Jones received a block when Herostratus repeatedly called him a "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" and repeated other editors' personal attacks against him. If anything, Herostratus' repeated attacks warrant a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No one is stopping you, but I won't do it myself. I see quite some difference between calling somone "a nazi sympathizer" when that person gives everfy impression of being a nazi sympathizer, and calling someone a nazi sympathizer without any reasonable argument for such description. As for "repeating other editor's personal attacks", you mean things like

"Some excerpts: "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW), "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus), "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)"? Well, much of it aren't personal attacks but accurate reports of what he claimed on his user page, and the remainder are observations by multiple experienced editors of a general pattern in his edits. Finally; Herostratus above has apologised for his remarks: GAB said "please remain calm and avoid any name-calling", and Herostratus replied "Well, you're correct about that User:GeneralizationsAreBad. I'm entirely at fault for that. So, sorry." DP Jones on the other hand was also given the chance to retract his remarks, but choose not to. So one person was called out on his self-declared preferences, and later apologised for the name-calling. Another editor invented similar preferences for someone, and refused to retract them or provide evidence for them. The two are not comparable in my opinion. DP Jones has by the way still not given any indication that he sees any problem with his remarks. Fram (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, truth is a defense. This is your David Duke moment, guys. You're blowing it.

I don't think the person should have been blocked for calling me a fascist, FWIW. This was obviously hyperbole and mere vulgar abuse because the person was pissed off. Everybody gets pissed off when fascism is involved which is one of the many reasons we don't want it here. I'm not saying the person should be here, just that in and of itself was not a good reason for a block, I wouldn't have done it for that specifically, and I don't expect to be blocked in turn on the basis of even-steven. You can if you want to. Do what you think is best for the project.

User:Liz et al, carrying water for this person to point of calling for the blocking of people who simply point out who the guy is.... this is not good. This is is business. It is a publishing business, specifically one engaged in publishing the world' greatest and most popular encyclopedia, ever. Anything that degrades that we have to look at very carefully. We're an Enlightenment institution and Fascism is not a part of the good mix for several reasons, both practical, moral, and political.... I can't really point them out to you because you either know them or probably never will.

Back on the merits, sheesh. Here's from User:Floquenbeam over at the RfC:

• "Once, many years ago, it was an old married couple who were causing no problems - who were just writing, helping, editing in peace - but made the mistake of saying in passing that they were sharing their account. They were immediately indef blocked, and when they said on their talk page they had been married 50 years and shared everything and didn't want separate ones, it was not looked upon as a harmless endearing quirk, instead it was explained to them in no uncertain terms that if they didn't want to get separate accounts they weren't welcome here. I suggested they just say they weren't going to share it anymore, but they didn't want to lie. They stopped editing."
• "Last week... a relatively new account (who appeared to be productive, though it wasn't my subject area) was instablocked when someone noticed the user page said it was shared... there was no "friendly template", no statement that they were free to create new accounts, just the typical "you have been blocked indefinitely..." template..."
• And of course I (this is Herostratus talking again) was blocked without warning for (mistakenly being believed to have been) sort of sharing my account (even though FWIW I was an editor of many years standing, and an admin).
• And similar for others.

So... If the deal is "Well yes, but User:Doctor Papa Jones deserves special consideration because __________", I'm just curious as to what goes in the blank. If the deal is "Well, yes, but the sanctions are purely random depending on what admin comes across it and what their mood is that day", fine, and that's exactly what I'm trying to clarify at the RfC. Yeah I was acerbic with the admin who said "Not only is this not a problem, its not worth discussing and why are you bothering us?" Maybe it's not a problem. Maybe a block was not called for here. I think reasonable people can disagree about that. Other people may not believe that reasonable people can disagree about these things. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

First things first Fram! The statements above are personal attacks, certainly not "accurate reports of what he claimed on his user page" as you claim. You should bare in mind that none of the editors who made those remarks included any links to diffs to support their claims—and thus it's pure harassment, nothing more. You would have known this is you'd read the previous discussion. And Herostratus, comments such as "maybe a block was not called for here" are not of much use now... Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 02:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well we can't point to the original diffs because they've been erased -- either oversighted, or a combination of a page deletion and page move the amounts to an oversight. But admins can see them. You are, essentially, claiming that the secondary sources I can point to -- e.g. "It says (or said) such-and-such on his user page" are false. Fine, this is easy to settle. An admin can view them. So who is being mendacious -- you, or the secondary sources I pointed to? Somebody ought to be in a trouble because lying in an investigation is uncool. So let's find out. Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

YES! Let's have an admin find the userpage material that proves I believe "that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler". This will be interesting. Frankly, I'm tired of all this and I'm not going to argue with you forever. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, first, I'm not sure what you mean by "carrying water for this person". What I can see are some editors calling Doctor Papa Jones a "Nazi", which is a personal attack, and no diffs or evidence where Doctor Papa Jones identifies himself as a Nazi. I edit articles about Donald Trump but that doesn't make me a Trump supporter or a Republican! It is ridiculous to assume that an editor shares the political stance of the subjects of the articles they edit.

I can see where editors have made the argument that Doctor Papa Jones didn't always have a neutral point of view and when they provided evidence of this, it resulted in a topic ban. But other editors' attacks against Doctor Papa Jones and calling him names does not make those attacks true and verifiable, I don't care how respected those editors are. I have had no contact with Doctor Papa Jones before this incident but I would make the same request for evidence when slurs like this are made, no matter who the editor was.

It goes without saying that I am just one admin and there are admins who clearly think differently than I. That's not just true in this case but in many situation where there is conflict between editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

stalker/troll

Hey folks, I'd like to bring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bolgitalianissimano to your attention. I have a long-term personal stalker (admittedly, the guy threatened me with "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at your expense"). As you can see on the sockpuppet investigations page, the troll is typically operating with proxies. His favourite pastime is, as he told me personally on de.wikipedia (by vandalising my user page), bringing me to waste time for him.

Right now, he seems to think, that his glory days have come. Just recently, I added German IPA-transcriptions to a lot of German place names, making available the additions I made in the German wikipedia a year ago [10] -> [11]. He reverted them using various proxies (66.147.244.59 (talk · contribs),138.201.7.172 (talk · contribs), 2001:1A50:11:0:5F:8F:ACFB:340 (talk · contribs), 78.47.69.35 (talk · contribs), 5.9.87.205 (talk · contribs), 212.117.173.189 (talk · contribs), 109.237.138.24 (talk · contribs),134.119.244.251 (talk · contribs)) with the "explanation" overdetermined/asymmetric. Since I know the troll's behaviour (which consists in reverting edits as often as possible, using proxy IPs, in order to bypass sanctions against his IPs or accounts like User:Onegyrol08, User:Bolgitalianissimano), my recommandation is a semi-protection of all affected pages (just check my current contributions). Since I reverted all of the unjustified deletions right now, I'd like to turn some admins' attention to the case. Thanks in advance! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: The proxy troll/stalker just announced to rollback all affected pages tomorrow: [12]. A semi-protection seems unavoidable. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems like quite a persistent vandal but I don't think there would be much approval to protect every article you have worked on. If you have a more limited list of targeted articles, please make a request at WP:RPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Hm, not sure about how to procede here now... The vandal has already reverted me on not less than 77 (!) pages. You can see the affected articles in my user contributions between 20:56, 27 April 2016 (Adige) and 20:43, 27 April 2016 (Altrei). Since he has just announced to do exactly the same tomorrow (that is reverting 77 times), I'm not able to give you a more limited list.

I have a suggestion: You could at least semi-protect a randomised selection of the 77 articles and see, how the troll will react. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we make an edit filter to catch removal of IPA transcriptions? Katie^talk 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One option is to do a quiet WP:CLEANSTART. Let Arbcom know and the IP troll should find it a bit harder to find you. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the accused part. After you read what I am going to write you will not have the same opinion you have now about this issue.

1. About Mai-Sachme and his friend Bartleby08 both from South Tyrol. Watch Mai-Sachme's Italian talk page ([13]) and the only things you will found are: editwars, page protected from him, warnings and notices, improper use of discussions, tendentious points of view, and all about South Tyrol, notified by veteran Italian sysops such as Melos and M7. Besides, as you can see this is not the first time Mai-Sachme chooses to report a user as problematic to have him blocked unmotivatedly: an admin cloesd a discussion he started for that, and later another admin reproved his not cooperational behaviour because it was bordering on the problematic. Bartleby, instead, was even blocked for a month for SOURCE FALSIFICATION ([14]), in this case too about South Tyrol. They are not the candid souls he is pretending they are.
2. About Bolgitalianissimano. It is clear that this blocked user had a quarrel with Mai-Sachme and Mai-Sachme is still rancorous. But first of all I am not him. Second, he was not blocked for issues related to Mai-Sachme or his own edits, even if I do not know the reason for the block. Third, the edits he did were not at all vandalisms, but contributions to the encyclopedia. Last but not least, I want to repeat that I_am_not_him. Maybe Mai-Sachme is really conveinced about it, maybe he is just pretending to be in order to discredit me even more.
3. About the links Mai-Sachme brought here. The links about Bolgitalianissimano do not concern me. This link: if you do not speak Italian you have to trust Mai-Sachme's words, but what I said is that HE (Mai-Sachme) said that my favourite pastime is bringing him to waste time for me, and that he behaved exactly as he accused me to behave. This link and similars: here you have an example of hypocrisy, because when his comrade Bartleby08 did exactly the same edits and exaclty for the same reason but removing Italian IPAs instead of German IPAs and not once but three times, he did not report him for vandalism and supported what he had done.
4. About a few links I am bringing here. In Bartleby08's discussion I wrote four times, each time speaking civilly: here to explain the situation about IPAs and thank him for (apparently) stopping removing Italian IPAs, here to tell him I would not disturb him any more, here to ask him to stop removing Italian IPAs again and accuse him not to do it for en.wikipedia's sake but for personal issues related to his geographical origins (as proven by the reason he was blocked for), here to sincerely congratulate because he chose to solve his dilemma about asymmetry by adding German IPAs where there were Italian IPAs instead of removing these.
5. About my reasons to revert Mai-Sachme's edits. Not to troll or persecute him, first. As I told him, I wish this story had ended when Bartleby08 stopped removing Italian IPAs or had never begun if he did not start doing it. I have done it, once, for the following reasons. He inserted the German pronunciations only, the same thing Bartleby08 complained about when it concerned the few Italian pronunciations added by Bolgitalianissimano, but in all cities of South Tyrol, one by one, as to remark a sort of German-speaking predominance. The IPAs Mai-Sachme inserted contradict the very Help:IPA for German they link to, for example about the use of symbols such as: ̯ ˑ . The IPAs have no source, for how things are we do not know if they are standard German or local pronunciations, but in both cases there are no sources, and de.wikipedia is not a source for en.wikipedia if I well remember. Lastly, he has clearly not done it because he woke up and decided to contribute to the project, it is more likely he did it after Bartleby08's complaint and to take a sort of revenge against me, or he would not have spent almost 2:30 hours from 21:30 to midnight to insert all those IPAs, the obsessive troll is not me.

I hope that after reading all these not said truths he by chance forgot to mention your opinion about the matter would have changed. I am waiting for your reply before editing anything again. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: It appears, as if the proxy troll (newest batch of IPs: 88.70.42.136 (talk · contribs), 5.9.43.137 (talk · contribs), 185.26.122.41 (talk · contribs)) has decided to avoid further reverts for now. Given the pending sockpuppet investigation and since his attempts to gather support for his deletion strategy brought only negative replies, I think there is a good chance, he won't continue with his mass rollbacks. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: It appears as if the Italian germanophile separatist troll who accuses other Italian countrymen of being trolls (as proven by several sysops in his Italian personal talk page, it is not me saying it) is becoming conscious of not having been able to obtain a victory against the one he identifies as his archenemy. And the one he identifies as his archenemy (me, even if he has got the wrong person) is going to tell him one more thing: there is no way a troll from South Tyrol reproved by Italian sysops for trolling in articles about South Tyrol is going to gain an even trivial kind of anti-Italian vengeance here where Italian admins have no power nor interest, because I can simply add Italian IPAs to each article where you added the German IPA only. And you will not be able to accuse me of trolling or vandalising or anything bad at all. The only way you could avoid this and give yourself a sop is finding a city of South Tyrol which has only a German but no Italian pronunciation. Unluckily, there is no city in Alto Adige without an Italian name, since... They are all Italian. And you are Italian. As the source falsifier Bartleby08. And feeling accomplished in your wish of indepencence from the Italian Republic by vandalising a free on-line encyclopedia in English is very sad. But this is only my personal opinion, you clearly see it differently. That is all. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, he continues to stalk and revert me elsewhere... please note his deletions of my remarks on User:LiliCharlie's and User:Martin sv 85's talk pages: [15], [16]. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We Italians use this expression to refer to people like Mai-Sachme: "avere la faccia come il..." ("having one's face like one's..."). "WHO" is stalking "WHOM"? Mai-Sachme himself searched those messages in those talks, am I wrong? And after finding them he joined, or am I being wrong? So, again: "WHO" is stalking "WHOM"? This is the typical situation when Italians use that expression above. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Q.E.D. I did not remove for the second time the German IPAs, unlike Mai-Sachme's friend Bartleby08 did with Italian IPAs 3 times, I just added sourced Italian IPAs respecting the Help:IPA for Italian standards; as far as I am concerned, I have nothing else to add, and everybody is free to watch over those pages to monitor that I will not make removals again, even better, I do invite you admins to watch over those pages as I will do because we have no way to be sure that either Bartleby08 or Mai-Sachme will not remove any IPA again, while my personal stalker is free to keep spending his time searching for editors he will identify as me (or the other Italian user who is not me, I have not understood yet whether he says it on purpose or he is really convinced about it, but it does not matter to me). 190.14.37.133 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring and disruptive editing on the subject of Scotland

Pablothepenguin (talk · contribs) is currently on a crusade against Scotland being listed as part of Great Britain on Coverage of Google Street View. This has gone on for 10 days now, despite a 48-hour block for edit warring. Since the block, he has:

• Started 3 different threads ([17], [18], [19]) on the subject on 2 different pages, despite clear unanimous opposition to his proposed change.
• Continued inserting the challenged edit under the false pretense of "repair" ([20]).
• Twice hatted a comment by User:RGloucester that he did not like, stating that it is "Unionist drivel" and "Unnecessary content" ([21], [22]).
• Edit warring to keep his hatnote ([23]).

He is now "demanding Scottish recognition" and apparently won't stop until he gets his way. Note that he has been calling out RGloucester over the issue of Scottish nationalism since november 2014, so this is not just a recent issue. Perhaps a topic ban is in order, or a longer block.--Atlan (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for continued edit warring on Coverage of Google Street View. We can entertain a topic ban, but I would like for it to be proposed and discussed here; various options come to mind but I want to leave that to the community. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Reading the user's unblock request here: [24], I'm leaning to believe that a topic ban might be needed. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I feel, and it might be best to nip this in the bud. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• I closed the last RfC. If anyone thinks it's a viable and relevant discussion and should remain open, please feel free to undo that close. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain is an island. Scotland is part of that island, until or if they decide to dig a canal all along their border with England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Scotland is politically within the United Kingdom & geographically a part of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a weird understanding of geography going on here. Great Britain is not "an island", and neither is Great Britain a geographical definition. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain is the name given to the largest island in the United Kingdom, actually. (You may be thinking about the "British Isles".) — foxj 02:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was intending to qualify my statement by adding "In the context of this discussion". For example, the Hebrides, or Isle of Skye, or Orkney, or the Isle of Man - they are all not part of an island called "Great Britain" - yet they presumably are all on, or partly on, or will be on at some time, Google Street view. All those islands are part of the British Isles. Thus, large parts of Scotland are not part of Great Britain if you are using that name to refer to an island. If you are using Great Britain to refer to a political entity, as in "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", then those islands are part of Great Britain. Given the confusion over the term Great Britain, and that its meaning varies according to the context of its usage, and that Wikipedia is meant to be functionally helpful, follow common usage of names, and not blindly follow political dogma, there are reasons why the issues brought up by Pablothepenguin are worthy of consideration, not rough dismissal. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The description actually used on 'street view' is 'United Kingdom', one of the standard 'commonnames' for The UK of GB and NI. Therefore precise definitions of GB are irrelevant, although GB (also 'Britain') sometimes refers geographically to the 'easterly island/s', sometimes to the whole political entity. Anyone needing clarification of what UK is, need only follow the link. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

Since no one else has bothered so far - I am proposing a 6 month topic ban from the topics of Scotland & Great Britain/United Kingdom broadly construed. A quick look back at their editing history shows the Pro-Scottish independance view has caused their editing to be disruptive on more than one occasion. This MFD was a result of a series of edits annoying the ref desks. A pattern of editing that has resurfaced with his pointless arguments at the Google streetview page and the village pump. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I was working on a proposal myself, but couldn't quite figure out how narrow/broad the topic ban should be. Perhaps this is too broad? I support a ban, but would like to change 6 month topic ban to an indefinite topic ban that can be appealed no sooner than after 6 months.--Atlan (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There probably is a more narrow definition that *could* fit, but it would cause more headaches down the line for enforcement requests. From the edits made, someone who complains that Scotland are not listed as a separate country on a google streetview article clearly is willing to take nationalistic editing anywhere. Since the root cause is Scotland (and its inclusion/exclusion as part of the UK), thats the relevant problem topic area. Since that is actually only a small part of their editing, it should not restrict them elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Easy call. Clear battleground behaviour. --Cavarrone 12:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per inability to WP:LISTEN. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Based on past history and the unblock request that shows the user's battleground mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, the right remedy for a WP:BATTLE editor we still have hope might contribute productively in other areas. Zad68 12:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated at the outset, the editor has had a 48-hour block for edit warring. There are no examples presented showing Pablothepenguin edit warring since then. The recommended way to avoid edit warring is to discuss, and if discussion is fruitless to RfC - yet all of the above editors are actually proposing topic banning Pablothepenguin for doing exactly that, using article talk pages to discuss the issue and then to RfC the issue. And they are using non-arguments and non-evidence to support it. "Clear battleground behavior" - well if that is true give the diffs showing the " battleground behavior". "Inability to [[WP:LISTEN]"] - if that is true give diffs showing this. These diffs of course have not to be offenses already punished by the 48-hour block. Pablothepenguin is not the most eloquent at presenting a structured argument, especially when faced with and responding to deliberately crudely offensive political comments by RGloucester (a person who would probably still be using the phrase "North Britain" in everyday life if he could get away with it), but there is nothing there to support a topic ban as grossly wide or as long running as that demanded by the above. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The ban proposal seeks to address the disruptive behavior in the Scotland topic area, not necessarily edit warring. I think I have provided a reasonable, diff-supported rationale for this. Also, you seem to suggest RGloucester has goaded Pablo. From their 3 interactions over the years that I can find on the subject, I disagree. Lastly, the only one that is "demanding" anything here, rather than suggesting, is Pablothepenguin.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

On a number of occasions he (RGloucester) has brought up ethnicity (his own) to suggest that means his opinion matters more [25], [26], and called the RfC "political nonsense", all of which seems to be intentionally personalizing the dispute. He has also made factually incorrect statements like "Scotland has no such status, and is self-governed at the will of Westminster, not because of constitutional guarantees" that seem designed to be deliberately derogatory and demeaning in order to goad Pablothepenguin. Pablothepenguin then predictably enough rises to the occasion and further personalizes things by attacking RGloucester, as he does in his "Unionist drivel" comment made in response to one of RGloucester's "I was born there" comments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• To save others the trouble, seems Tiptoethrutheminefield have themselves been banned four times. So grains of salt may be in order. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If that marks the typical level of your contributions, your supposed "support" is worthless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I mostly stick around here to pick up new projects. If it matters, I've been following this thread since it was posted, just didn't have anything to say. TimothyJosephWood 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – suggest from banning him/her for 48 hours to 1 week, and there is a policy about banning, though. 333-blue 14:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure you are supporting the topic ban as it is proposed here.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clear inability to listen or dropthestick where this issue is concerned. I'm afraid that anyone who imagines the dignity and status of Scotland will be enhanced by being accorded seperate status on a 'street view' list, is living in a different universe from the rest of us. Even if this were not the case, WP purpose is neither to add or detract from Scotland's status. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Above, there is one reasoned Oppose, seven reasoned Supports, and one support that seems imperfectly aware of what the proposal is. I plan to close this discussion and institute the topic ban as proposed (six months, broadly construed) in another day, unless some compelling new arguments have changed the situation by then. That's not to prevent another uninvolved experienced editor from closing earlier, but three days seems about right to me. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC).
  • I agree with your assessment, and support the topic ban. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs a nap

I am thinking that range-blocking - at least for a while - might be called for. After User:TJH2018a was indef blocked for impersonating TJH2018 and harassing another user, I let them know that their block was pretty darn justified. In retrospect, WP:DFT should have guided me, but cie la vie. The curious little guy then threatened me on his page and then vandalized my page. From the type of vandalism, I am guessing it's a kid (bc who else would think that a WikiCommons picture of a flaccid penis is actually insulting). With that in mind, I'd like to propose a range block for the summer; maybe they will find something shiny and be occupied with that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

From that one edit, it appears it could be a sock of Nolantron as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That seemed apparent to me. What led me to the idea of range-blocking was the apparent interest in disrupting the 'pedia, so I say keep them out for a while. Since it is most likely a kid, they are gearing up for Summer Break. Idle hands and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jack Sebastian, did you ping me telepathically? Cause I do need a nap. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Please do something about this guy, he is ruining my quiet evening with his vandalism including... pictures...-- Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And he did it again this time on my usertalk.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a lot of penis. I blocked the IP, but I don't do range blocks (note that it wasn't a range of penises--it was just one, multiplied, in an act of narcissistic, penile overdetermination). I'm sorry it ruined your quiet evening; it also kind of ruined my happy thoughts about napping. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did they teach you the phrase 'penile overdetermination' in med school?

Katie^talk 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Seminary. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That was below the belt.--Elmidae (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Troll is still dicking around those two talk pages. I requested protection at RFPP but it's backlogged. Will one of you admins consider skipping the queue on this one? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you did there. = Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, Widr is on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Might need to go to the talk page archives too as the vandal is hitting those as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but can the file be deleted? It's not in use anywhere except for when this troll edits. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The file is on commons, so good luck with that .... We could completely disable the image here by uploading something else as a local copy, but it's already been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list [27] so I don't think that's necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little unfair, the most relevant pages are probably Commons:Commons:Nudity, Commons:COM:PORN and Commons:Template:Nopenis which does suggest recent low quality images will generally be delete. What counts as low quality I'm not sure but the image does have little info which would be a concern. Anyway that would need to be dealt with at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I've nominated it for deletion, so we shall see what happens. Of course the wider issue is that even if it is deleted, there are plenty more (we have the same issue with the bad image list, with the minor advantage that I think adding images to it is easier than deleting them on commons). Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yeah, we all know there are not enough flaccid penisse in the world to satisfy Common's desire for them.--v/r - TP 19:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

True dat, TParis. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm here. Basically, the only way to combat this thing is to put the images on the MediaWiki list, and put in for an SPI. I took the liberty of creating a User:TJH2018b and User:TJH2018c, so hopefully that will discourage him for a while. If you take a look at my talk page, you'll see that some guy was complaining about him. But that's the gist. Nothing else we can do besides that. TJH2018talk 21:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance; I'm sure the blocked user will eventually get tired of getting cock-blocked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@@Jack Sebastian: He doesn't stop. It may seem like he's gone, but he'll be back. TJH2018talk 22:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we revisit the idea of rangeblocking? Even the IP troll dared us to make a rangeblock. Unfortunately, in my Orientation to Adminship they didn't cover rangeblocks so is there another admin who can look into this? These taunts and trolling have been going on for weeks now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like 24.114.50.0/18 would cover it, but I'd need to confirm any crossfire or additional IPs it would miss. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, too many good edits from that range it seems. *sigh* -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it: 24.114.100.0/21; 24.114.60/19; 24.114.45/20 I omitted the range around 24.114.99.0 since I saw recent good edits from around there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This situation has been going on for quite some time now. I (and basically anyone who has come to my assistance) have received personal attacks, vandalism, said unsavoury pictures, ETC, since as early as February 2016, and it's about to be May. There are brief periods of time where it seems like the user has stopped, but he quickly returns. Every time one of his IPs or accounts is blocked, the user finds a new one almost immediately.

The user shows no signs of any endgame. Quite the opposite, in fact. The user's vandalism is getting worse. He is now impersonating other users ([28]). This probably will go on for as long as it's allowed. At this point, I think more extreme measures need to be taken. DarkKnight2149 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks as if the selected range block isn't working: ¹

On a side note, is there a way to check to see what doppleganger accounts I already have in place? It's been years since i started my account (and several dissatisfied customers, hence the dopps). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can we taboo the name? Make it go away? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that this was even possible. What an exceptionally useful too (in the right hands). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering how everyone else has left this behind, I'll wait for the block to expire before posting at WP:EFR, or sooner if there is a good need for it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits

Clarification requested please, with this DrChrissy was Tbanned from "human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)." The entry at WP:RESTRICT says "DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." DrChrissy has made edits to articles clearly focused on human anatomy, like [29][30]. This led to this conversation on DrChrissy's User Talk, where it became apparent that there's a bit of open ambiguity as to whether editing human anatomy topic falls under "human medicine... broadly construed". Could we get some clarification please? I am not looking for any further sanctions here, just clarity, as this is apparently good-faith disagreement. Zad68 2:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Human anatomy is not in and of itself health related. For example, as an artist I study and work with human anatomy all of the time and my work has nothing to do with health. There may be aspects of articles on human anatomy that relate to health or medicine, and human health obviously references the human being and his or her anatomy. but in and of itself no, not a health related area or areas.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

The particular disagreement we were having was whether human anatomy is part of "human medicine". To me it clearly is, it's a foundational element of medicine, and clearly would be included in the Tban when "broadly construed." To DrChrissy it isn't... thanks for your input. Zad68 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is anatomy - to describe a normal human penis. There are other penis-related articles which are medically oriented such as Micropenis, Penile cancer and Penile fracture which I have not, and would not, edit. Zad68 directed me to Medicine#Basic sciences to support their argument. Please note that along with Anatomy, this list also includes sciences such as Histology, Biophysics and Cytology. As with anatomy, these all have large areas of study completely unrelated to health and medicine. Please remember that our Medicine article states "Medicine... is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." and our Anatomy article states “Anatomy is the branch of biology concerned with the study of the structure of organisms and their parts”. Whilst they are not mutually exclusive, they are very clearly, different. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep it's exactly this that we're looking for clarity on. Zad68 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The clarity is that one uses the word "disease" whereas the other does not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the important line on the topic ban here is "human health" (especially when "broadly construed"). Even though there are some non-health related aspects to the human anatomy, as suggested above, I think the two areas are so interconnected that the ban would apply. Brianga (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brianga, do you think the ban applies to Beard, Hair, Earlobe, Moustache...? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I must say, this does look like a continued exercise in boundary-testing. Aren't there enough topics to edit which don't overlap with human health, broadly construed? And why did you even think to edit Quackery? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You critically forget to mention that I immediately self-reverted. Let's play nicely here. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't "immediately self-revert"; you struck your comments after being reminded of your TBAN. More boundary testing? Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just what point are you trying to make here? You are not even commenting on the subject of this thread. You are clearly trying to poison the well by bringing mistakes I made on another page to this one. Please desist. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it seems there is a wider pattern whereby you keep pushing your luck and wasting everybody's time in the process. Hasn't this come up at AE (and AN/I) before? Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is you that is wasting everybody's time with these spurious accusations. This thread is about whether Human penis is an anatomy article or a medical article. Please stick to the subject. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy to say "anatomy article or medical article", as if they were separate topics. The question is whether human anatomy should be considered to fall under "human health and medicine ... broadly construed". Zad68 20:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is a false dichotomy. You are entitled to your opinion, but so am I. Medicine is about a process - largely, treating disease. The article Human penis is about a lump of flesh that hangs off the front of men. It is not about disease. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No its not Zad. I would disagree strongly. I use human anatomy in both art and dance, but none of what I am doing has to do with health. Human health is a possible subset of human anatomy, as is the knowledge of human anatomy to draw the human figure, and understanding of the anatomy to analyze a skill for example, a jump or turn. To deal with this issue we must clarify both the master topic area and the subsets and then determine which if not all or some fall under "health related". If this is truly a clarification then personal attacks only derail the discussion and delay clarification. This is a larger issue than one editor's ban and probably deserves greater community input. No one's opinion on this can be definitive, and we should have an understanding that all editor's can refer to .(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

That isn't the question here, is it? I would say, "maybe" - for hair, it would apply if you are editing about lice, but not a crewcut. But I'm loathe to give an advisory opinion and think we should stick to the issues at hand. Brianga (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

But this is the issue at hand. Zad68 is asking whether I should edit the Human penis page at all, not about the particular edits I made. Contrary to what you think, I can edit about lice at that page, but not on matters relating to human health. I would argue that I should not edit crewcut because that is a fashion and relates to human mental health. This is why topic bans are so stupid. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion based on university classes in biology but I don't think anatomy (and the general area of human biology) necessarily involves health or medicine. I took courses in anatomy and physiology and they had nothing to do with medical treatment or health issues. I think you have to look at the content of the edits, not merely the article title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Liz - I totally agree. For many months now, I have edited animal behaviour and animal welfare articles such as Dog meat where there are (totally unfounded) claims of medical benefits. I have steered wide of making any edits to such material. I am not testing the Ban, I am trying very hard to adhere to this, even though it is sometimes to the detriment of articles. I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits at Human penis as to whether they are medical or not, but I would like to suggest this waits until we get consensus on the OP's clarification request. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern about boundary testing, particularly after the recent edit to Talk:Quackery, but personally I really don't see edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects covered by the topic ban. I'm surprising myself a little here, because in the past I've been critical of DrChrissy's boundary testing, but I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's well on this side of the boundary anyway. I guess it's easier to make health or medical-related edits to anatomical articles, and I imagine admins (including me) won't be terribly forgiving if "accidental" health or medical-related edits are made on this type of article. So DrChirssy should exercise extreme caution. And, DrChirssy, the idea of topic bans is not stupid, it's just an understandable problem in execution; if you make them narrowly defined, then someone will always find loophole upon loophole. If you make them broadly defined, then almost by definiton the boundary is poorly defined. Better would be not editing in a way that required inherently imperfect topic bans to be imposed in the first place. But in this particular case, I don't see a topic ban violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little late to the cockfight here, but I agree entirely with Liz and Floquenbeam. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As do I. Katie^talk 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question, which I don't know the answer to. Is the "topic" by article, or by edit? In other words, can one edit any article so long as it doesn't implicate the topic at issue; or must one avoid each and every article that involves the topic? Somewhere in the middle? Brianga (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Its a topic ban, so any edits related to the topic are subject to it. Not pages. The key bit is 'broadly construed' - with some articles the subject matter is linked to the topic in such a way that any edits should be avoided. 2 years ago you could have happily made edits to Donald Trump while being banned from American Politics, now it would be incredibly unwise to even attempt it lest accusations of partisan editing come into play. Likewise someone banned from medical articles and human health should *not* be editing articles on human anatomy. Its deliberate boundary pushing and usually gets frowned upon at AE. The main problem with topic bans is that unless they are explicitly broad enough, people subject to them *always* attempt to keep editing in the same area and poking around the edges. Taking anatomy - someone who is making edits regarding human anatomy/physiology in the context of say artistic depiction, would not be falling foul of a human health topic ban. Someone who is making edits in a section about reproductive success, that certainly *is* a health issue, albeit the edits were correcting US-UK English spelling variants. Which is another *amazingly* silly thing to do, if the article is even remotely ambiguous as to if you are topic banned from it or not, you dont go in and dick around (ha) with UK/US spelling. It makes no substantial difference to the article and if it needs to be done, can be done by someone who is not banned at all from the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sensible thoughts. Thanks. Brianga (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What a surprise, topic banned person decides to be edgy and edit in a gray area because they know that there will, at worst, be some giant multi page bureaucrating hair-splitting discussion on ANI before anything happens to them. Why isn't this person banned yet? I blame society. Here's a lil tip: widely construed means WIDELY CONSTRUED. Instead of editing medical articles, go copyedit articles about creeks or anime or something. Jtrainor (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have been spending most of my time on WP copyediting animal welfare articles and creating new articles. You might like to take a look at Theory of mind in animals and Kype (anatomy) which I created during the last few days. Happy editing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Potential legal threats at Lennart Poettering

Do this, this and this, which all come from the same IP range, seem to collectively count as legal threats, aside from being clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE unjustified massive blanking? LjL (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see it, and considering that this is a BLP we should look at the claims carefully. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• The first two qualify, the third is merely a personal attack. Suggest semi-protecting the article to fend off the IP's, and not restoring the material until it can be thoroughly reviewed (as Drmeis said). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ha, I just semi-protected it for a good long while--there's plenty of disruption in the history. Thanks Bugs. The disputed section, I trimmed it a bit, but it's decently sourced and hardly libelous or harassy. In other words, the IP needs to stop complaining. I do invite other editors to have another look at that section. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Jolly good. I have to say, those "controversies" are something only a dedicated computer geek would likely care about. And I don't see anything that looks libelous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Content discussion, but, since we're here and it's being touched upon, I'll quickly mention it here: why do you think this one definitely needs secondary sourcing, Drmies? I reviewed WP:BLPPRIMARY and the subsequent couple of sections in that policy, and since this is material created directly by the subject (unless we have doubts about the authenticity of the interview transcript) and meets the conditions laid out by WP:BLPSELFPUB, I reckon it should be acceptable. LjL (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
      • It's in a section called "controversies". It therefore surely needs at least one probably more reliable secondary sources to establish it was a controversy and a significant one at that. I.E. one that enough people cared about to get a write up of the controversy in reliable secondary source. Even if the person described what they were saying as controversial or claimed they received a lot of negative feedback or whatever, we shouldn't be including it if no one cared enough about it to write it up in a reliable secondary source. In the absence of that, even if there's merit to include it in the article, it definitely shouldn't be in a controversy section. (And I always question the inclusion of personal viewpoints without reliable secondary source, why is this particular view significant compared to the many others the person has made public?) Ultimately, if something had no coverage in reliable secondary sources, it seems unlikely it's sufficiently significant to be something we should mention in the biography of the person. Obviously BLPSELFPUB says it's okay sometimes, but IMO that should be restricted to very limited fleshing out of existing viewpoints, or basic biographical details which we can find a RSS for but there is merit to include in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I hope the semi can be lifted at some reasonable point. Those diffs come from just 2 addresses. There were other problems further back (several revdels a couple months ago) but semi is supposed to be for more intense issues than that. Baseball Bugs is right that it's mostly computer geeks who care about Poettering's controversies, but Poettering's entire notability is with those same geeks, so the controversies are closely entangled with the main things he is known for. He's also been subject to tons of flak, death threats, etc. so I understand the need to handle his biography carefully. The article in its current state is actually not very informative either about Poeterring's work or the software community's reaction to it. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Regardless, I'm very much not comfortable with an edit summary like "Your criminal activity is reported to authorities in Mr. Poetterings jurisdiction" and I'm glad something was done about it. LjL (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

US Government Logo....isn't actually public domain?

I found this notice from the USDA Forest Service on eBay (for another thing on Wikipedia that was unrelated) that states that the USDA Forrest Service Logo isn't in the public domain which is different as stated on the commons. Now i'm not 100% sure where this should be brought up on Wikipedia, so I want a more experienced editor/admin here to look at this and see if this is of concern a/or requires further research. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

See http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-10851394 for a previous iteration of what appears to be the same issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is probably better taken up at Commons, though I'm not familiar enough with it to know where the proper noticeboards are. Commons:Village pump/Copyright probably. clpo13_(talk) 04:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict between myself and WilliamJE

Hi, AN/I. I've been in conflict with another user, and I'm rather afraid that I've seriously lost my temper. Anyone examining my recent edit history will find quite a number of breaches of WP:CIVIL, and I'll accept any knocks I've got coming for that. My only defence is that in ten years on-wiki this is the first time I've done it. I have a very long history of editing in conflict-rich areas without losing my rag, but this has finally done it. As well as examining my own behaviour, I'd also be grateful if AN/I could determine whether (as I maintain) WilliamJE is on a MOS-related crusade that is causing needless conflict, and give him advice on the number of reverts it's appropriate to make in a 24-hour period.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, in 10 years you've never had an outburst, and then that happened. Is there something else happening in your life right now that may be causing stress? Because, I just don't see how that issue escalated so quickly for you. WilliamJE's first removal of content was a bold edit, not a revert. The material he removed has existed for years. Calling it a revert would be calling every edit that changes or removes content a revert. If that were the case, only edits that add material could be defined as not-reverts. It seems to me, that WilliamJE is at 3 reverts. And your threat to wait 3 days and then make your change does look a lot like gaming the system. I just don't see any way in this that you come out looking well. I hope my outside opinion helps.--v/r - TP 23:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been looking at the Compulsory purchase in England and Wales article and I am a little mystified as to why S Marshall has self reported. I can see several prophanities (which I dislike but they are certainly not actionable). Am I missing something here. S Marshall, can I rather bizarrely remind you that postings here are supposed to be supported by diffs. Where have you violated WP:Civility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 April 2016‎ DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall has, on infrequent occasion, fallen through cantankery into outburst at another who has irked him. It is not terribly out of character, but a particular characteristic of a usually thoughtful and kind person who swims in difficult places. He has not lost his temper, but instead caught himself. If William can ride above this, and carry on, and all parties try to maintain civility, then all is well.

On WilliamJE, since this is a backhand request to investigate him... True, anyone connected with the MOS should be viewed with suspicion. I also note that I dislike his recent signature, I think it is a clever reference to something, but too clever for me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• TParis is referring to another recent incident in which I lost my temper but without, I feel, breaching WP:CIVIL. From my point of view, the circumstances in that case were:- (1) An editor had removed a paragraph from child grooming about the motives of sexual predators. This paragraph was easily verifiable and anyone could have verified it with a thirty-second search on google, but it did not actually have an inline reference at the time. It was also an important part of the meaning of the article. (2) I was pinged. I came to the article talk page and posted a source for the paragraph. (3) A different editor started a conversation on WP:V about whether to adapt WP:BURDEN to stop this happening again. Editors concerned about child protection felt that WP:BURDEN should be modified to require editors to take some responsibility for their removals and to say that finding sources is everyone's job. (4) Others including TParis felt that WP:BURDEN should empower anyone to remove anything they disagreed with if it didn't have an inline reference to a source. (5) The consensus having gone with TParis' side of the argument, I collapsed the discussion with an abrupt note. I think TParis was wrong, and I think this decision was important and the outcome was detrimental to the encyclopaedia. I still hope he will reconsider and I don't think Wikipedia takes child protection anywhere near importantly enough. The crucial differences are (a) that I was able to maintain a sense of perspective and converse with TParis civilly on my talk page immediately afterwards, and (b) child protection is a bit more important than removing redlinks, so some heated debate about it is to be expected.

  In the more recent case none of these things were true. An editor came to an article I had started, and therefore watchlisted (because creating content on Wikipedia means you're sentenced to defend it for life). He removed a cluster of redlinks. Nobody disagrees that these redlinks are appropriate and justified for the article; the problem is that they did not comply with the manual of style because they appear in the "see also" section. I reverted, and we went back and forth, him removing the same content four times in succession. I left it after the third revert and went to the edit-warring noticeboard, where Ymblanter responded by protecting the page.

  The outcome is of course going to be that I put the appropriate and necessary redlinks back in, because it's a cinch that WilliamJE isn't going to, but I have to do so above the "See also" section of the article. This kind of thing has always made my blood boil and I started spitting profanities.

  In response to TParis' question, no, there's nothing difficult going on in my life at all; I'm a boringly domestic man with a stable home life, a supportive wife and adult son, I'm in stable gainful employment which is not more than usually stressful, and everyone I know is healthy. It's editor behaviour making me see red.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll address a few things.
    • S Marshall still can't file a proper ANI with differentials to back up his claims
    • He's claimed the redlinks are important but has yet to say why.
    • S Marshall falsely claims 'Nobody disagrees that these redlinks are appropriate'. He forgets this edit[31] and this one[[32]] not done by me.
    • The issue of an editor putting redlinks into law articles was discussed last December. Click here[33] and here[34]. That editor was told to stop doing so. Just in case I'll ping the two administrators, Ed Johnston (talk · contribs) and Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) after I finish this post. S_Marshall was told about this discussion by me on his talk page[35]. His response to that and what WP:Seealso says about redlinks- Don't care[36].
    • S_Marshall yet again insinuates that he is going to put the links back into the article but in another section when T Paris that might be considered gaming the system. In fact he has done that already at another article just yesterday. Click here[37] and here[38].
    • SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) My signature refers to a saying my late maternal grandfather used to use all the time. "The complaint department is on the roof."
      • I never met my maternal grandfather, but the saying is slightly familiar to me, but I can't source it. I think the version I heard didn't involve a roof, but some other place elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The consensus is no redlinks in see also sections. It is up to S Marshall or any other editor who disagrees to get the community to change their mind....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify this for me please, WilliamJE? Are you saying that the redlinks you removed from Compulsory purchase in England and Wales should not appear anywhere in the article?—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• As I was involved in a couple of edits, I will just say just a few things:
  

1) S Marshall may have gotten a little cranky, but there is no reason for any action to be taken here. He clearly wants to improve the project, and nothing he said or did warrants sanction.

2) We do have a Manual of Style for a reason, and while exceptions can and should be made, there should be a reason for those exceptions.

3) As for the redlinks, they should not be indiscriminately removed. They just don't belong in a "see also" section, as there is nothing to see. Putting them in the body of the article is less problematic, but the person who inserts them should consider starting the article themselves. If they are unwilling, then they should not do it.

Scr★pIron^IV 12:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just with reference to your point #3:- You say redlinks shouldn't be indiscriminately removed but don't belong in a see also section. Would you agree with me, then, that an editor removing redlinks from a see also section should put them back in in another section before moving on? Or do you feel it's more appropriate behaviour for WilliamJE to bring the article into compliance with the manual of style and then leave the content creators to do the cleanup?—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I would not agree with that. If the article is redlinked and is not mentioned in the body of the article, then its relationship to the article's subject is unknown. The editor who wished to add the link to the article would be the one who knows why they added it, and it should be incumbent upon them to refactor the article if they wish it to be retained. But that is just my opinion. Thank goodness for seeking consensus Scr★pIron^IV 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What a fascinating thread. I've seen plenty of people accidentally shoot themselves in the foot before on this page. I don't think I've seen anyone deliberately try to shoot themselves in the foot and manage to miss. Anyway, there seems to be a consensus that no admin action is required - I suggest the discussion about redlinks continues elsewhere. WaggersTALK 13:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• In terms of admin action, it would be nice if the article could be unprotected to enable me to do all the work WilliamJE's edits have caused me?—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister's reviewing issues

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

---

I wasn't going to be the one who opens a report but, with another new notice recently posted to their talk page, this needs to be resolved. The issue is being discussed here. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, FWIW Mlpearc that last notice was because when two users click "Review" at one article. Even fellow NPPer Wgolf knows what I'm talking about. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Even then, your reviewing methods leave much to improve upon. Dschslava (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to explain, I'm the top reviewer at NPP, I have long experiences at AfD so I know what can be kept or not. I review articles often, clicking "Reviewed" and watch them. I have several pages at my watchlist and I look at them everyday if they have not been deleted yet. People may think I'm too quick but I also know that if something is not notable, chances are it should be deleted and everyone at NPP deletes it within minutes. I'm not the only one. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you are under the impression that reviewing articles which are then placed on your watchlist allow for greater efficiency. No—most new page patrollers ignore reviewed articles—they trust that people like you have actually reviewed it and marked it appropriately-for deletion if need be. Dschslava (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to sit on an article, by all means, but you shouldn't mark it as "patrolled" when all you've done is add it to your future to-do list. That's not what "patrolling" means. Moreover, with literally hundreds of patrols per day—several per minute at times—your claim that you go through them all later is simply beyond belief. You are short-circuiting a crucial part of the encyclopedia's quality control, and on an unprecedented scale.

When I patrol, I typically spend at least two minutes per article: I evaluate for notability, verify facts, resolve any simple formatting issues, categorize (adding Category:Living people to BLPs is important), tag for any major problems (being careful only to tag the most prominent issues), and then add tags for any relevant WikiProjects on the talk page. If there's a CSD-worthy issue that can't be resolved with further editing from the initial contributor—blatant advertising, trolling, or silliness—I cut that process short; if I'm unsure about sending it straight to CSD or AfD, I'll tag it with {{notability}} and leave it unpatrolled for another set of eyes to examine. (Also, when I add a CSD or notability tag, I watchlist the article in case the tag is improperly removed.) This is what NPP directs us to do and what the NPP norm requires. Ticking the patrolled box is an assertion that yes, you have addressed all these simple issues.  Rebbing  04:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree his reviewing methods could stand some improvement (couldn't we all stand some improvement in one fashion or another?), but I'm not sure this has quite risen to the level of AN:I yet. Specifically, it seems people the concern here is that he is marking pages as patrolled without actually tagging them in some sense. He says he is giving the article an opportunity for improvement before actually tagging. I agree that he should probably not mark it patrolled if he's not ready to tag it or let it go on it's merry way. However, I should point out that there are some conflicting messages about disposition of new articles. Some say, tag immediately, others say wait before tagging (for potential improvements). I, myself, have been chastised for being too quick to tag a new article. Sure, obvious copyvio/spam/vandalism is obvious and should be disposed of quickly regardless, but it's not always that cut and dry. Perhaps if SwisterTwister agrees to just not mark as patrolled without actually leaving a visible review of the article in some sense (unless one simply isn't needed)? He can watchlist if he likes and follow up later if he wants (obviously). Chrisw80 (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's actually the approach recommended by NPP: "Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later." That's all we're asking for—that SwisterTwister not mark pages without doing the work. He's rejected this reasonable request despite being asked explicitly by several editors, not to mention the steady stream of "unreviewed" notifications he receives, so it appears to me that further discussion away from ANI is unlikely to be productive.  Rebbing  06:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing Please give me an example of an "unreview" of my patrolling as the only one I see is Dschlaka above. Any others are routine usual collisions of multiple users reviewing at the exact same time. I hope you're not mixing others messaging with this as they are not related. I've said this and I'll say it again, I click it as reviewed because I've basically seen and reviewed it and will continue to notice it, thus reviewed. Any other disagreements are the choices of others. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your "archiving" method doesn't make it easy to find adverse comments, but, in the last week or so, I saw these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Perhaps these are generated by collissions (which would be a pretty sloppy bug in the system), but, like I said, I think these are neither here nor there. If you're asking for other concerns, I'm seeing them being raised here (AddWittyNameHere, 29 March 2016), here (Kolbasz and Samwalton9, 29–30 March 2016), here (Compassionate727, 24 March 2016), and here (thread from early February 2016).  Rebbing  15:00, 29 April 2016‎ (UTC)

No Rebbing, I'm repeating myself but I'll say it again, that happens when two users clicked "Patrolled" at the article at the same time, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GeoffreyT2000 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wgolf . It happens to anyone who has actually spent a longtime at NPP. Those are not explicitly stating any concerns because there are none, it's simply an "edit conflict". SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to certify that the one I unreviewed that sent the message to his talk page (diff #1 above) was not worthy of acceptance. I tagged it for A7, but the article was in decidedly bad shape in other ways (I cannot see it since it is deleted and was later deleted again, but an admin may. Even with a quick glance, it needed lots of work, to my recollection). And this is not the first one I have unreviewed of his. Fylbecatulous talk 16:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:SwisterTwister is a very high volume new page patroller and even if the complaints against them on the talk page were upheld (which seems unlikely) I'm still pretty sure their accuracy is better than mine when I do new page patrol. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not just "a" very high volume patroller, but either "the" highest or second highest, depending how you measure it and how far back. Some data I recently collected for a different purpose: page curation actions over 12 months, patrol actions over 24 months (slow to load). Asking him to slow down a bit is perhaps appropriate; chasing him away entirely surely isn't. —Cryptic 08:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed some strange reviews at Ricky Clousing [39]. I was basically having a disagreement with another editor and occasionally the page was balnked. The last two reviews by SwisterTwister were performed while the page was blanked (i.e. marked as reviewed when the article had no content at all). It seemed strange at the time, but being unfamiliar with NPP and busy with other things just assumed it was an anomaly. They definitely need to slow down. AIRcorn (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose restriction

From reading the discussions at SwisterTwister's talk, this is recurrent, problematic behaviour that will not stop without an editing restriction. They refuse to listen to other editors about patrolling, and their current approach is too prolific and misses too many issues. Claiming that them watching all the pages substitutes for proper patrolling misses the point of patrolling. A similar fingers in ears approach was displayed in response to User:Cunard's correct objections to them both !voting and relisting at AfD.

I propose that SwisterTwister be formally restricted to work from the end of the new page patrol queue and not the beginning and that they must resolve issues or tag them as appropriate at the time of patrolling. If the problems persist after that restriction is in place, they should be banned from NPP/reviewing. Fences&Windows 07:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing this proposal as User:SwisterTwister has pledged to review articles fully and there is no consensus for a formal restriction. User:DGG, there's no need to call my proposal to work from the oldest articles in NPP "absurd"; many problems at NPP are caused by over-zealous editors rushing at brand new articles. Fences&Windows 13:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually FWIW, I always start at the oldest but, when I have reviewed all of those or if is not busy, I start reviewing the newest, of which I have tagged and deleted vandalism, G11, etc. As I also said, Cunard was upset because I relisted a few simply to save the troubles and also voted to help the consensus, something of which should never be discouraged. It's fights like these that make people question why they continue here at WP. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, people may be concerned that my reviews "may never be seen afain" but that's not so, simply look at my nominations at AfD. I myself have to vote at all AfDs to simply get a clear consensus, therefore I know I can be trusted to look again at these pages. "Restricting" and limiting only damages the eyes looking articles. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If at least one reasonable (not a troll) person signs this as "Support", I will certainly reconsider my time here at WP/and if it's worth these fights, as this is not the WP I'm interested to view. It's ridiculous that people even consider " banning " me without taking into consideration the amount of beneficial reviewing I've made. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister, I'm reasonable, and my proposal was not trolling. I don't want you banned, I want you to slow down and be more thoughtful in your patrolling and editing. NPP can lead to poor habits, you are not alone in this. My intent was not to drive you off WP but rather to get you to focus on what a number of editors are telling you about how you're approaching things. Fences&Windows 21:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of behaviour that causes the problem. Thinking some people's opinions are trolling or that they are sub-par compared to the some other people. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Questionable diligence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that the questionavle diligence you have about everyone at MfD? SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a reference to your usual very shallow rationales at both AfD and MfD. Rapidfire and shallow is very questionable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

... if ST doesn't take this seriously. He appears to be taking it quite seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose That's a step too far. I suggest SwisterTwister merely be asked to play nice here. It's hardly unreasonable that other reviewers might wish to have articles remain as clearly 'not reviewed' so they know that here might be issues to deal with, rather than SwisterTwister keeping all the judgement to themselves and removing the material from the other reviewer's purview. (Being asked for that should not be a toys-out-of-pram affront, either.)--Elmidae (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Elmidae: He has been asked, for more than five years, including three of us in the past three days. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're rehashing things you have no actual familiarity with. Sure, you may notice some criticisms about my NPP....4 or 5 years ago!! Certainly not relevant here, and, like with anything, that's not pertinent to today's moments. Frankly, I'm going to be honest, I never replied to your talk page messages, because they were heated and I was certain my saying anything else was not going to make things better. SwisterTwister talk 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: But they are relevant. The fact that people have been raising the same complaints for long periods of time helps show that this is a real, long-term problem. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not if they are no longer happening at this moment. I simply strongly believe you want to rehash things, something that you had never calmly talked to me about. May I note you were speaking in nothing but great at my talk page, something any reasonable user can say I've never done. You'll again understand why I was not i terestdd to comment, regardless of what you said. If it helps anyone, I can easily retire if it means less drsmatic VS around here. I eould eush everyhad ne well with tsking care of WP' something I've certainly done. SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. There are also other issues about this editor which were raised over the time by me and others about his AfD and prod record, his AfD votes were once described as "lazy rapid-fire", a definition which seems to apply to the current patrolling issue in the same way. Frankly I can't trust anyone with this Neelix-alike rate of editing, especially after it has been proved multiple times to be inaccurate, so I urge him to slow down his editing, replacing speed with accuracy. Wikipedia is not a videogame where you have to set some time records, on the contrary focusing in less things and spend a reasonable time in them would ensue a worthier contribution to the encyclopedia. Cavarrone 12:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that before and after you have hounded me including calling me " stupid" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertinazzi? SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @SwisterTwister: for pointing out an enlighting example of your inaccurate "lazy rapid-fire" AfD votes. An excellent example of casting a vote without not even caring to read the AfD comments above yours and the multiple reliable sources about the subject which had been provided, including encyclopedias and monographic books, let alone commenting them or rebutting them or providing a minimally meaningful rationale. Unsurprisingly, you posted that AfD comment in the same exact minute you made 7 other edits, including starting an AfD and voting in other 2 AfD [40]. Sorry, I don't trust the accuracy of an editor who IN A SINGLE MINUTE starts an AfD and cast 3 AfD votes, one of them so spectacularly silly. And for the record, in the next minute you voted four more AfDs, 8 AfD votes in two minutes, WP:THEVIDEOGAME. Cavarrone 17:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Also worth noting I was not "hounding you", I had actually voted in that discussion three days before you. Also, I never called you stupid, what I marked as stupid was your comment there. Cavarrone 18:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the behavior you're being accused of here concerning AfD is the same behavior we are upset about in NPP. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Is the AfD thing really a problem? I assume the regular closers easily recognize mass-produced, boilerplated, pile-on votes for what they are and give them the modest consideration they deserve: I'm a relative newcomer, and I noticed that pattern fairly quickly. I think common courtesy dictates that we give SwisterTwister credit for his harmless (if misplaced) enthusiasm.  Rebbing  18:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: Yeah, I do agree that in AfD, the consequences are probably insignificant. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that SwisterTwister's AfD contributions are problematic. Nearly all of them are very opaque as to what evidence the opinion is based on, and they often don't take account of the previous discussion. Several times in the last few days I have asked for clarification of comments but have not received any replies, so it seems that he treats AfDs as successions of disconnected statements rather than discussions. A particularly egregious example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turane Jutu, where he suggests putting a blatant hoax that we have hosted for nine years into draft space. Anyone who had spent even a few seconds looking at the previous discussion would have realised that that suggestion is absurd. It's pretty obvious that this editor simply needs to slow down and start thinking about what he is doing, but I have no idea how that can be achieved when he refuses to accept such advice from many people over a long time. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Premature. First, this thread is not [yet?] addressing issues outside of NPP, and this proposal is specifically about NPP, so I don't see why anything other than NPP activity should be relevant to this question. To the point, however, I'd want to see a great deal more evidence before supporting. I get the sense that what's going on here is several people are put off by ST's "don't worry about it" type of responses to complaints/requests for him to change his method. While I get that frustration of feeling like one's objections are dismissed (always a touchy thing on this, a collaborative project), I suspect given the volume of his patrolling that he, like me, would want to see a lot more evidence of problems that come of it before committing to making a change. I only see a handful of pages here, out of many tens of thousands of patrols. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: This small handful of pages is a large proportion of the amount of pages which have been sampled. Nobody has the time to actually review the sheer number of pages that he marks as reviewed: not even he does. If we wanted to sample all of them, I imagine there would be thousands of pages that should've been speedily deleted that weren't, and tens of thousands if we went back and checked all the pages that he's been marked as reviewed over the course of time he's been receiving these complaints, which is in excess of five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compassionate727 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 April 2016

I don't know what you mean with your first sentence. It sounds like you're saying that of the articles brought up in this thread (and the one on ST's talk page), a large percentage of them are problematic. If that's what you mean, then of course that's the case -- they were brought up because they're problematic. If, on the other hand, you mean that someone has taken a random sampling of some larger number of ST's patrolled pages (obviously nobody thinks you should go through all of them -- but I should think it would at least be in in the hundreds), then could you point me to it, because I've missed it. For now, I'm saying I don't see enough evidence in these two threads. The point is that "I imagine" isn't good enough [for me anyway]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

He asks for more evidence, and your response is hypothetical scenarios you've "imagined"? I don't think that's the sort of "evidence" we're looking for here... Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Compassionate727, fueling again to your unknowing to my work, I have actually speedied anything I saw as needing even the slightest deletoin. I myself, as any admin who has deleted my pages, can say including AfD work such as Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Jack Robichaux. You also must be unaware of my AfD work. SwisterTwister talk 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I don't know anything about your AfD work, nor do I understand what that has to do with your ability to effectively identify speedies. That said, I don't doubt that you speedy every page you find that needs to be, but you're looking so quickly that you aren't effective identifying them. That's our main complaint. Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: the reason that I got myself into this is because I and to speedy several of your patrolled articles that you failed to speedy. Dschslava (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites and Sergecross73: My point was misunderstood. He was saying (or at least I understood him to be saying) that only a few problem articles had been brought up, compared to the tens of thousands that SwisterTwister has reviewed, and that the number of problems was a very insignificant number compared to how many he's done in total. My point was that we've only checked a small number of his reviews, and that we'd likely find a lot more problems if we went through and checked a lot more of his. I can do that when I get home. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I seem to be following you correctly then. I was merely pointing out that, when Rhodoendrites said he'd need to see more evidence to warrant more action, your response was your musings on what you would felt was "likely" or "imagined" to be found, rather than, you know, actual examples. I suppose if you intend to provide examples on later on, then that's a bit better, at least... Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Generally when people see 'reviewed' they expect it to have been reviewed. Until such time as SwisterTwister can actually fulfil that expection, they should be prevented from causing more issues. I find it telling that their talk-page has issues with their reviewing removed/archived much quicker than anything else recently. It gives the impression of being unwilling to take criticism or correction. Opinion of a reasonable non-troll. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I am supporting the restriction as proposed "SwisterTwister be formally restricted to work from the end of the new page patrol queue and not the beginning and that they must resolve issues or tag them as appropriate at the time of patrolling." not a total ban, as some of the oppose's seem to think that is what is being proposed here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Way too soon for this. This all seems to boil down to. "Hey, I don't think you're being careful enough in the way you willingly volunteer your time to do a dull task." "Hey, I do think I'm being careful enough." Honestly, the headache of dealing ANI discussions like this is probably enough to slow him down a bit... Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: But this isn't too soon. He's been receiving complaints about this for more than five years, and received three within the past three days, and he refuses to even address our concerns. Nor is it simply a matter of we think versus he thinks. We have found plenty of instances out of a small sample of him not doing a thorough enough job. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this the first formal discussion on it though? I mean, people complain when I speedy delete their hoax articles they created too. Should that be held against me? Not all complaints are legit. How much has the community weighed in on this, and there been a consensus stating he's in the wrong, yet he refused to change. If there is no such example, then I would think a "final warning" would be the strongest decision we should be implementing at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Anything about my reviewing from years is a battleground behavior as that is not relevant here and you do not know anything about that. There is no need hash anything from the past not to mention yourbheated tone at my TP. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually one of the prime (if not the *main* reason) for topic bans is a pattern of unconstructive behaviour over an extended period of time despite correction attempts. Were your reviewing issues only recent, it would be less of a problem. As it is clearly an ongoing issue, it is more serious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so can you link me to some of these discussions where the community had a consensus that was against SS's edits then? Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: When a page is marked as reviewed, it should've been reviewed. SwisterTwister does not actually review them, and I question their ability to review them all again in the future, especially when he marks as many as 500 a day. He refuses to constructively work through this, as seen from the fact that he has been receiving complaints for more than five years without changing his behavior. I have no doubt that tens of thousands of pages that should've been deleted during this time have gone without being deleted. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So you have completely ignored my comments? 3/4/of what Review is actually quite simple, with taxonomic animals, train stations, villages, etc. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you don't typically apply routine maintenance tags such as {{refimprove}} to those articles, a 25% miss rate is way too high. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Edit: I agree with BethNaught's post below this one. A complete ban on marking pages as reviewed would be best here, since the issue is with him doing that doing that inappropriately, resulting in too much damage. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Only in death, but prefer a complete ban on marking pages as reviewed, since SwisterTwister does not actually review them and continues not to after reasonable requests. This would of course not prevent them from tagging problems or nominating pages for deletion, which is also valuable work. BethNaught (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That simy is too far especially considering my work at AfD and AfC, which shows I clearly know what can and cannot be accepted. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your knowledge of standards is not my concern. My concern is that you are marking pages as reviewed without having reviewed them, despite many requests not to do so. Your IDHT with regard to this issue is only further evidence why a stronger, ungameable restriction is needed. BethNaught (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and support BethNaught's proposed absolute ban on marking pages as patrolled. NPP needs to be done correctly or not at all, and SwisterTwister's response to these concerns—threatening to leave if he can't have his way—shows he's more interested in doing things his way than listening to community feedback. A backlog is far less of a problem than inaccurate patrolling.  Rebbing  15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I have also raised concerns about one or two incidents of SwisterTwister's reviewing in the past (simply not checking the history to see that the page was previously redirected from an AfD), I think a complete ban is going way overboard. They should consider this a proper warning to pay more attention to the articles they're reviewing, but I don't think completely removing their ability to patrol is the right move. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Samwalton9: To clarify: The proposal above wouldn't ban SwisterTwister from patrolling: it just requires him to start from the end of the (very short) queue and to mark pages as patrolled only after he's actually patrolled them.  Rebbing  15:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Rebbing: Sorry, yes, indeed, I misread. Is this actually enforceable? Sam Walton (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Samwalton9: I don't see why not. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too soon for a ban, it's going over the top and making an example of him. He should be warned to pay more attention and slow down when he is reviewing, but should not be completely banned from patrolling. Tom29739 ^[talk] 15:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC).
  • @Tom29739: Same as Rebbing's comment above. While several of us support more harsh measures, the initial proposal would simply require SwisterTwister to actually review the pages before marking them as reviewed. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Compassionate727: I agree with something like that, that's what WP:NPP is all about. I don't agree with User:SwisterTwister (or any user) being made an example of though. Tom29739 ^[talk] 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC).
• Support: Neutral on end-of-queue VS front-of-queue, but the part of actually taking an action (if the page isn't fine as-is) before marking the page as patrolled must happen. Given the complete lack of response to previous complaints, a formal restriction seems like the only way to go. Kolbasz (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I responded and also included that I was not interested with heated moments regardless if anyone ng , and yet they continued even with Compassionate727 reverting my archive attempts, regardless of whether he and wanted to continue the thread. Even with hisbapparent 25% "risk" rate, AI certainly pay attention to those. It's this type of "toss the baby with the bathwater" that makes people go from WP. SwisterTwister talk 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you please point out where you responded to this, for example? Kolbasz (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If Compassionate727 is going to start hashing the past, any regular admin at NPP can assure you I've had nothing but solid work, including DGG and Sphilbrick, both of them surely know that I take WP and NPP seriously and is not a game to me, something I've been tiringly repeating. SwisterTwister talk 16:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your were basically you saying "don't worry about it". This didn't satisfy me, and when I provided reasons why I wasn't, you blanked the section entirely instead of addressing them. Although you technically have the right to do that, I felt (and still feel) like you were just ignoring me and considered that rude. As far as the 25% risk rate was concerned, that was a weak response to a weak argument. Had I had more time, I would've elaborated more. If you remove those articles—which aren't 75% of the total articles, I'd say 30-40% are related to music or television—then you still have a highly volatile 25% that you do need to pay more attention to. On another note, you can't just simply mark those types of articles reviewed like you are doing. Just because they don't qualify for deletion doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. If that were true, the page curation tool would've have ~35 different maintenance tags built into it. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: actually, I support a total ban as per BethNaught. I have one of the diffs (#1) above that he was notified about and the article was then deleted after I unreviewed. As an active NPPer I daily encounter music artist and album articles, especially, that he has patrolled that are in total messes and doubtfully notable. A lesser restriction will not work IMO, based upon the negatively toned retorts in argument SwisterTwister is making in this section to follow every support !vote. I think he will definately not be hearing or intending to attempt to improve his work. The defensive stance has continued even though we are at ANI. Fylbecatulous talk 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Upon examining SwisterTwister's AfC reviews, their judgment in that sector has been spot on, in the very least. So, the claim that they are not actually reviewing pages that are up for review is inaccurate. That being said, could they slow down, so everyone may have assurances that they are being diligent? Sure thing. But, taking formal action like this is a tad bit excessive, considering that they have shown to have some success with their reviews- and I refuse to negate that. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  This is not about AfC, this is about New Page Patrol. BethNaught (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware, and as I said, they've shown to be capable with their user rights in several regards, though slowing down the pace is necessary and more prudent than simply stripping them of their tools and telling them they should just nominate articles for deletion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if I assure people I will examine closely, let me guess honestly, someone will either not believe me or also rehash the past to deepen their own stances? I would not see how that's any more defensive than what I'm saying, but I like to think I'm certainly calmly talking. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's just assure people now and see where it goes? I mean, even at a bit slower rate, I have a feeling you will cover a lot of ground efficiently. But I suppose it's a concern about the effectiveness, rather than efficiency. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I don't believe you're being calm at all. Above, you threatened to retire if anyone supported restricting you to marking as patrolled only pages that you had patrolled, and I see you've indicated your impending retirement on your talk page as well—all because you're unwilling to accept reasonable criticism. When that criticism reached ANI after you played "I can't hear you!", you maligned it as "drama" and a "fight." In my opinion, that's an unreasonable way to respond to community concerns.  Rebbing  17:40 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: considering ST's practice of not reviewing what he's reviewed, I believe that consequences are in order. I certainly appreciate his accurate reviews, but I think that his error rate is too high to justify letting him off scot-free. Taking into account the fact that he has ignored several editors' voices by attributing them to WP:BATTLEGROUND and the like (see his talk page for more examples), I do not believe that a warning would suffice for damage control or cause a change in behavior—instead of considering what he might be doing wrong, he puts on his rose-tinted glasses and looks what what parts he did right, even as that percentage is far too low. I thus support a total ban per BethNaught. Dschslava (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• FWIW, I completely agree with Chrisw80's comment. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. What I see is a good faith editor who reviews a lot of articles and takes WP:BITE seriously. Chrisw80 says it best, I think. Swister's method of marking an article as reviewed and then adding it to his watchlist to give the author a chance is well-intentioned, but not the best strategy. Swister has just said he agrees with Chrisw80. I think that is sufficient. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would much rather turn SwisterTwister's considerable energy into a force for good without such restrictions. I do think that it's important that he listen to the feedback from other experienced editors and take it to heart. There's a pretty wide latitude in how page patrollers patrol new articles, but someone who's approach is far from the norm needs to consider altering their approach.- MrX 19:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC

  ETA: Weak support for "they must resolve issues or tag them as appropriate at the time of patrolling." This is common sense, but let's remember there is large gray area of personal judgement as to whether an article should have cleanup tags or simply be reviewed as acceptable.- MrX 19:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think the original proposal (not the outright ban some are discussing) was well thought out and attempts to recognize SwisterTwister's constributions - but I think it's too early for it yet. This is the first formal attempt (that I'm aware of) to resolve these matters with him. Honestly, I think this should probably have ended up at another venue first (WP:DR has a wide variety of options before it ends up here). While I agree that SwisterTwister should try to resolve disputes more productively and that his patrols should be handled differently (as outlined above), I don't think restrictions are called for at this time. With regard to his talk page, he is welcome to handle his talk page as he wishes (within reason) and reverting his archiving is quite uncivil at best. SwisterTwister has agreed above to slow things down and to change his style of patrolling in relation to our suggestions - in my mind that is sufficient for now to be moving forward with. If he does not keep his agreement, then we can/should have another discussion on the matter. I think, however, that he takes this seriously and will keep his word. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree almost completely with Chrisw80. I thank ST for the good work he has done, but also encourage him to learn from some of the feedback here.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a tempest in a teapot. People are not perfect, and it's logical that the person with the highest processing rate would also make a few more mistakes. As someone who has spent some time at NPP, we do not have anywhere near the amount of people on that that are needed... not sure why, as a few years ago there were many regular patrollers. In any case, if you want to keep pissing off a volunteer doing an immense amount of work here for free and making a few mistakes along the way than by all means, proceed. Personally I think it should be dropped. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @The Master: All due respect, but this isn't only about him making mistakes: it's about him going through the queue and marking pages as patrolled when he hasn't done anything but watchlist them—literally hundreds of articles per day—for eventual follow-up at some undetermined time. This defeats the purpose of the new pages queue; if all we wanted from NPP was for the patrolled links to get clicked automatically, we would write a bot to take care of it.  Rebbing  00:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I think he understands that now. I'm just not seeing the need for restrictions or making someone grovel. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm very appreciative of the work ST does, especially at sparsely attended AfDs but there are clear concerns that are being dismissed. I'm not sure a ban is the answer though. But ST must consider the concerns of their fellow editors...if 5 or 6 or a dozen editors are saying they have issues with your cursory and rapid reviews, it is in your own best interests as well as the project's to consider they might be correct on some matters. Honestly, I don't know how you edit as fast as you do, how that is technically possible. But I support the view that NPP is a crucial step in filtering out content and tagging problem and it should not be done rapidly. This isn't a race and, as in most things on Wikipedia, quality is more important than quantity. Bottom line, you need to slow down and reconsider your approach to patrolling because given the complaints, it needs to be improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz! I don't think that the clear concerns are being dismissed. I believe there is legitimacy to many of them, once we get past the civility issues - as others have noted, some folks are being downright rude. A lot of folks are saying they'd like SwisterTwister to be a bit more thorough in his reviews, and to not mark as patrolled until he's done that. He's acknowledged that and agreed (although a bit less directly than I would prefer). SwisterTwister, would you please make a direct declaration of how you would like to improve/change following this discussion? Chrisw80 (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I am willing to change my pace and better examine these articles, tagging them for attention if necessary before marking as patrolled. As for DGG's comment below, I am active at other areas which I can move to if needed. Anything to alleviate this thread's heat ? SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't agree with SwisterTwister all the time, but we do see eye-to-eye on many topics. I got to "meet" Swister through the AfD process, and I feel his contributions there are invaluable (again, while I don't always agree with them). I don't do a ton of work at NPP, but will say that his work on the old stuff is almost single-handledy the reason we don't have frigging thousands of articles in the queue. That being said, I understand the viewpoint where the initial "review" might be held off on, rather than adding it to a watchlist. One of the reasons I don't participate in NPP is that I look at the new articles in the queue, and hold off for the most part, from clicking the reviewed (patrolled) tab. Usually, by the time I go back, someone else has offered their viewpoint on it. I want Wikipedia to be the best it can be. I think there's a lot of crap on here which needs to be excised. I also feel that there are quite a few articles which need nurturing about notable subjects which are either currently mal-referenced, or are very promotional. Swister does an incredible job at AfD, AfC and NPP. Could he improve. Yup. So could we all. There are other editors/admins who have commented on this who I also don't agree with all of the time, but I always value their input, as I do Swister's. The fact that this drama may cause us to lose a valuable contributor is sad. I mean, you have folks calling his editing "stupid", and then feebly attempting to justify that. Can Swister be more judicious in his NPP activity? Absolutely. A position which he seems to acknowledge. Should there be any action taken against him? Nope. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There are some problems, but this sort of remedy is altogether excessive.

First, the complain about the part of the queue being worked on is absurd: checking new articles can be done in various ways, and it is good to have people working on different parts of the queue. I sometimes also work on the newest ones, because there are advantages in catching problem articles while the editors are still here to look at the messages. Second, the complaint about not marking problems is I think also misguided. Again, people work in different ways. When I do it, I think of it primarily a sorting job, to divide the articles into those that should probably be kept, and those that should probably be removed in various ways. I'll mark key problems, especially if something is borderline, but I do not usually bother with details. There are many people who do work on the various details, such as categories, and that sort of work is an ideal entry point for new users, while experienced users are needed for is to spot things like hopelessly lacking notability. Third, in judging acceptability, we all use different interpretations, or there would be no need for AfD. People check each others work. Nobody can be completely correct here, for nobody can correctly foretell the consensus of the community.

The actual problems are the customary ones with enthusiastic patrollers: going too fast, doing NPP for too long a period, and trying to do too many types of articles -- and the 3 often go together, like here. The maximum rate I can patrol is about one per 2 minutes, though Iwill sometimes do bursts if I happen to run across a group that is obvious. But extended work at 2/minute is too fast to consider all the aspects for most submissions. I also fin that the longest time I can work at NPP (or related things such as AfC patrol or checking prods or speedies) is about 10 to 20 articles at a time. After that , I find the high percentage of junk encourages me to be much too demanding; it can also cause people to be insufficiently critical. And I do not usually work on articles in fields about which I know nothing ,unless I happen to see something utterly obvious; I learned this in my first year, when I made quite a few really absurd errors. People told me about them, and I learned my limits.

So all that is necessary here is a reminder for ST to vary the sort of work he does,and, in particular , to intersperse tagging and the like with looking at existing articles and improving them. I think he's a sensisble person, and what has been said here is more than sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• • CommentI became aware of this thread because I was pinged above. Unfortunately, while I have run across SwisterTwister literally thousands of times, I haven't been active at NPP, so my positive reaction to ST's judgment regarding CSD nominations is not directly on point in this discussion. However, I am commenting here because I think DGG's advice is spot on, so I urge ST to take the advice on board. SwisterTwister does an enormous amount of work, and I want ST to continue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - ST's work in NPP and AfDs are remarkable, not necessarily perfect, but remarkable. He's not new, but a long term editor. He'll understand if this has come to this point (in ANI) he has to review his strategies. I'm sure he will. But I think it has not gotten so grave so as to lock him up from NPP, no TBAN. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 06:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Having closed quite a few MFDs in which ST has participated, I agree with SmokeyJoe's characterization. I also remember a significant number of declined AFCs that had obvious, unfixable problems (e.g. Special:Undelete/Draft:Canacintra USA), which were either not spotted or significantly understated. I have no opinion on the proposal but I recommend ST slow down, and focus on accuracy as opposed to speed. Yes, there's lots of crap out there, but there are also more people who deal with it than you think. MER-C 07:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I am dismayed at a lot of the argumentation here. Of the votes, as many seem to be based on character witness statements for and against as there are judging the actual behavior, and what should be discussion on the latter is often discussion on a completely different issue. Furthermore, a lot of people seem to have weighed in without reading the actual proposal - instead arguing for and against some kind of complete NPP ban. So to reiterate: the issue is marking pages as patrolled that have not been patrolled. If that is acceptable, then that flag serves no purpose and should be removed. And what is being proposed is, at the harshest, a ban on marking pages as patrolled. Not on NPP itself. Kolbasz (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There are some problems, but this sort of remedy is altogether excessive. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The point has been made - do not mark an article as reviewed unless it has in fact been reviewed. There is no need to saddle an experienced editor with formal restrictions like some newbie who does not know better particularly with the dearth of evidence presented here. Those who support sanctions need to show evidence that ST is letting significantly more proplematic articles through than any other editor who does NPP. Jbh^Talk 12:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Talk about overkill!....., Instead of handing out restrictions or bans how about someone you know .... help the poor bugger?!....., Anyway I'm sure he'll walk away from this and hopefully would rethink and change some of his actions, As I said I personally think the restriction/ban is overkill. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any editor that does a lot of work is going to make some edits that others disagree with. No need to saddle a productive reviewer with restrictions. Legacypac (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. SwisterTwister's contributions to AfD are consistently mass-produced and low-quality. It's not a serious problem there because they are easily ignored, but if the same emphasis on quantity over quality is happening at NPP where a single prolific patroller can effectively lock out everyone else by running through the new pages more quickly, then it needs to stop. And in any case the proposal is not asking ST to do anything different than any NPP review should be done. If ST is objecting even to such a request, that the NPP be done properly, then there is a bigger problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support remedial sanctions - It seems obvious to me that NPP is not something that should be approached like a video game. David Eppstein's concerns in the !vote just above are worthy of note. It appears ST needs to be dealt with here and now. I suggest a year ban from NPP, but am open to other suggestions. Doing nothing would be foolish, in my view. There is indeed a problem here. Jusdafax 21:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for RevDel

I don't know whether it was directed toward another editor or the subject of a BLP, but evidently calling somebody a "(Redacted)" and a member of "(Redacted)" is not considered sufficiently libelous to spur Oversight into action. Hopefully an administrator will step in and do what Oversight refuses to do. (Redacted) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 06:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just out of interest, @Malik Shabazz: did you actually contact oversighters and did they actually refuse to redact those comments? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Would you like me to forward the e-mail message, from an anonymous member of the English Wikipedia Oversight team, to you? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Common enough really, from my experience with them the best option is to wait 30 minutes and try again. You usually get a different response from a different person. Its a combination of the oversight team's lack of oversight/quality control, and all wikipedia's policies being open to individual interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Oh, not at all, no, I don't doubt you. I meant it as a genuine enquiry, and I'm disappointed that you got that response from them. Even if they thought oversight was not warranted, then I would have hoped they'd at least rev-del instead - I certainly would have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Only about 1300 editors who have earned the trust of the community via Rfa can see rev-del'd stuff, so it really the right way to go for most inappropriate material. In my experience #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect works well. I've found Oversight responsive primarily for privacy violations, and it is in the best of interest of the community if oversight actions are limited to what is necessary, as so few editors can review the actions of oversighters. NE Ent

Right, but even if an oversighter disagreed that oversight should be used, they still have the tools for a revdel.--v/r - TP 00:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. To be honest, I was more than a little shocked that the shithead individual who replied to me could have looked at the edit in question and written, presumably with a straight face, "If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard." According to Special:ListUsers/oversight, every one of the Oversighters has administrative tools, so whoever it was, they were just being an asshole about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Did the response you got look like a template? Previously, when I have had a declined oversight request, I got a personalised message specific to the circumstance. "If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard" sounds to me like something an oversighter might reflexively fire off without thinking too carefully about its contents (much the same way as some template warnings for vandalism). BethNaught (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was almost certainly a template:

We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight>. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>). Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

If the Oversighter who was monitoring the mailbox couldn't be arsed to look at the diffs I sent—which were sufficiently egregious that they've been scrubbed from this page's history as well as the original's—they shouldn't have replied at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If oversighters rev-del'd revdelable but not oversightable material, over time editors would naturally migrate to sending all redactable material to oversight, shifting the rev-del work from 856 administrators who are not oversighters to 0 oversighters. This is not a reasonable division of unpaid volunteer time. NE Ent 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. It's much better to leave libelous material in Wikipedia.

Here's a suggestion (one that I made a month ago at WT:REVDEL): Why not make it as easy to request RevDel as it is to request Oversight? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's right you know. There's #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect (which I've often used), but that's about all I know off the top of my head, besides contacting individual admins. Looking it over though, that's all there is. There should be a better way. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have found WP:Oversight very responsive to e-mails and RevDel requests. They always take care of the problem. I have also found that involving individual WP:Admins directly works. Of course, it may just be the subject matter of what I send them. YMMV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator who is willing to deal with RevDel requests, I am also frustrated that there isn't an easier way. I have had no more than half a dozen direct requests. I would lurk on IRC, but there it is difficult to protect one's privacy: to hide your IP address, you have to register a "cloak" with the channel operators, and even that can be overcome. Not to mention, you have to learn how to use a system which is too complex in proportion for the tasks in hand. I would love it if there were an OTRS-powered mailing list such as the oversight one. About a secret admin cabal being established on such a list: attempts like that might happen, but OTRS does leak and with >1000 sysops having access, I'm sure someone would blow the whistle. BethNaught (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The related problem is the Streisand effect, particularly when it comes to WP:BLP and WP:Defamation issues. So using e-mail to oversight works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass account creation attempts

Dear Administrators,

Over the last few days, I have observed in the edit filter log recurring strings of filter log entries which I have screencaptured here: [41]. From what I can see, the sleeper account throttle is blocking the creation of accounts in rapid succession, under usernames which follow the same pattern. Could this be an automated script creating accounts? If so, are these spambots?

Thankyou, Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a spambot based on the username pattern. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

They don't show up on the logs though, nor are they registered at all. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because username creation requests are throttled to so many per hour (I think it's six) without need for a filter. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's 6 accounts in a 24 hour period. I've run into this limit several times in my work on ACC . ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming those times were in UTC, I'm not seeing any successful creations around the same time with a similar username pattern [42] Maybe the successful creations were earlier, unfortunately 24 hours is a lot of usernames and even assuming 76 were created more or less in a row, you'd still need to look carefully to spot those ones despite the obvious pattern to the human eye. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at [43] confirms it was UTC and they seem to be hitting every so often, sometimes they try to create a few sometimes just one. E.g. OmearaGryderNRxz, RorerWehmeierGfzz. Can a checkuser see what IP tried to create those failed accounts and then use it to find the 76 I guess they did create successfully? (More if it's been happening over multiple days.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I do remember seeing a few successful creations with a similar username pattern quite a while back now. Those accounts created their userpages with a block of incoherent text, in the middle of which was a spam link to a "Garcinia Cambogia Weight Loss" supplement or other similar snake oil product. I've always wondered why the spambots put random text on their pages - perhaps they are trying to fool automated anti-spam processes by making their spam look like an innocuous passage of text with a link in it rather than a spam link standing on its own. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed their intent to fill their spam with non-sequitur fluff to fool filters or moderators, though anyone with a good BS filter can weed them out on sight. I assume there are plans to do a rangeblock on the offending IPs, yes? Or would that be infeasible? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:SPA account edit warring against consensus

The account Dijhndis's whole WP activity consists of WP:OWNing and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Scandinavia to non-English usage. This isn't the place for the content dispute, but in one sentence: reliable sources in English sometimes include five countries, sometime three, in Scandinavia; there is not one English usage. This has been amicably discussed for a month on the talk page, with a broad consensus to say "In the Nordic languages, Scandinavia refers to the three kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; however, in English, the term sometimes includes Finland and Iceland. ". However, Dijhndis is adamant that this is just "confusion among foreigners" [44], "inaccurate usage among some foreign sources" [45], " fringe minority of foreign sources" [46]. As the user imposes its own version against talk page consensus through edit warring [47], [48] and insistence of following Danish usage over English ("foreign") usage regardless of any discussion, I take it here. There's nothing in the user's whole WP history to suggest they are at Wikipedia for any other reason than pushing their nationalist POV. Jeppiz (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I've read most of the talk page, (including recent discussion) and I sympathise as I'm afraid it's the same argument going round and round since the year X. I'm afraid I don't see a clear recent consensus there which Dijhndis is violating, partly because only the two of you are currently engaged. Might I suggest that a WP:RfC is the best way forward here to establish a broader consensus, as this noticeboard will only examine behaviour, not article content.

For what it's worth, the sources I looked at on that page, confirm that 'Scandinavia' is a loosely defined term in English usage. CERTAINLY the article should inform that more defined use(s) exist within (parts of?) Scandinavia, but Dijhndis appears to be claiming that there is only one valid definition and everyone else is ignorant or wrong, which is PoV IMHO.Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete I agree, Dijhnis's insistance only his version is true and all other usage is wrong is typical nationalist POV-pushers. Worse is the repeated edit warring, and Dijhnis first imposed their own version [49], then reverted me [50] and then reverted Thomas.W. That's three times in less than a day, and against several other users, on top of which Dijhnis's even claims that everybody else is disruptive and against consensus(!) ("rv disruptive POV edit, restore longstanding consensus", "Rv disruptive and unhelpful edit against the established consensus version"). Nobody can claim good faith when reverting several other users and claim to do it for consensus. Both the user's actions and comments in the discussion shows that Dijhnis either does not understand Wikipedia or does not care. The whole 5-year old history of the account is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by pushing their own nationalist POV against those "confused foreign sources". I must say I'm surprised the user is still on Wikipedia, disruptive nationalist SPA-accounts are rarely helpful. Jeppiz (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree in full. The lede of the article is very weird without a bref and concise desciption of what most readers of Engliah expect to find there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI isn't going to answer the content question. An RfC should.Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

True, but this isn't about the content issue but about a highly disruptive user who edit wars, attack all who disagree, refuses to listen, and certainly isn't here to contribute. That's an issue for ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You are probably right, but your case would be clearer if you could point at a recent RFC which had established a consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I endorse what Jonathan A Jones says. Until there is a clear consensus on both a neutral definition of the word and the limits of the article, (not necessarily the same thing), ANI isn't going to do anything. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no RfC, and I'm afraid you're mixing the content dispute with this ANI report. I've seen countless of nationalist POV-pushing SPA accounts blocked at ANI for WP:NOTHERE, and I don't see a difference here either. Again, it's not about who is right or wrong about what Scandinavia is, it's about the long-term behavior on one problematic account. Jeppiz (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given Dijhndis some advice on their page, especially suggesting they start an WP:RFC to try to get consensus for their version if they have faith in it. I agree they have been uncollaborative on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC).

Problematic long-term IP editor

50.184.105.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has an extensive history of unconstructive edits and adding content without any regard for sourcing or even correctness, and completely failing to engage in any discussion about his edits. He was blocked for 31 hours after this ANI thread, but he promptly returned with no change in behavior. He also edits from many other IP's (apparently from his mobile phone), but this seems to be his main IP, so a long-term block would at least help a little bit. Some recent problematic edits: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Just a sampling of other IP's he has used lately:

• 2605:6000:1709:4009:D0A7:CBF7:417:6517 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.211.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.212.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.179.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.250.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.250.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.171.251.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Toohool (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Lack of communication is irritating and I was getting ready to throw some blocks and protection around--but what's wrong with this edit? Or this? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I never said that all of his edits were wrong. Most of them, such as those two, I would say are neutral. But there are so many wrong edits mixed in with the OK edits, and he shows no sign of improving or listening when people tell him what he's doing wrong. Toohool (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban for Supreme Genghis Khan

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

---

Supreme Genghis Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in March for VOA, and has been persistently socking since then (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Genghis Khan). Their persistent disruptive editing, which includes severe vandalism to articles, user and user talk pages, page blanking, image vandalism, harassment of and personal attacks on other users, abuse of warning templates, malicious page moves, removal of others' reports on them at WP:AIV, creation of hoax pages and pages that attack other users, obscene edit summaries and unblock requests, usernames that disparage other users and other misconduct, shows they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. For that reason, I think they should be banned as a formality. Linguist 111^talk 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Their behavior gets their sock accounts blocked almost on sight, but a formal ban will allow for WP:RBI of any other actions by this editor. clpo13_(talk) 18:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, yeesh. --Yamla (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, this is getting old. GAB^Hello! 19:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a formality. De facto banned anyway, but there are *some* benefits to making it formal. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, formally. BethNaught (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support, as BethNaught said above. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Banning sockmasters is a good idea, of course. Jusdafax 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This degree of sockpuppetry and disruption is beyond the pale. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Their actions since the block have earned a ban. MarnetteD|Talk 21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, clearly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Stop. Banhammer time. Quite an obvious one as their actions warrant it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As formality. SNOW anyone? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This user causes constant and blatant disruption using multiple sock puppets. I've been reporting and having them blocked constantly. I'm surprised that this person isn't banned already. Supporting to formalize the ban process, and make any process easier when it comes to quickly reverting disruption caused by the user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• This proposal is not only unneeded but counter-productive. Nothing will change technically, as all new accounts are already locked on sight, in addition to local blocks. At the same time, it gives the person even more attention through discussions like these and inclusion of their name on more lists. They have demonstrated an understanding of how wiki processes work, no need to give them further validation. WP:DFTT is good reading for cases like this. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as warranted, and both needed and productive pace the above commenter. BMK (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support Please ban ASAP. This user is so disruptive. Just ban him so we can do RBI. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 03:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Given all of the trouble this user has seen to have caused I don't see why we shouldn't ban them. Feinoha ^Talk 03:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm tempted to argue that WP:SNOW applies in that we should just go on ahead and consider him banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• While this has very little chance of failing the banning policy does require a minimum of 24 hours discussion. People have been known to claim their bans were not "legit" because they were closed early. HighInBC 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I know, hence "tempted to" instead of actually arguing. I don't imagine any real opposition so much as concerns over whether or not we're wasting time or giving him too much attention, yadda yadda. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support - If he is seriously considering evading his blocks and also using sockpuppets, then he definitely deserves a site ban. Looking by the edits and behaviours on the articles, I am surprised that the user has not been banned --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Although I can't see how this would change things technically, given his behavior I think we ought to do it as a formality. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: That sock with a single edit tried to remove that ban proposal but now quickly blocked, and locked. AHA! That user is very unpromising and super disruptive. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Discredited as an IP

Obvious sock is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I'm being prevented from participating in the discussion on this topic. The admin had banned my ip and protected the page. He says that I'm a banned user. Based on what? Here's the explanation 89.164.218.214 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) This would be User:Asdisis continuing the same behaviour they were banned for. HighInBC 01:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Again, based on what? I seriously doubt anyone was ever banned for such "behavior", as you are calling it.89.164.218.214 (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I have told you before. Your particular style of debate and your single motive here makes you obvious. You posted pretty much identical complaints at ANI several times in the past and every time you are obvious to people. The sub-page Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity was created because you and your various identities would not stop disrupting the primary talk page. HighInBC 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC) WP:SPI. I'm done with this report. Here are all my edits: All IP posts in this RfC. All IP posts in this discussion, where I had help an user with his misunderstanding and suggested how he should change his edit so it is accepted. I find my effort here very helpful. All IP posts in this discussion. This is the same discussion as above where I had helped an editor understand why his edit was reverted. All IP posts in this discussion, where I had pointed out an edit done against a standing consensus. My request was accepted. I guess that pointing to an edit done against the standing consensus, helping an user understand why his edit was rejected and opening a RfC in the most proper way are nowadays considered a "behavior". 89.164.179.41 (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asdisis/Archive, it seems certain to me that the complaining IP address here is indeed the indefinitely blocked and chronic sockpuppeteer, User:Asdisis. Nothing to see here, let's move along. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been bitten by a troll

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

---

Winkelvi has gone after me with this loathsome attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.58.140 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@107.107.58.140: My advice to you would be to remove the message immediately. A good idea would be to email Administrators in this category to request them to remove the message from the public archives. I am not an administrator, however I am helping you solve the problem. Look mate, any queries regarding non-admin work, don't hesistate to talk to me on my talkpage :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

How is it you even know Winkelvi? It does sort of seem like you are using an IP instead of a regular account to criticize another editor. Without engaging in name calling myself it is far from a brave thing to do, and certainly a violation of our sock puppetry policy. HighInBC 04:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for inappropriate use of an alternate account. It seems clear from this edit that they are likely a user logged out of their account for the purposes of insulting another editor and evading scrutiny. I have made it a hard block so that their account will see an autoblock. As always I am open to review of this action. HighInBC 05:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC - Awesome, thanks for doing that. Personally, I wouldn't resort to such language like that to anybody, but it's clear that the IP was in the wrong and was logging out of his/her account in order to criticize Winkelvi. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You also got me to thank XD. I was the one who first responded to the incident and told the IP what to do. I would think these comments are not at all tolerated. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - Indeed. Your comment was also very helpful. Thanks for doing that! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome Oshwah :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Vivvt

There was some problem on Kashibai and an user reverted my edit. I started a discussion on the talk page but this user, neither discussed anything nor gave reasons but went on to revert my edit. Please, take a look.Krish | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. Your behaviour was unacceptable. Taking your dispute to the talk page is far better than launching personal attacks like you did [58]. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion of whether your edit was an improvement or not has been completely lost. I have no opinion on the edit itself but agree that your use of inflammatory terms is not acceptable, and is the reason why no one is discussing your edit. Please rethink your choice of language and explain why your edit is an improvement to the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If I said a thing to A, why would B revert my edit? It doesn't make any sense. If I go and revert back then I'll be blocked because of 3RR rule? How disgusting is that? I had given my reasons on the talk page and the reasons are valid but hey, I did a wrong thing? My words were caused by that user's (Dharmadhyaksha) constant bad faith on that article. Check history and you will find.Krish | Talk 13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you are aware of WP:3RR. Please also make sure you are aware of WP:NPA. "My words were caused by that user's constant bad faith on that article." Maybe so, but if you make personal attacks again, you may be blocked. In any case, there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I don't believe any further action is warranted at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a case of WP: Own and nothing else. He reverted my ediys wiithout any reasons or explainations, which shows that he owns the article. My reasons are valid. So please give a better reply and an idea to deal with this.Krish | Talk 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I put the content back as it was earlier before this particular user thought it to be controversial/unappropriated to the article. I agree that that edit summary was missing and thats because I am using a tool and it was a mobile edit. I dont understand how a single revert warrants for ANI. This is my single (most likely) edit to the article. I dont know how it becomes a case of WP:OWN. Are we becoming so childish in taking such edits/reverts to the board? Simple hopeless! - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish has a history of making personal attacks and has been previously blocked in Dec 2012 for this edit summary and this comment and again in Oct 2013. Not that these two incidences should be considered in current case, but am mentioning them to show that the user is very much aware of WP's NPA policy.
  The user still continues to make PAs as noted below. (Note: I am usually very tolerant about such PAs as many IPs and newbies come barging on my talk page. Some users and admins have been kind enough to revert/revdel them on their own. In case some of these are not really considered PAs, as these are considered case-by-case with no fixed definition, please ignore those ones.)

Towards me

• "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha"
• "Use at least little bit of sense"
• "Would you please stop being a JERK?"
• "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)."
• "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you."
• The Jerk Barnstar: I award you this for being a Jerk like always

I am not sure if I should point PAs made against other editors, as it should be their case to take it up. But these are too many to ignore. Individual editors can of course comment here and ask to disregard the below mentioned comments.

Towards others

• "Are you dumb? "
• "Who the hell made you an administratyor?"
• "You are so pathetic. Now onwards my eye will be on you and I will tell you what is its like to get punished for others fault."
• "I should have known that you are a hypocrite and a big time manipulator."
• "You need to look here before talking and adding shit to that article I am more experienced than you here and know much better than you. You don't tell me what I should do."
• "Thank you Vensatry for getting your nose into the matter, which has nothing to do with you."
• "Get the Fuck out of my user page"

Am hence also pinging the involved editors @EdJohnston, Human3015, Carl Waxman, Vensatry, and Arjann: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What I do on my talk page is none of your business. If someone will threaten me than what sjould be my response. By the way, how about your behaviour? Your behaviour is not very good and its obvious by these hate you have received from lot of people and not only from me.

   "You are being an idiot." - Maunus
   "..idiots like you.." - Maunus
   "You're being ridiculous." - Calvin999
   "Don't like his stuffy attitude." - Bonkers The Clown
   "Your friend (User:Ratnakar.kulkarni) is as bad as you, dishonest and evasive." - Leaky caldron
   "..I hate Dharmadhyaksha and Vivvt for their sheer stupidity." - Vensatry
   "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" - Krish!
   "Use at least little bit of sense" - Krish!
   "Would you please stop being a JERK?" - Krish!
   "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)." - Krish!
   "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you." - Krish!
   "...I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you....You and user Vivvt are pathetic and put other users in a harrowing time. I guess, you should stop chasing users and their work. Rather spend some time in improving yourself. Dumb." - Arjann

.Please tell why all these people have had problems with you? And, pointing out my previous maistakes has nothing to do with this incident of your beloved friend. Both of you are players and both work together.Krish | Talk 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish!, drop it. Your recent comments are over the line, especially this morning's "barnstar" and your edit summary calling another user a moron. If I see any more breaches of our civility policy, I will block you. This is quite clearly a content dispute, discussion should happen on the talk page of the article, not grumbling here. Dharmadhyaksha, you are complaining largely about issues over 4 months old and he was blocked (for edit warring) around that time, I appreciate that it looks like things are building up here again for you, and I will watch the article, but you need to focus on the content dispute at hand rather than past behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, this was a bad comment i agree I shouldn't have done that. I had stopped fighting and would rather focus on my work here. This is waht I'm trying to tell this user that putting prevbious problems had nothing to do with this. But he went on and on. Plus, this guy is not ready to discuss and would revert things like he owns the article. I would like your help on this matter.Krish | Talk 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Krish!, you were a hair's breadth from being blocked for that barnstar - I certainly see why Dharmadhyaksha brought up the past, it's your past behaviour which time and again is beyond the pale. You need to be doing the legwork here and you need to drop your complaints. I will be watching, but only as an administrator for poor behaviour. I will not be participating in the dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

...and any specific reason I was brought to ANI? - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User has gone on a wikibreak, for good. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You never know. Some editors take a wikibreak and never return to editing. Others' long wikibreak ends up just lasting just a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this is happening, a few of Kirsh!'s previous accounts were blocked for similar behavior. Another incident happened last year that I was aware of; unfortunately, I took the step of page protection instead of blocking as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This retiring-leaving-coming-back-again drama is not new with the Indian editors. This keeps happening with some of them followed by Dont-leave-us-come-back-we-miss-you-glad-you-are-back stuff! This archives nothing than talk pages full of emotional talks. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive what is this?, I saw this for the first time. SpacemanSpiff just because some editor has a similar name and likes similar subject, doesn't mean it was me who edited from those accounts. I came to know about wikipedia in 2012 (anyone can edit it). and I started writing In MY City article. My first visit to wikipedia was 2012, and I don't need to cry to prove that. I hope people on wikipedia could see the good side of an user, who despite his busy student life have given so much time here.Krish | Talk 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have. Your behavior on this account and your previous accounts has been disruptive; in addition to the issue of constant personal attacks against other editors there's also the problem of WP:NPOV issues where you seem to be taking your Priyanka Chopra fandom far too seriously for an encyclopaedia, not just on that particular article but also on other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A fandom? I have edited and written other FLs as well and had planned to. By the way, I don't have any problems with NPOV and I support it. KIndly please try to understand, I reported this user because he reverted an edit, when i had already opnened a discussion. I know it was too small to come her, I apolagize, sorry. Now please close this discussion I have my studies to do and I'm taking a long break for a year. Thank you.Krish | Talk 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open an ANI discussion without having a solid ground and now wants to close the discussion because he has studies to do! Other people are marely wasting their time on WP. Admins, please note that this particular user shall not be taken seriously for anything and everything that involves other editors. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sudden studies or WP:BOOMERANG effect? If I get time I am sure I will find many such wikibreaks that have aligned with non-favourable circumstances just to avoid blocks and bans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Month-old AfD requires closure

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

---

Can an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin-walker, which has been open for 1+ month, as other admins are clearly unwilling to, perhaps due to the controversial nature of the nomination. If kept, the article also needs to be moved to skinwalker, as that's the WP:COMMONNAME but there's a redirect with two revisions in the way. Yet another example of the upcoming WP:page mover userright being useful... Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Satellizer - This request is probably best handled on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, rather than here. It's a more relevant noticeboard for your particular request (closure of a discussion), and it will be looked at by administrators who are looking or willing to perform closures that are needed :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I will close it. HighInBC 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, well there ya go then :-)! Thanks, HighInBC, for doing that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Now I just sit back and wait for someone to tell me I did it wrong. HighInBC 14:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

HA! It's so funny, but so true at times :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Christian blogosphere

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

---

Hi, I am sorry to have to come back here again with the same issue, but I have just had Christian blogosphere speedily deleted under WP:A7 by Bbb23. I would like to request review by an uninvolved admin.

I contested the tagging which was done by a different user. I believe the article after my last edit prior to deletion was sufficient to make a credible claim of significance and so I feel the deletion was a breach of policy. Here are three specific reasons:

• (1) I referenced a number of examples of Christian blogging in the article, including its use in debate, and hence it is evident from the article that there is a definite Christian section of the blogosphere that is likely to be notable in itself. Therefore point 6 in WP:A7 applies: 6.Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance..
• (2) In contesting the nomination on the talk page, I mentioned the Jewish blogosphere. The Jewish community is far smaller than the Christian one, similarly their related blogospheres. Whilst size alone doesn't necessarily imply notability, it suggests a strong likelihood of being notable.
• (3) Anyone with a basic knowledge of Christianity and the internet will be aware that there is a large community of Christian bloggers. I can't see how it is reasonable to speedy delete an article on the Christian blogosphere.

From what I've gathered, it does appear that WP:A7 is overused and this gives editors like me a very negative experience on Wikipedia. Speedy deletion bypasses the normal AfD discussions and also prevents the community from working on articles. I would respectfully suggest that some change is needed as the current policy is not serving the interests of the project.SmilingFace (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that A7 is generally overused. Speedy deletion is supposed to bypass AFD, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an appropriate deletion argument.In this case, I don't think this article qualifies for A7 because {{db-web}} is supposed to be used about a particular site or piece of work. Your article is mainly original research and synthesis, and I do not believe it would survive AFD. You can recreate it and take your chances, though, or I will userfy it for you so you can work on it some more. Katie^talk 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that it is a notable topic but the deleted article didn't make a credible case for it. Even in its final form it consisted only of links to individual Christian blogs. What would have been needed are sources about Christian blogging that are not themselves blogs. So I think the A7 was an ok decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that the article be userfied as well, and I think with a little work and solid referencing, it would survive an AFD. I found these sources easily - Southern California university hosts U.S.' first `God blogging' conference (HighBeam Research) and Chapter 6 of this book (Online Community, Online Utilization: The Christian Blog). No opinion on the use of A7.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to start of by stating that last time you were here, you were pointed to WP:REFUND, as well as to discuss with the deleting admin before you get here. Might I remind you that ANI is not supposed to be the first resort? Now, since you are obviously having difficulty with the inclusion criteria, I will suggest that you create new articles in your sandbox/userspace, and only move it out when you are confident that it will survive. You can also submit it through WP:AFCP so that it can be reviewed by an experienced community member first. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I would also consider it a notable topic, but agree it should probably be done in sandbox space. Given the number of Christian bloggers, there should be many reliable sources available through the news and books. SmilingFace, try searching Google News and Google Books. (Somebody wrote a whole long book about the influence of religion in the Twilight series. There is sure to be somebody writing about religion as it applies in the real blogospere.) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• I do not consider that A7 even applies: this is not really one of the types of subjects intended by the criterion "web content". It is rather a type of content, and the impossibility of accurately predicting that there is no likely importance for such subjects is evident from the discussion above. Like others above , I think it probably notable, and I also think it made a clear claim to significance, which is much less than notability. The ed. who placed the speedy was certainly justified in considering the state of the article at the time too incomplete to survive, and the error in considering it "web content" is perhaps ambiguous for such an incomplete article; but at the time it was deleted, there were what appeared to be possibly acceptable sources, and the very experienced admin seems to have made one of their very rare errors -- which I consider perfectly excusable, as every active admin working with new pages, myself most certainly included, makes a few percent of errors--this is not an area where perfection can be expected. As has been pointed out above, the usual and proper response to such errors is to first ask the deleting admin to reconsider, and in case there is no response or the response is unsatisfactory, to take it to WP:Deletion Review -- not here. But our rules are so complicated that relatively new users can get confused and frustrated, even after the proper procedureis explained to them, which is why we have the principle of WP:IAR.

It would be possible to restore to article space, but Ido not think it desirable, for an AfD discussion would quite possibly decide that the sourcing is insufficiently reliable. The best course is indeed to put it in Draft space, and source it as White Arabian Filly suggests. In the spirit of IAR, I have just done so: the article draft is at Draft:Christian blogosphere DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Grayfell

I am asking for assistance in dealing with User:Grayfell ♝. This user appears to be overly-aggressive, and is making unfounded nominations for speedy deletion on a page I created. They have made accusations in an almost bullying manner to justify their action, even though the support for my page's existence, including news reports, is substantial while the user has provided no real reason why the page should be deleted. From what I can see on this persons talk page, aggressive communication is a fairly frequent occurrence. Request for administrative assistance. WalkOn75 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that there is an SPI open here. GAB^Hello! 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnimationWhiz133, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (animator), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (filmmaker), Draft:Mark Flood (filmmaker), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood Animations, etc. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I am acknowledging the open SPI case listed here, and I don't see any action required as of right now (pending the closure of the SPI cases). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

I am not sure whether this is the correct noticeboard for placing such a request, but can someone please redact the edit summary for this diff? It's an obvious griefing attempt by a bored anon. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion requests should be emailed to the oversight team at Wikipedia:Oversight. However, looking at the edit summary for the edit you listed here, I don't see an obvious need to recommend that it be revision deleted. Unless I am missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think he's upset about the spoiler I guess? --Tarage (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@EauZenCashHaveIt: Were you talking about the summaries over at Robert Sean Leonard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Cuz that's where I see problems. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment from user DMacks

The user DMacks is for some reason, following and stalking my every move on this website. Every time I try to make an edit to a page, he comes in and reverts every edit I make. He also has refused to stop this behavior after I emailed him about it multiple times. I would like to have an admin on this site take care of this and ban him from harassing me in the future. I've only been an active editor on this site for a few months now and I don't feel that this is something that a user like me should have to experience. No one should have to experience harassment like this on a website built to encourage community and help through constructive criticism and page editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingGuildpact (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He's an administrator, you are edit warring, and your edits are unsourced and quite frankly nonsense. You aren't seeking consensus, you haven't made a single talk page edit after making changes, and you have made no attempts to engage editors about your edits. Drop the stick or you will be blocked again. --Tarage (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of harassment. What seems to be happening is that you're adding information without any sources. The guideline WP:V deals with this, and it is one of the central guidelines of Wikipedia. When users make problematic edits, it's quite common for other editors to go through said user's other edits, it's not harassment, and it's not meant to be. Eik Corell (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LivingGuildpact - You're required to notify all users when you open a new ANI thread that involves them directly. I've gone ahead and done this for you here.

Looking at your contributions, I see that DMacks has reverted the edits you've made to Mayonnaise and Miracle Whip. Each of his reversions have been explained in the edit summaries that DMacks left (see 1, 2, 3, and 4 (back in Feb)). He cited issues with consensus, not citing a reliable source with your changes, as well as edit warring. Looking at your talk page, you have been previously warned for edit warring as well as for causing disruption (and a block), but you since removed those warnings. It's clear that there are issues with the edits being made, but it looks like these are problematic because of the content you've been changing. I also see no evidence of you attempting to collaborate or even ask about the reversions in an effort to understand the reason behind them; you simply re-add the content back later, which gets reverted again. DMacks is not harassing you nor is he violating any Wikipedia policies. He's reverting your changes for proper reasons, and within his administrative role. I highly recommend that you discuss your concerns directly with DMacks so that he can try and assist you. I also suggest that you make no further edits to the articles until you've properly discussed everything in concern; failure to do so will result in further blocks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been the victim of harassment from DMacks, even if he is an administrator, he shouldn't be abusing his power and privilege to harass an editor. Harassment is to be defined by the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrator or outside onlookers. I am now making a public announcement on an administrator page to let people know that I do not want DMacks involved with me, my edits, or any pages I have edited in the past. I do not want to be subjected to harassment from him anymore. If another admin can take action to block him from being involved with me, that would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingGuildpact (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 May 2016

LivingGuildpact - Other editors here have already explained that DMack's reversions were appropriate and that he was not engaging in harassment towards you. If you're going to file an administrator report here, you need to listen to the information and advice that is given to you (even if they don't meet your expectations or what you'd like to see happen). Not acknowledging the responses that we've given to you makes us feel that we're wasting our time, and shows us that collaboration and achieving consensus is not your main objective. If you'd like, I'm more than willing to assist you with your concerns on my talk page and recommend to everyone here that this ANI be closed (under the condition that you allow me to assist you). It's your choice; if that is what you'd like, I'll be happy to make that recommendation for you. Otherwise, I'll leave things be and move on; I've done my best to try and help you, but I can't force you to be willing to be given appropriate help. Does anybody have objections with my offer to LivingGuildpact? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If he gets mentorship and stops this destructive behavior no one is going to complain. The end result is he needs to stop the edit warring. That's all anyone cares about. Either by blocking or by becoming a contributing editor. --Tarage (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%. My offer still stands. I'm more than happy to offer mentoring and assistance to LivingGuildpact, should he choose to accept it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here that hasn't already been said multiple times. Edit-warring against multiple editors who are asserting consensus and cited ref, not listening when editors say that those behaviors are a problem, etc...those are all problems compounded. I have no objection to any mentorship or any other process by which editors can move towards contributing in line with out editorial and behavioral standards. DMacks (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban for TV5Ozamiz

TV5Ozamiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in November 2014 for Abusing multiple accounts, and has been persistently socking since then obvious (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TV5Ozamiz, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TV5Ozamiz, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/TV5Ozamiz and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TV5Ozamiz). Their persistent Vandalism, disruptive editing and Sock Puppetry which includes edit of Philippine Media Companies, Mindanao Stations and Philippine Movies severe as vandalism and hoax to articles, user and user talk pages, page are blanking on IP Address talk pages include vandalism on these articles, abuse of Multiple accounts, creation and edit of hoax pages and article include some Talk Page are removed those warning and the Sock puppet tag are those blanked the pages that User:TV5Ozamiz has been banned as a formality. LG-Gunther :  Talk  01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If their MO is so consistent, a de jure ban won't do much more than the de facto ban that they are already under. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure User:TV5Ozamiz has Edit of Articles of Philippine Media Companies, Philippine Movies and Philippine Radio Stations has Hoax and Vandalism Acting like User:Bertrand101. LG-Gunther :  Talk  02:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Wars at Payback 2016

There is a wave of vandalizm happening on the Payback (2016) page. Maybe it should be blocked to open edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinobotTM2 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• @DinobotTM2: Payback (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it's protected and cleaned up. Did we miss anything? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• I tried a semi-protect, and that was an immediate failure. Article is now fully-protected for 1 week. SQL^{Query me!} 01:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently going through each edit one-by-one to start sorting out the mess and start warning/reporting vandals. This will take awhile...... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. (You'll need it) -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Yamla's physical abuse

Attention Wikipedians I like to discuss about administrator User:Yamla. You do not think who he is or who he was he's up to no good. you can not trust him anymore. He's a volatile violent and abusive monster I ever interacted with. He reverted my editing works and I was a victim of his physical abuse. And also he's a conniving backstabbing heartless weasel, a fraud and a big fat liar, You have to do something about this or I'll control my abusive behavior