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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

E.M.Gregory's latest actions

A few days back, I started an AfD discussion for 2016 Ramadan attacks, which was created by E.M.Gregory. Since then, he has committed actions that wander into WP:BADGER territory and fail WP:AGF.

First off, he directly accuses an IP user of being a WP:SOCK account for Ianmacm without providing any evidence outside of the diffs (which don't indicate much of anything), and instead of taking the issue to WP:SPI where a professional could've verified his suspicions.

Second off, he puts an edit summary that assumes the people voting for the article's deletion are basing their arguments on the grounds of WP:IDL, even though these people (including me) have given legitimate-sounding reasoning based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Third off, he makes it clear in his edit summary that he suspects Ferpalnum and has tagged the user as a WP:SPA, along with more sockpuppet suspicion, though Ferpalnum insists he is not based on when he opened his account.

Fourth off (and I find this one to be the most hilarious of them all), he sends me this message on my talk page, right after he explains why his article should be kept.

Now, it's honestly fair game either way if his article is kept or deleted, but E.M.Gregory's recent behavior is rather troublesome (not to mention irksome) and it needs to be addressed properly here in some way or form. Parsley Man (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above seems to be fairly normal behaviour. That first comment was wrong, the sockpuppet accusation falls under PA and the comment he sent to you was uncivil. On contentious AfDs its fairly normal to note an editor with little or no prior editing experience and it's normal to ask the question about sockpuppets when you think its the case (although he should have taken it to SPI). He's free to have his opinion on why another editor is voting, if he thinks its because of WP:IDL that's his right and he can note it if he likes below their comment so long as he isn't being malicious about it. I don't know why he sent you the message, but, it doesn't seem to be a PA or anything malicious, just a bit sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the comment, I'm just going to point out that E.M.Gregory has been active here since 2014. Not sure if that constitutes a "little or no prior editing experience" editor to you, but just saying. Also, I'm not sure what exactly constitutes WP:PA, but given the fact that I was the one who created the AfD (on an article he created, mind you) and E.M.Gregory has a history of what Ianmacm mentions as "failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits", I'm pretty confident the message he sent to my talk page was a personal attack. Parsley Man (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. The editors with little or no prior experience on the AfD, not E.M.Gregory. The message he sent you was uncivil, the accusation of sockpuppetry is PA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. But his assumption that people are voting to delete his article for WP:IDL reasons is still a violation of WP:AGF. I for one won't hold it against him if the article is kept; I just find the material very sketchy and questionable. And everyone has been making sound arguments about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start writing "disclosure; non-admin comment" for all of my comments at AN/I from now on because I've been confused for an administrator far too many times at this point. So, Disclosure; non-admin comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that anyone would confuse you for an administrator. You've been editing with this account since November of last year. Doc talk 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc9871, you're being kind: let me just add, Mr rnddude, that those very comments aren't very adminny. No, a person is not free to just post on-wiki whatever they think. That message wasn't sarcastic--it was assholish. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What? Drmies where am I being an asshole, and Doc9871 I've had one user ask me to close their thread as an admin (on AN/I) and I've had one user ask me about a block. They were both very new though. I know anybody who's been here longer then a month would know that I'm not, but what about the complete newbies who just got here. But, whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Drmies wasn't talking about you, Mr rnddude. He was talking about E.M.Gregory. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the comment that I called sarcastic. Mea culpa, I misunderstood. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed about the sockpuppet allegation and would have let it ride if it had been a one-off. However, there is a pattern of failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits. The request on Parsley Man's talk page is outside the range of acceptable conduct for an AfD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I figure you are referring to a WP:CIVIL issue rather than a WP:NPA issue with the comment on ParsleyMan's page. I also wasn't aware that there is a recurring pattern of WP:SPI abuse, and cannot comment about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Its both. Accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet absent evidence is a personal attack. The comments on ParsleyMan's page fall under civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's because he's making an accusation without evidence, he did provide diffs for the accusation though, I'll review them now, see if I can see the relation or not. No, no I won't, since the accused has already commented about it, didn't see it was you Ian that was being accused. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

With sockpuppetry there are two things that constitute evidence. Behavioral (so editing patterns, wording, etc) and technical. Technical evidence is gather by checkusers at/after an SPI - they wont go on fishing expeditions just because someone has posted a list of diffs that dont actually make a connection between the two users. Behavioural evidence needs more than just 'look at this'. It needs an explanation of why the editors are connected, what it is that links the two etc. Just 'here is some diffs with not explanation' is not evidence of sockpuppetry. I had a look and the allegation seems unfounded. Unless ianmacm actually was editing logged out (from his comment above the answer to this appears to be no) its an unfounded personal attack (on both the IP and ianmacm) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it obviously isn't me. Nor do the edits referred to show any obvious link, other than being opposed to some of the things that were being said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I did have a look, if I were to consider my personal experience with Ian and these comments my conclusion would be this. The first diff, not a similar speech pattern although conflated, Muslim and Islamism showed up a lot on the Islamist terrorist attacks talkpage... now I wonder why that is, it couldn't have anything to do with the people conflating Muslims with Islamist could it? (sarcasm of course). The second diff, there's nothing alike, Ian is in my experience civil even patient, casting aspersions is not his MO. The last diff, anybody, literally anybody, could have said that. On Wikipedia saying "Gone ahead and done away with that section as is..." is like saying "Hello, I am currently doing work" in the real world. The diffs substantiate the accusation of sockpuppetry as much as a broken egg substantiates a murder conviction. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• If one doesn't know what one is talking about one should perhaps not comment at length here. For once (stop the press) I am in total agreement with Only in death: unwarranted sock allegations are personal attacks (they violate AGF, for instance), and these were unwarranted. Thanks Only in death for stating what needed to be stated. This comment, "perhaps send a donation to a hospital in Medina, Tel Aviv, Dhaka, Orlando or Istanbul", that is so asinine that I'm a bit speechless, for once. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I'm sorry, you may not be talking about me. But, seriously...were you? Or were you addressing Mr rnddude... I got confused by your comment there... Parsley Man (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

He's talking to me. Though for which part, I don't know. If it's sockpuppeting, then ok, if its the comment, I'm honestly not moved, it appeared and to me still appears sarcastic, rude but sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that the message he sent me was sarcastic, but given that he sent it literally five minutes after he explained why his article should be kept (check the time stamps if you're not convinced about that), plus the other actions he has committed in the AfD discussion, I have a strong degree of certainty that he was trying to force me to change my vote and/or guilt-trip me (in regard to his mention of the "hospital donations"). If the message was indeed sarcastic and nothing more, well, then he should've timed it better, because sending me that message soon after he explained his position in the AfD is a pretty questionable course of action... Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is the comment I'm talking about, the comment mentioned in the first section of the case. It's E.M. Gregory's comment. Mr rnddude, my disagreement with you is over your uninformed and hasty commentary on the socking thing, as if making sock accusations is simply a matter of free speech. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• The matter of free speech? I said he should have taken it to SPI, the free speech was for his opinions on why the editor is voting (IDL). I do however apologize and strike my comment on socking, since I was still wrong, sorry am human. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Been sort of following the AFD and !voted early on... gotta say I'm unimpressed with EM Gregory's behavior so far and sorta glad I wasn't the one to initiate the AFD (though I was tempted). EM Gregory recently blanked their user talk page, but there seems to be an uptick in recent problematic behaviors in the past few month, including even a 1 month topic ban on Arab-Israel conflict. Pre-deletion talk page at this link. There seems to be a strong interest in Islamist terrorism, but judging by AFDs, ANIs, and the sanctions, I'm wondering if this strong interest is becoming disruptive or interfering with their ability to edit constructively as part of a team project. There are general sanctions for ISIL articles (WP:GS/ISIL) which the AFD in question is related to. IMHO, the current behavior alone warrants a warning. However, (1) this current behavior, (2) what appears to be an increase this problematic behavior recently, (3) the sanctions for the topic, and (4) the recent topic ban loosely related to the topic make me think admin intervention is reasonable. Someone with a better understanding of this user's past behaviors (like Ricky81682 who imposed the topic ban) might help here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the AfD...you're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you... I think? :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The prior topic ban was based on this close and was based on a combination of massively inappropriate BLP-violating comments on talk page (this and this kind of pointless, divisive, drive-by commentary) and a ridiculous BLP violation changing that a living person had ties to an organization that called on Turks to murder Armenians to stating that the person himself called on Turks to do such that (based on a Swedish-language source) as an "error" was enough for me to drop the topic ban. As of right now, I'm leaning towards making it permanent based on BATTLEGROUND nonsense like this. I'd give some leeway towards it being an AFD discussion but this is getting ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Respond that I first met IP 70.27.162.84 and IamMacM here: [1] (top of page), and you will see how I took the IP for the alter-ego of a long-standing editor. I did not bring it to this board, merely to the talk page of the IP were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive Here: [2]. I had gone back to IP 70.27.162.84 's talk page to soften my comment by suggesting that the attack on me might have been not deliberate sock- or meat-puppetry, but a careless failure to log in. I did not leave such a remark because the response form Ian (not from the IP, only form Ian at that point) appeared to confirm that he was using the IP to make nasty attacks he had the good judgment not to do in his own name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you were really suspicious about the IP user, I will repeat myself, WP:SPI exists to investigate such suspicions. There was no need to make direct accusations against the parties involved. Parsley Man (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Respond Editor Ferpalnum weighed in at the AFD on 2016 Ramadan attacks with an intensity and aggressiveness that led me to look at his editing record, which showed that he had started editing only a few days before the AFD began.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive" Why would this surprise you? you pinged them to the page, of course they're going to respond to the sockpuppetry allegation. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Over the years I have been involved in many AfDs, and this is the first time that one has led to a sockpuppet allegation. As stated above, 70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it isn't me and there is no obvious similarity in the writing styles. Sockpuppet allegations should not be made without strong evidence and a formal WP:SPI, otherwise they are just a way of badgering the user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Respond. From my perspective, 2016 Ramadan attacks is an ordinary sort of article, similar to 2015 Ramadan attacks and in a sort of category with 2000 millennium attack plots; 2015 New Year's attack plots; Rizal Day bombings; 1919 United States anarchist bombings. I was surprised that it was brought to AFD, very surprised that the grounds were OR and SYNTH since the article was based on solid sources and other editrs had immediately started to help build it [3]. I only just now realized that the IP who showed up [4] and blanked material related to well-sourced 2016 Hamas calls for Ramadan attacks was the IP discussed above. Nevertheless I was genuinely surprised, not shocked, just surprised when ParsleyMan started the AFD. Parsley, as you will see from my occassional comments on his talk page, has been hounding me almost from the time he began editing, with what I then described on his talk page as unusual familiarity with Wikipedia and its rules for a new editor. Here: [5] is one of several complaints I have posted on his talk page. I am far from the sole editor to have posted such complaints on his page. His response has been to intensify his WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me. His behavior towards me meets the textbook definition of WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." The discussion "Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing" on his talk page on Feb. 16-19, 2016 documents his behavior, and another editor weighs in to advise him to stop. I wish he would. Stop. Instead, he lurks, reading all of my thousands of edits and bringing me here when I, very occasionally, lose my temper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, about the recent edit on his talk page: [6]. I not infrequently suggest to editors who have started AFD discussions unlikely to lead to deletion that they change their opinions where, as here, the sourcing becomes overwhelmingly strong (usually as a result of WP:HEY - it saves a great deal of editorial time when editors do so. As for my other suggestion, I give charity regularly, and it is my routing custom to sent to a medical charity when a particularly distressing terror attack occurs. I find that it alleviates the horror, and, given ParselyMan's emotional involvement with these issues, I sincerly thought it might relieve his stress. I am more than a little surprised that my suggestion that he follow such a common practice elicited such a negative response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit was a sincere suggestion meant in good faith? If you sincerely believe that, I strongly suggest you consider reading about etiquette and tone in communication. To me and other folks here, it was an insincere, assholish thing to do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think you could've worded the message way better than that if you were really trying to be sincere. It doesn't help that that was literally the first post you made right after you explained your vote to keep the 2016 Ramadan attacks article. "The graceful thing to do now would be to reverse your opinion"? With that timing, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were thinking your vote was all it took to justify keeping the article and that you were trying to force me to withdraw my nomination. Parsley Man (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I really would like an uninvolved admin to respond to this. Don't wanna see this archived without a proper conclusion, because I do think it needs to be addressed in some form... Parsley Man (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, EM's behavior has veered from merely annoying to now quite uncivil over the course of his career here, and it's making editing and discussion in the general topic area quite a laborious task. I was considering opening a case myself recently, but didn't notice this until now somehow. I'd be glad if someone could sort this out. ansh666 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't anyone going to address this? Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

To User:Parsley Man, in my opinion there is no action to be taken. And the issues have been addressed, in that this ANI proceeding happened, in which you criticized E.M. Gregory and you obtained support from others who also found fault. All of this is punishment delivered to E.M.G. I have been there in both roles: I have been pilloried here at ANI with people chiming in negatively and I experienced that as the punishment it was intended to be. And I have been here with a legitimate complaint or two or three and found that no one was taking any action when I felt it was darn sure that something should be done. Here there is nothing so darn sure. What you and others seem to focus on most as somehow horrible is that E.M.G. suggested at your Talk page you retract your AFD, just after they argued Keep in the article. That diff has been given three or more times above. I think that the kind of suggestion EMG made is perfectly reasonable and I believe I have done that. When I think the article should be kept, and when I think the AFD nominator can also see that the nomination was not justified (or at least the situation is not like they thought), and when nudging them on to do the right thing can get them to withdraw it. That would cut short the drama of AFD which in general a negative experience, and it would save other editors' time. Obviously you are sensitive and did not interpret EMG's suggestion as a polite nudge to go ahead and do the right thing. You find it foreign and interpret it to mean something it did not, in my opinion. EMG's suggestion to withdraw was followed by suggestion to make a donation, which is unusual, and I can see that you could wonder what was meant by that. Another here said they interpreted that as sarcasm. EMG has replied they earnestly meant it, and that is what I then believe. Assume some good faith here, and wouldn't EMG have gone on with sarcasm if they had meant the first to be sarcasm?

I think this ANI proceeding should be closed. There certainly is no evidence adding up to requiring any negative action; at most one or two or more persons could be advised to be careful how they say things and/or be careful how they interpret things. But if no one who regularly closes things here wants to take it on (because it takes some effort to give a good summary and smooth things over where things should be smoothed), I think it is also okay to just let this fade away without a formal close. Parsley Man made their complaints, they were heard. --doncram 03:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Bless you, Doncram. (I am not certain if this is appropriate, but when I heard about last evening's atrocity, I made a donation to a fund for victims. It relieves the horror better than getting irate on Wikipedia does.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Uh...since when did I start thinking the AfD I started was not justified, or that it wasn't turning out like what I had thought it would? I have absolutely no intention on withdrawing the AfD and will wait until a decision to delete or keep the article is made. Parsley Man (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm not going to vote because I'm far too involved, but I will say that this is not new (or even recent) behavior. Issues with Matthew C. Whitaker eventually (months later) revealed on the talk that the whole article was the result of EMG seeing plagiarism by the subject as "unprofessional behavior." In short, he didn't like the subject and wrote the article as a pseudo-biography to basically discredit the subject as much as possible by coatracked every single article he could find about the plagiarism cases into it while cherry-picking quotes to support said position. He also attempted to tie the 2015 Ikea stabbing attack to migrant crime by Muslims based on rumor alone, and then threw a quote from a Swedish white supremacist politician in to try to make into a bigger deal in the country than it really was. Reality indicated the perp was an Eritrean Christian, and several Swedish editors fixed the issues. I also seem to recall a conversation on a I-P topic talk where EMG fought to call a source neutral when it clearly was not, again because it supported his argument. In short, he edits articles with a goal in mind from the outset, coatracks sources to further that goal, and then can't understand why others don't see what he does when the sourlces often don't say what he thinks they do. He has clear biases, which is fine, except if one is going to write about every single Israeli who has ever been killed, such as Shooting of Danny Gonen, and then turn around and write articles on Islamic terrorism. In short, what is being brought up now as "escalation" is the same behavior we've had all along. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I stand behind my behavior in writing and and continuing to edit each of the 3 articles mentioned. As MSJapan's accusation that I had a personal grudge against Matthew C. Whitaker; it is quite simply false. I have had no contact with Whitaker, his institution or this case, which I read about in the news. I do regard plagiarism as "unprofessional behavior." My error, my first contact with MSJapan, was when, as a still very inexperienced editor leaning the WP lingo by cutting and pasting code from the edits of other editors, I somehow managed to mess up a comment made by MSJapan that I was merely attempting to copy some phrasing from. I apologized as soon as the mistake was called to my attention. She has been flinging accusations at me ever since, on the Whitaker page and on others. Once she brought my editing of Matthew Whitaker to this board; no sanctions were imposed. Her accusations about the IKEA stabbing attack are equally false. This was a stabbing by "Eritrean asylum seekers" my edits are there; I consistently described them as "Eritrean asylum seekers" precisely because that was all that was known about them at the time. You can read my edits. As far as I can tell, her claim that I was supporting a "white supremacist" is a badly garbled account of the fact that I added news reports about an uptick in support for the Christian Democrats (Sweden) and comments made by the deputy speaker of the Swedish parliament, Björn Söder in the wake of the Ikea stabbing attack in a section on "Impact". This was early in the refugee crisis, I was in and out of Sweden and other parts of the continent last summer, watching the migrant crisis develop with astonished fascination, and wrote and edited a number of articles on aspects of it (Hungarian border barrier). In the Ikea stabbing attack article, as with the 2016 Ramadan attacks that launched this discussion, feelings run high, different editors perceive these events very differently, tempers flare, and editors fling accusations. I trust that the closing editor here will read the personal attacks against me made at the 2016 Ramadan attacks AFD (some by editors commenting above,) the intemperate accusations flung by MSJapan on the talk page at Matthew G. Whitaker, and the talk page and edits at 2015 IKEA stabbing attack before rendering judgment. As I said, I am human and I do make mistakes, but MSJapan's description is highly colored.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was talking about at all in respect to those articles, and I had in fact forgotten about your "behavior" on Whitaker - you didn't "mess up a quote", you attempted to associate me with the article topic by editing talk page material and then accused me of sockpuppetry by being the subject of the article. Your "uptick in support" in the IKEA article wasn't supported by sources - you put it in there to make a connection that simply wasn't there. The fact that you were in Sweden and have a heretofore undisclosed "fascination" with the topic might cause an objectivity issue, which seems to actually have been the case now that you've admitted it, again, well after the fact. I see that you've also become concerned enough to start posting apologetics on the talk page of the Whitaker article so nobody "misunderstands" you. Sanctions or not at a previous time are irrelevant - the behavior you are engaging in now is the same behavior you have always engaged in since you started editing here, and that is what is at issue here. Diverting it to specifics doesn't change the fact that you have a fairly lengthy record of doing exactly what it is you're being brought to ANI (once again) for doing. MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

sigh. I should perhaps mention that I have had cause to refute MSJapan for his tendency to misread, misinterpret or misunderstand WP policies, or, at least, to mis-cite them to win a debate or fling an accusation on talk pages and, especially, at AFD. For example, on that original Whitaker page she accused me of COI [7] I responded [8]. Today at an AFD for a "Murder of..." article, he wrote that "WP:BIO also indicates that we have to show notability prior to death" to which I responded [9]. I seem to recall that he has made similar assertions, and that I have called him on them, at 1 or 2 other AFD discussions in recent weeks; I cannot recall which discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A short defense of E.M.Gregory

For the past few months, unbeknownst to him, E.M.Gregory has been stalked by an abusive sockpuppet who turns up on whatever Middle East/Islamic terrorism-related article he happens to be working on and reverts or disruptively revises his work and abuses him on the talk page. The incident that sparked this very thread involved this sock (editing as an IP) wading in and inflaming tensions in the middle of a good faith dispute that E.M.Gregory was having with another editor. This resulted in E.M.Gregory losing his cool and accusing the other editor and others of being the sock.

E.M.Gregory is now fully aware of the sock's identity and hopefully won't go accusing other editors from now on. In addition, until fairly recently E.M.Gregory was hounded by a left-wing editor (who is not party to the discussion, so I won't name them) who nominated seemingly every other article E.M.Gregory created for ideological and personal reasons.

I won't defend E.M.Gregory's short fuse and constant accusations of bad faith, but he has created a lot of good, well-researched articles, particularly related to religion, which is a topic which is often sneered at by some in the Wikipedia community. Remember that it takes a lot more work to research and write a new article than it does to vote "Delete" in a deletion discussion. I am also certain that "not notable" is all too often a codeword for "not interesting" to the editor or to the Wikipedia demographic. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh. Who would've guessed that the IP editor was a sockpuppet, but E.M. just accused the wrong person of being the sockmaster. Well, color me surprised. Parsley Man (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but E.M.Gregory should be careful before accusing other editors of being sockpuppets on their talk pages. This is not what talk pages are for. If a user suspects sockpuppeting with good reason, they should file a formal WP:SPI with the diffs involved. Otherwise, it is a failure to assume good faith on the part of the editor involved, and is a form of badgering the other user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I second that. It also makes the user look bad and could damage credibility, I might add. Parsley Man (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding discussion

• Thank you, AnotherNewAccount. It is true that I have sometimes lost my cool, and also true that [[User:Parsley Man noticed this when it happens among thousands of edits because he follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, behavior for which he has been cautioned on his talk page by an editor with whom I an wholly unacquainted. [10]. Certainly, I do feel that I have been unduly harassed by editors who make little effort to be collegial. A particularly remarkable example of harassment was the nomination of 3 articles I was involved with for deletion by the editor who was the harassing me, for what I perceived as political reasons. One was an article that I had created 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, one was a SeaGlass Carousel (for speedy deletion), and the third was 2012 Paros (Greece) rape (an article I had happened on at AFD). At the AFD on the Route 60 ambush, Nom described the incident as having had "no lasting significance.' (Note that I wrote that article 12 years after the event; far more difficult than creating an article about a recent attack since sources disappear and become hard to find by searching (spellings of perps's name vary; keywords like "shooting" "Hamas" etc. are so common). Still after 12 years of stories in major international newspapers, the incident did seem to merit an article. My iVote to KEEP read: "*Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Again with the WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusation. Since when have I been hounding you? And really? The AfD nomination of 2016 Ramadan attacks was NOT for political reasons. Parsley Man (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to respond, then I'm just going to assume it's just an empty, unfounded accusation. On ANI, no less. Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Any editor who cares to, although I hardly see why a sane editor would, can compare your edits and mine. It's all on the record. You have been WP:HOUNDING me for well over a year, almost since the moment you began editing. Nearly every day, you follow me to a series of disparate pages just as you did today; [11], [12], [13], [14]. Sometimes, your edits are disruptive (I have complained about a fraction of these on your talk page.) Now you have dragged me to this page. Mostly, however, your HOUNDING edits are minute changes or improvements in an article I have just edited; they have the impact of making editing creepy and unpleasant; like being WP:STALKED. This is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I hate it. But you know that. We have fundamentally opposing perspectives on major issues, and I suppose that your purpose in WP:WIKIHOUNDING is to drive me off Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Taken straight from WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." In the examples you just provided, I don't see how my edits qualify as hounding.

Yes, I do follow you around, and yes, I guess my first "hound-edits" have been aggressive (I forget now). But I can say for sure that I dropped that attitude now. Everything I've been doing right now (such as in those examples) has just been constructive edits, if anything, and not anything direct such as undoing your edits or recklessly challenging you in edit summaries or on talk pages. All the recent hashing-out between me and you has been happening on this ANI as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure if my "constructive edits" imply something else to you, but if you feel there is some other implication, please specify, because I'm sure I didn't mean it.

But long story short, my recent edits have been nothing hound-like of the sort. Unless I'm literally not supposed to edit on any articles you've edited, are editing right now, or will edit (if Sir Joseph's contribution below is anything to go), in which case there's going to be a problem for me, because that potentially means locking me out of a lot of articles that fall under the mass murder and terrorism categories, possibly others. In other words, a topic ban. And I'm not sure if that's justified... Parsley Man (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This, [15] certainly seems like hounding to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority are in the same topic area, and current events articles (and associated discussions) mean quick edits from everyone. ansh666 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I know tht it is tedious to look through that long list of articles, I have the advantage of remembering them, and knowing how widely they vary: minor poets, scholars influential within in narrow fields, neo-fascist news sites, and Captain Video and his Video Rangers (don't ask). It is a long list, but if you look closely you see that it is a diverse and improbable list to have come randomly or natrually to two editors. Abovce I linked to an editor on Paarsley's talk page who noticed the pattern months ago and warned him to stop dogging my steps. But even with the "shooter" and terror attack articles, many of the ones he followed me to were small incidents or older pages, with few or no other active editors. In other words, we migh randomly have both shown up shown up at July 2016 Dhaka attack, but what are the odds that any two editors, even with an interest in mass killing attacks, would both show up (Murder of Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi AND also both show up in 2016 at 2006 UNC SUV attack, Norma Lee Clark, 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack? I mean , Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine...

To see how particular his pattern of following me to odd articles for no purpose is, however, please look at Tyler Anbinder, James Peddie (author), Rajan Menon, Kuruc.info, The New Rambler, Eric Peters (musician), Steven Lubet, Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney, Blakey Vermeule, Mary Heimann, Captain Video and His Video Rangers, and many more as arcane and random as Captain Video and His Video Rangers. I'll stop there, although it is only the tip or a remarkaple iceberg. He had been tireless in following me to article after article to little purpose, then drags me here when I finally lost my temper. This is not a coincidence of interests. It is a case of an editor, me, being followed by a fellow editor who dislikes my perspective on terrorism and my focus on mass shootings (which I think are often notable and ought to have pages) and is trying very hard to drive me off the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're being a little paranoid. Please read that WP:WIKIHOUNDING excerpt I posted earlier. Yes, I can admit we don't agree on some things, but I don't see how adding or removing some punctuation, and probably changing the format of the dates in citations in the cases of some articles, equates to an organized effort to force you off of Wikipedia. (If there's anything else I did, please let me know.) Parsley Man (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Re "If there's anything else I did, please let me know." – Maybe this ANI complaint? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I meant during my edits. Parsley Man (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Opening an ANI complaint is hardly hounding. If it was, everyone who opened a complaint here would quickly be blocked! Besides, I don't know about you guys, but I sometimes find articles to copyedit or fix up by checking other editors' contributions. ansh666 06:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy, Bob. You apparently went from "many misuse ANI in bad faith" to "using ANI is evidence of bad faith". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• The pattern is not only WP:STALKing (recommend Ansh666 read some of those edits before commenting further), it is that the WP:DISRUPTive pattern of following me around and starting Deletion discussions on articles like Rafik Yousef, a member of Ansar al-Islam who was convicted in a German court of plotting to assassinate a visiting Prime Minister, then paroled after serving time, whereupon he attacked (stabbed) a police officer in Spandau. One other editor supported Parsley during that AFD; an editor with similar views on deleting articles about terrorist attacks who had a similarly aggressive style, but who has either since settled down or, perhaps, merely gone off to HOUND some other editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That AfD was admittedly made based on faulty reasoning; I had completely overlooked those facts. Any other examples? I can explain those too. Parsley Man (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• WhooHoo! One of the annoying things Parsley has done to, well, to annoy me was to turn the ref section of every article I created or did a serious expansion of from multiple columns to a single column. I hate single columns because it is vastly easier to scan the 2- or 3-column reference sections; being forced to scan a 1 column list of references slows editing down and makes it frustrating. Parsley knew that. But I eventually gave up. WIKIHOUNDING is effective; it wears editors out. Which is the point, of course. But just now a kindly IP has gone through several of my old articles, putting in 3 columns of refs. I could hug that IP! It feels like vindication, like being liberated in a small but meaningful way from the burden of a Wikihound who everywhere. Thank you, thank you, IP 95.133.149.157! E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this ANI discussion became more about me than about E.M. Maybe a new discussion should be started, since we're getting off-track. Parsley Man (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• But, enough about me. Parsely, let's talk about you. Why are you still hounding [16] me with trivial edits on pages just because I created them? What was it that you needed to delete on your UserPage? And, it's been ages since you first appeared, editing with an ease and aplomb that I have still not attained, prompting me to ask if you had ever edited under a prior name. Perhaps it's time ask that question again, since you never did give a straightforward yes/no answer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you really want to talk about me, why don't you start another ANI discussion? This feels like a diversion from the ANI I started about you. At least keep the topics relevant and in their proper organization. Also, it's just trivial edits, as you say! Copyedits and fixing. It's not some AfD nomination or outright vandal edit! Is it really the act of simply editing articles you create that falls under WP:WIKIHOUNDING, without any indication of vandalism? Because if you think so, please read the definition I put up; it's completely unchanged and taken directly from the main page. And I can't resist the urge to bold the titles in the ledes, since you did not do so. Also, why should I tell you if I edited under a different account before? If you're really that suspicious, go use WP:SPI. Do whatever, but I'm not going to answer that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this and can say only that Parsley Man's decision to nominate 2016 Ramadan attacks for deletion was correct (not wikihounding) as it was based on policy. The article was deleted because it had WP:SYNTH problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to talk about me, why don't you start another ANI discussion? - I have advocated for that change, and gotten almost no support. The current community view is that two quarreling editors' behavior can't be evaluated separately and independently. For now, that's just the way it is if you open an ANI complaint, and it's pointless to demand otherwise for your case. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this feels like a diversion from the main topic at hand. Parsley Man (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it always feels like that to the target individual. Matter of perspective. It's routine on this page for the defendant to try to "turn it around", and that's apparently how the community wants it. So be it. All you can do is try to defend yourself against the accusations. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Repeated BDP violations by Dream Focus on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling

• Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shooting of Alton Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dream Focus has made repeated WP:BLP (in this case WP:BDP) violations on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) despite warnings and discussion (see the article talk page and the user's talk page). There is no excuse for this for a user of 9 years.

Examples (see diffs above) of the violations include accusing the person of:

• not paying child support
• raping a woman
• "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them at all"
• "Also he isn't a "victim" if he was reaching for a gun before getting shot." from the talk page

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Kindly look at the current version. Talk:Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling#5_children_mentioned.2C_but_not_details I reworded it be statutory raping, instead of just raping, since that's the term used by the federal government, and the name of the Wikipedia article for it. I have shown news articles mentioning he didn't pay child support, and did four years in jail for having sex with a 14 year old he got pregnant. Dream Focus 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• I already eliminated "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them", and added references to the information I posted, before he brought the issue here. Dream Focus 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It took you 11 edits, multiple warnings, a mild personal attack, and an ANI to get you to adhere to basic policy? That's not acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not acceptable you couldn't just state that you believed the information I mentioned needed a reference, despite people mentioning it in previous sections without references, instead of edit warring without explaining the reason why you thought it justified to do so. Are you going to go through the rest of the talk page, and start deleting valid discussions there too? Dream Focus 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't know that contentious BLP material needs references? Katie^talk 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I've been busy IRL. That others violated BDP does not mean you're allowed to. I made it clear what I meant, namely that you need a ref. WP:BLP specifically says violations must be removed. I even asked on your talk page to ask your question without the violations being tacked on. That you didn't is not my fault. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That is not what you said on my talk page. [22] You didn't mention references at all there, just stated incorrectly that nothing offensive could be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't mischaracterize my comments please. I didn't say you couldn't say anything "offensive". I specified which items you wrote were BDP violations. You're correct, however, that I didn't mention the need for sources on your talk page. I mentioned on the article talk page here. Again... you didn't know you needed sources??? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And after you did that, I made some fast edits in a row, adding sources. So what's the problem here? I see no reason to bring it here. Also [23] you edit warred out my comment again after I gave you the first link to news sources of the information, I then reverting you and adding in additional ones to make it even more obvious how many sources there are. Dream Focus 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A google search link is not a source. See WP:3RRNO. Also you removed one of my comments in the process. The problem, now, is that you apparently don't realize why this is an issue and it took this ANI for you to fix your problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I had already added sources before the ANI started. This had nothing to do with it. And you removed my comment many times, so me hitting undo from your unfair removal that time, which took out something you said in the process, isn't anything you should be whining about. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Do any of your sources explain which of those alleged crimes come with a death penalty? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

My question was "Why mention he had five children without mentioning he didn't pay child support and the mother of one of them was a 14 year old girl he was convicted of statutory raping? What point is there to mention how many children he had? Is that relevant to the shooting? Is it trying to gain sympathy for him? Since the news media does mention these other facts, why are they kept out, but not the information that might make people sympathize with him?" It seems bias to mention some information and not others. Since neither things have anything to do with the shooting, I removed that bit from the article. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The message that info sends to the public is that somehow he "deserved" to be shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Its just the facts. People determine on their own what they believe someone deserved. Anyway, I wasn't trying to get that in the article, just pointing out the bias by mentioning something that sounded positive about him, without mention the entire story about that information. Dream Focus 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's POV-pushing hiding behind "facts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs is absolutely correct. This is indeed POV pushing, not unlike what's typically done after the stereotypical shooting of a black man by the police: any criminal record is broadly displayed, any previous arrest is mentioned, as if the shooting was deserved after all. That the man had five kids is easily argued to be pretty relevant, I think, and many editors are always eager to get the children into any biographical article; the circumstances of these children are not immediately relevant and speculating about them is easily a BLP/BDP violation. Saying something about how someone didn't care for their children is pretty vile, Dream Focus: such speculation on-wiki is a blatant violation. If it's about "the facts", then I expect you to start speculating in the same manner about the three police officers who were shot today, to keep it fair and balanced. I'm kidding, DreamFocus: that's a violation as well. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Nothing DreamFocus pointed out in Evergreen's first two points is untrue at all and easily sourced (and has been). Way too premature for ANI. Capeo (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

the issue isn't that the comments are false or not (though the last one cannot be sources), it's that the editor wouldn't abide by policy when when informed of it repeatedly. A veteran editor should need 11 edits to get something this fundamental correct. I didn't call this a content dispute either. It's behavioral. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Where the hell you getting this "11 edits" number? Last I checked, he'd only made 3 edits to the page in question, each different and over the span of a week. Evergreen, I think you've blown this out of proportion. pbp 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention and you'll see it was on the talk page and those edits are linked above. You should read before you comment.--TMCk (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

He can comment on the talk page all he wants for all I care. No harm in doing so. pbp 04:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 I admit to sometimes blowing things out of proportion, despite my best efforts. Perhaps this ani was premature as capeo says. But there were more than the three edits on the article. Blp applies everywhere even talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89. You need to learn the basic (BLP) rules first - then comment (maybe).--TMCk (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know if this was premature; I'm not going to block based on what I've seen yet but I haven't seen everything. I do think it's a good idea for the community to be aware of the issues discussed here, and I think they are indicative of some bigger problems that are coming to the surface in the US. Do we include criminal records for victims such as Castile or the child-rearing circumstances such as Sterling? For Castile we know he had a long records of being stopped for minor traffic violations--and we can end the sentence there, or we can add that according to many reliable sources such a record is indicative of how minority communities in the US are being policed. In other words, the simple "a fact is a fact" clearly doesn't mean we're being neutral, as Baseball Bugs indicated earlier. This is not a discussion for ANI, I know that well, but I encourage editors to make more better deeper contextualized considerations when adding what appear to be naked facts--which seems not to have been the case in this particular instance. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Whaddayaknow, Shooting of Philando Castile had precisely what I was afraid it had--just "the facts". I'm hoping someone will add context to the "Police" section--since it turns out that "minority drivers [in Minnesota] were more likely than white drivers to be both stopped and searched, even though officers found contraband more often when searching white drivers", according to a 2003 study on racial profiling commissioned by the state. We really need to be doing better than this. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: In reply to some of your statements. Firstly, these are events, not biographies. The number of children is not relevant to the event and seems designed to invoke pity. It's not relevant how many children the deceased had, just as it isn't relevant how many children the officers went home to, either. Second, the use of the term "victim" is premature. They are deceased. Whether they are "victims" is POV. Certainly, the officers that shot Sterling believe they were assaulted and are the victims and Sterling was the perpetrator of felony assault. NPOV means we take neither position. Thirdly, child support is not relevant but a felony crime that makes a person a prohibited possessor of a firearm is definitely relevant if a firearm is alleged to have been felt, seen and/or found. A prohibited possessor with a firearm while on probation is facing substantial prison time (possibly a life sentence) and speaks to a motive for not wanting to be searched or be arrested if that is reported by reliable sources. It is as relevant as disciplinary history for officers or history of previous shootings. Fourth, broad studies from 2003 being applied to a single instance is classic WP:SYNTH. Do you have a source that would link that particular 2003 study to the officer? The officer might have been 12 years old at the time of the study. I doubt he read it. Broadly applying studies of macro-social ills to an individual to imply they are in fact exhibiting those behaviors is a gross BLP violation and I hope you aren't condoning incorporating that material in any way that that speaks to the individuals involved. --DHeyward (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, I'm not following. It's a biography in an article on an event. I'm a minimalist and prefer to mention as little as possible, but if you're going to mention something it should be done properly. The classic SYNTH you are talking about is not applied by me, but by the well-developed articles in the very reliable sources that are used to supply the material for the addition I made. It's not my synthesis, therefore it's not synthesis as in SYNTH. So please look before you leap. And as far as I know someone who was killed is a victim--which is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition ("Anyone who is harmed by another"). Frankly, your suggestion that a man shot by police officers is somehow not a victim until proven...something? is profoundly distasteful. And I'm not even making any assumptions about the reasons these officers gave for shooting a man. Shooting him dead. I think life may be cheaper for you than it is for me, but a victim remains a victim, whether they're a cop or someone killed by a cop. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's biographical detail in a historical event. We don't need details like how many children or how many arrests from any of the parties. SYNTH is SYNTH and they aren't very well developed or high quality or BLP compliant if they are used to paint any individual as a criminal or a racist when they are talking about broad studies. And I find your insinuation that I somehow value life less than you quite repugnant. If this were an article on a woman that shot and killed a person who was allegedly about to rape her, would you call the alleged rapist the "victim" because they were harmed by another? I would hope not. Reliable sources avoid the word victim for people that are potentially justifiably killed. The shooter at the LGBT club in Florida is not a "victim." It's quite demeaning to those he killed. To be neutral, we have a shooter and the deceased. "Victim" implies an innocence or injustice that is not our place to conclude in cases where it's contested about who was right and it demeans the concept of who victims are if the view is so broad that it includes "anyone who is harmed by another." You can try saying the Orlando club shooter is victim because he was killed by police, but your logic is lacking. "Homicide" and "murder" are likewise terms that denote a person killed by another person but they have vastly different uses and connotations (note the title of the article is "shooting" and not "killing" or "murder."). --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: @DHeyward: The discussion of how to cover events like these belongs somewhere else than here. We seemed to have digressed from the issue of whether or not DreamFocus did anything wrong, and to me it's clear he hasn't. So he strongly advocated for a somewhat-controversial position on the talk page? That's fine, he can do that. As for his edits to the page itself, they're BOLD and they're not edit-warring, so it's OK. pbp 14:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I encourage Dream Focus to add to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers that one of the dead officers was a white supremacist.[24] After all, "[i]t seems bias to mention some information and not others." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If he were accused of shooting a black person, then yes, include it. It's ludicrous to have an article about a police shooting where you can't mention that the person shot had a record and was a prohibited person. After all, the police claims they shot the person because they reached for a weapon, so of course you need to mention the facts that he was unable to legally own a weapon. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Do try to keep up. This discussion is about his children and his alleged history of nonpayment of child support, not his gun. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Purplebackpack, I have already stated my position on Dream Focus's edit, and it seems to me I'm not the only one who thinks that it was at the least very selective editing. Sir Joseph, it isn't about the gun, but "inability to legally own a weapon" was probably not printed on a bumper sticker. DHeyward, you can spin all you want, but the definition of "victim" I cited was the secondary meaning of the definition we have in Wiktionary--the first is "sacrificial victim". The OED lists a similar meaning, "One who suffers some injury, hardship, or loss, is badly treated or taken advantage of, etc." The dead man suffered injury. Whether you want to call the Orlando shooter a victim or not is up to you, but NPOV requires that, well, NPOV.

What's at stake here is editorial judgment and discretion, and in this particular case that judgment should include how much context to give. It is plain to see that in the US, traffic stops are frequently based on race. There is little point denying that, and thus it is an integral part of what was just now again presented in the article as neutral fact--I have undone an edit in Shooting of Philando Castile that moved this context to the "Reactions" section, as if a cause for his record is nothing but a "media response". DHeyward, I will tell you once again, that any "synthesis" involved was executed by reliable secondary sources, not by a Wikipedia editor. As for Shooting of Alton Sterling, I see that the children as well as the other stuff are not there in the first description of the victim (I did not write that heading for that section) right now. But again, if we are not going to give extensive biographical information in an article on an event, why is the 2009 conviction in there, unless the officers knew about all that and it determined their cause of action? The implication is he'd done something wrong before and this is why he did it again, which implicitly justifies the shooting. There is a thin line between editorial judgment ("presenting facts") and BLP violation in cases like this. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree with Drmies here. We don't need anything that PBP and Dream Focus are trying to add here. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to add anything. I wanted to remove information about him having 5 kids, and have already done so. Mentioning he had five children, to make people feel sympathy for him, without mentioning the negative details concerning those children (he didn't pay child support and one of them he fathered with a 14 year old girl he did jail time for statutory raping) is bias. So no reason to mention it at all. Not sure how this conversation just took off with people talking about other things here, instead of on the relevant talk page. Dream Focus 21:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That's true, to a point: you're trying to remove information about Sterling's children, and remove a picture of him smiling, and basically remove anything else that might make him seem, you know, human. On the other hand, you're also adding a lot of nonsense to the talkpage to the effect that this man didn't care about his children. And in your ideal world, you'd have us say that these incidents have nothing to do with race or racism, even though you acknowledge that reliable sources state otherwise ([25]). As Drmies and Black Kite have mentioned, we can do better in our coverage of these incidents. And frankly, "doing better" would start with excluding people like you, with your track record on race-related subjects, from participating in editing them. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A black Harvard professor published a study showing "Racial bias is not a compelling contributing factor in police use of lethal force". [26] Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue. [27] After watching the video footage, I don't know why anyone would think race had anything to do with this particular shooting. Not sure what "track record" you are referring too, nor do I care. The article should be about the shooting, not things unrelated to it. No reason to add in bias things to try to get sympathy from people. Dream Focus 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That track record would include things like pointing to a report, by a local TV station, about the mother of one of Sterling's children, who said it's not a race issue, as evidence supporting your statement that "Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue". It demonstrates either a certain carelessness or a shortage of understanding of editing principles, and it doesn't do a lot for your credibility in these matters, or in Wikipedia editing in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Harvard study only found no statistical significance for race in police shootings in Houston. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or poor media reporting of social science, but need to stop citing that as "proof" of no bias. See WaPo summary. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

There is also a mention by the BBC here. Although their summary states while the best data came from Houston, the overall study included data from 10 cities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No, @Drmies:, you need to understand the root meaning of "victim" which derives from "holy" and implies an absence of any responsibility for harm that comes to them. Spin it all you want, but in cases where we are discussing possible crimes covered by WP:BLPCRIME, the legal definition of victim is the one we are seeking, not common definitions. A victim is a "person harmed by criminal acts" or an "attack target." We must be very careful in how we use words so as not to create a criminal act where it hasn't been determined. I'm sure you are able to see other examples of words that can have the same common meaning but have entirely different connotations and impacts for the actor (i.e. "his death was a homicide" vs. "he was murdered" are entirely different statements when the actor who caused the death is known). There is no dispute over who caused the death's of Sterling or Castile. Using a backdoor way to call it a crime is simply not acceptable until it's been established. And no, we don't allow synthesis from even reliable sources to infer a living person is illegally profiling or was a crime when none if it has been established as legal fact. That's the heart of the BLP policy and covers living police as well as the recently deceased. You seem able to discern what is not relevant with regards to Castile and Sterling, even though published in reliable sources, but don't see it for the case of the police. None of it belongs in case you were wondering. There is no moral high ground of portraying any of the subjects as "more human" than another (your argument is even less convincing when you try to extend it to portray certain editors as "more human" than other editors). I believe your selective reasoning as to what's relevant is rather obvious but not malicious. I understand your point about why you don't think a prior felony is relevant to what the police knew at the time. The same is true for a concealed carry pistol permit, though. I can also understand that the police may not have realized they stumbled into an ongoing commission of a felony (prohibited possessor) that Sterling was aware he was committing - that is the argument that makes it relevant along with the felony reported through 911 - but that need not be covered, either, if the article sticks to BLP and known facts about the encounter and doesn't dip off into the weeds regarding speculative motives of the police or the subjects - nor should it be feeding speculation about editors motives. --DHeyward (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. "Victim". Look it up on Wiktionary. 1. Sacrificial victim. [obviously not how we use it in everyday English.] 2. Anyone who is harmed by another. [Obviously how we use it in everyday English, regardless of culpability.] 3. etc. The rest is you spinnin'. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wiktionary over Black's Law Dictionary and any dictionary providing the root meaning. Brilliant sourcing. And like you noticed with the dead Orlando shooter, you declined to name him a victim despite being harmed by the police (hint: you know criminals are not victims exactly because of culpability and naming a victim takes a side). I think your argument is intellectually dishonest if you won't reconcile the cognitive dissonance - it's okay to take a side, just recognize you are doing it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Any dictionary providing the root meaning..." You mean like Merriam-Webster, which says "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else"? It's always good to check before making blanket declarations like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary should never be cited as an authoritative source for any definition, any more than Wikipedia should be cited as an authoritative source for its topics. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no provision for verifiability; there are no citations. It's okay for casual use, although I don't know why anyone would choose it over better dictionaries that are just as accessible. Me, I always go to M-W unless I'm specifically looking for BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

SBHB, M-W provides the root word "victima" meaning "holy." It's why the primary definition is "sacrificed." It's connotation is that "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed" with emphasis on "by someone else." Meaning, there is no shared responsibility for the action. That's the common understanding and plain meaning. It's why the press avoids the word victim without a crime being established. It's why the Orlando Pulse NightClub shooter, and Nice truck driver are not called "victims" despite a death as a result of a confrontation with police. The Boston Bomber spent many months gravely injured by police bullets in the hospital....still not a victim as that word implies the police are culpable and liable for those injuries. This is doesn't seem to be a difficult concept so I am wondering where the disconnect is. Note that this is not comparing Castile to terrorists, its affording the officer the same presumption of innocence as the other officers that were involved in police shootings. No one is casting Castile in a negative light. He is treated as innocent as well. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Get off the "holy" horse. The etymology is obviously irrelevant here, unless you want to get into some real allegory. I wasn't talking about the Orlando shooter, you were--I'm talking about the victims of police shootings who, until proven otherwise, did not deserve to be sacrificed. You're going along the "innocent until proven guilty" line and that's fine, but presuming the cop's innocence shouldn't meant that in the meantime you take away victimhood from the person who actually died in the encounter, as if we'll wait and see if he didn't actually do something at some time to deserve it. And if you don't want to compare such victims to terrorists, then I have a suggestion: just don't do it. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem that DHeyward has with this, is the implication that the police who shot him are therefore guilty of murder (or manslaughter or what have you). Wikipedia already has a section on Alton referring to him as the "victim" of the shooting. We don't know (even though I assume most think) that he is. I'm inclined to do so to be entirely honest. Alton was pinned down, how precisely he's going to harm either of the policemen is beyond me. What bothers me is that several news outlets are already spinning this as another police against black crime, I think it is in this case, but what point is the justice system if we presume guilt over innocence. "I'm talking about the victims of police shootings" think about this for a second, this includes everybody immediately at the moment of them being shot by the police (incl. criminals). Yes, it's a way of presuming innocence, but, it does so by at the cost of establishing the police as guilty of "shooting an innocent victim". Sorry, but, no. This ought to be neutral. Alton Sterling was shot by police officers. No guilt, no innocence, no victim, no criminal. Until we have absolute confirmation otherwise Alton is not a victim and the police are notguilty of shooting an innocent victim. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A "law-dictionary" (like Black's, who describe their dictionary as "the trusted legal dictionary of law definitions and terms") can't be used outside the narrow field of law since the definitions of words and terms used within he legal system sometimes differ from the everyday definitions of the same words and terms, as in this case. Which is why there's a market for such dictionaries, alongside Merriam-Webster's and others... Thomas.W ^talk 15:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In general usage, people who are injured while committing a crime are not labelled victims. In the US if you shoot a burglar, they are not labelled victims. Outside of occasions involving police brutality etc and at that point it *does* become a legal definition. 'Was the person the victim of unlawful killing or did they die as a result of their own actions?' That is a legal question. Not a common usage one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• The complaint here is about what was said on a talk page. It's not normal to have to cite statements made in the course of discussing an article – it would be too complicated and recursive. Notice that the complainant repeats the facts in question in his complaint but does not produce citations either. This demonstrates how difficult it is to have a sensible conversation about such matters if one can't plainly state the facts in question without a lot of qualification or red tape. See the stoning scene in Life of Brian for a good parody of this problem. Dream Focus seems to have been acting in good faith in discussing the content of this controversial topic. It's the actual editing of the article that matters, not the discussions about it. If we are too quick to cry BDP in such cases, then our work will become impossible. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, have you ever posted anything that was not a knee-jerk reaction to an AFD, a "friend" from the ARS being criticised or an irrelevant, badly contrived BlueSoup reason to keep stuff just because. (Apart from the "because I can" opposes at RFA, obviously.) I'm sure you must have, but I'm getting old, and can't recall specifically. Yes, DreamFocus is your friend. I see little in your rationale beyond that. Begoon ^talk 13:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dream Focus's editing was entirely out of line here. "He did this", so "deserved what he got" has no place here. This is not the supreme court of partisan internet bickering. Dream Focus should count themselves lucky that the prevailing din obscured their actions, and enabled them to dodge a bullet. They may not be so lucky next time. Begoon ^talk 12:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, I must disagree that he ever will be held accountable. There are too many here who share his outlook. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

We'll see. I don't like to be so pessimistic, but I do understand you're trying to be realistic. I wish I had got to this thread sooner. Next time I will. "He deserved it", indeed. I'm ashamed. Begoon ^talk 13:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Begoon , I never said that, or anything like that. I said its ridiculous to mention he had 5 children, without mentioning the negative aspects of that, that clearly bias. I'm not sure why everyone is twisting my words around so. Mentioning he had 5 children, without mentioning he didn't pay child support, and fathered one by raping a 14 year old girl, is bias, you selectively giving out only part of the information to make people sympathize with him. Either tell the whole story, or don't mention it at all. The situation was dealt with shortly after the debate started, this thing just stretching out needlessly. Can we close this thing already? Its going nowhere. Dream Focus 03:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The intention of those edits was clear, and disgraceful. Of course you'd like discussion closed. So would I if I'd said such odious things and those statements had then been called out for what they obviously were. To the charge of your edits being of the "he deserved it" nature, you say "I never said that, or anything like that.", followed by "you selectively giving out only part of the information to make people sympathize with him." I think I rest my case. Having dodged the bullet you did, I'd keep my head down, rather than reflexively popping it up just to provide more evidence. Just saying. Begoon ^talk 13:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User: Moon King disruptive AfD

"New user." First thing he does is add auto-AfD scripts to his userpage js and css. A new user shouldn't even know where those are, much less be able to know exactly how to find and add script content. The next thing the user did was nominate an article I created, Suzuka Naval Arsenal, for deletion, without even providing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument [28]. What that diff also shows is that whatever the script was didn't even work, because it took a second edit to get the template in seven minutes later, and 10 minutes total to execute the AfD in reverse order, just about if you look at the contribs, plus he botched the usernotice. So there's no "script" at work here.

The only thing the user has done since registering the article is comment on the AfD. I couldn't SPI because I don't know who the master is, and I don't buy a single word of the user's statement that he's a longtime reader who "just decided to get involved" over this article. I have provided not only a Google search with 7000 hits, but also specific sources with translation, to which the user replies "it looks like a directory." It clearly isn't, the user is WP:NOTHERE and WP:POINTY, and should be banned. At no time since registration has he ever bothered to make a single edit anywhere else besides the AfD. MSJapan (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is about a non notable factory. The user has failed to provide multiple reliable sources about the subject. He provided one which he hasn't explained why is reliable or what it is exactly. I gave it a cursory look and it looks like a directory to me. --Moon King (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Messing up the AfD nomination process would actually support Moon King being a longtime lurker and new editor. It's plausible that a new user might genuinely register to AfD something and be aware that there are scripts to do this (like with many things on the internet). In this case the script posted on their js and css pages is the first hit when searching "WP:AFD script". That being said, it is a bit strange, but unless you have specific accounts in mind (for behavioural comparison or checkuser), or if the AfD becomes problematic, I don't see how this is actionable. We just have to assume good faith in this case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Echoing Patar Knight here, Assume good faith. Welcome to Wikipedia, Moon King. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's problematic because there are several sources in the article, WP:NEXIST has been met, and to alleviate the specific claim of "there's no sources about the factory", I've provided a full page, in-depth source that goes so far as to trace the history, the products manufactured, has pictures, talks about what the site is used for now, provided a translation of it, and Moon King insists that it's a directory, when it clearly is not. His rationale is "it looks like a directory to me", without any reasoning why that is, and now I apparently have to "explain what the source is." This is outright a competency problem, or deliberate trolling. If you want to allow that, go right ahead, I guess.

I'm fairly certain he's not going to get the article deleted by any means, but the extent of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is far too high for a new user, and as I said, he's got no other focus than to get this article deleted, as evidenced by a total lack of editing otherwise. I see no reason to AGF. There's no reason for a new user to have this kind of focus. You want me to assume AGF? CU the user and prove he's not somebody else, because I'm sure he's well aware that he can't be CUed if there's no suspicion of a specific sockmaster. Better yet? Have the user make some other actual contribution to the encyclopedia, and show me he has the least bit of understanding about a single policy, because I haven't seen a single policy-based statement yet. I will AGF when behavior warrants it, and behavior does not warrant it. MSJapan (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's that obvious of a keep, then the AFD will bear that out. When most of the referenced content is a list of what was built there, I get the directory comparison. And the titles of the three sources listed don't actually refer to the arsenal itself - not saying that they don't discuss it, I haven't checked, but if you go by the titles there's not a "History of Suzuka Naval Arsenal" or whatever. So I think I understand why it was nominated. If you've got additional information that might hint at something for an SPI, we can take a look at it - but in the absence of evidence, I don't know what we would do here other than keep an eye on things. There's nothing actionable as such - it's a valid AFD nom. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

To add to that, looking at the AFD... It's running solidly toward a Keep result. So it's not like there's a flawed nomination and multiple editors got suckered into following along - Moon King made reasonable arguments, incited you into providing an additional source, and other editors !voted Keep on the merits. That's precisely how AFD is supposed to work. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ultraexactzz. I looked over the 3 sources in the article and they're a bit on the weak side. If one searches through the Gbook, there are 4 mentions of Suzuka in the available text and only serve to verify that the statement about the aircraft manufacture and testing. The other 2 sources do the same, verifying the that the machine guns are licensed versions of types manufacture elsewhere. If it weren't for the all Japanese source that MSJapan posted at the AFD, I'd be hard pressed to vote keep. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, this. MSJapan decided to take a shot in the dark and accuse me of being the puppeteer of Moon King, with little or no basis for that except that we frequent AfD and edit within the same 18-hour period of the day. The discussion was closed as disruptive and groundless; anybody could easily tell Moon King and I are two different people. When I look at MSJapan's behavior, I'm seeing flashes of recent attempts he made to have User:Kvng sanctioned (though some of Kvng's edits were considered questionable, there was never any stomach for the sanctions MSJapan repeatedly pushed for). While MSJapan does make sensible contributions from time to time, he has a troubling history of attempting to punish those with whom he disagrees. pbp 16:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan:, any comment? Filing SPIs like this, with no evidence and no real indication of AGF, is problematic. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll be blunt. I looked at it, and the tone and focus of the users on particular points in a discussion, as well as the edit timing of both users (within the span of a few minutes at times) looked pretty plausible to me. They both evade questions pretty much the same way, too. Now, if the CU I had asked for in the first place had been done for an obvious sock, I wouldn't have to "guess" to try to get some action, but I was left no choice. There is no AGF when a new user does nothing but focus on an AfD to the extent of not even bothering to participate in the outside world of the encyclopedia - it's classic sock behavior.

You're seriously going to tell me that some random person randomly saw my article on Suzuka Naval Arsenal, and that was his magic shining moment where he decided to "get involved" and rather than edit it to make it better, this "new user" decides AfD is the way to go for "the betterment of the encyclopedia", despite never having used AfD before. Then, instead of reading the AfD instructions, he decided to go get an AfD script, despite not having ever registered here before to know we had scripts, finds the js and css, puts together an AfD out of order (thus by hand) in about 20 minutes, also despite having never done it before? Really? Doesn't sound plausible when put that way, does it? Not only that, when he gets to AfD, he has no policy-based reason to send it to AfD, and then apparently needs me to explain sources to him. I explain the sources, and he refuses to accept the explanation - it's a directory, not because it is, but because he thinks it is. So at what point does it take for somebody to go "Gee, this is a bit weird, isn't it?" That's what I have a problem with - it is obvious this is a bad-faith sock with a personal ax to grind, and it's being ignored for no reason apparent to me. If the community doesn't want to follow its own rules, that's fine, but last time I checked, a bad-faith AfD was disruptive editing, sockpuppetry wasn't allowed, and people weren't allowed to lie their way out of things when the truth was obvious. If I'm totally mistaken, let me know, and I certainly won't expect anyone to do anything I ask ever again. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Laying on the melodrama a bit thick don't you think?Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I've been here a long time; it has only been recently that I really feel like it's pulling teeth trying to get any sort of remedy unless it's an open-and-shut case where it's a major problem like NLT, suicide threat, etc. Other than that, no matter what's presented as evidence or how obvious that evidence is, editor conduct is not being addressed like it used to be. It's not just me, either; I've seen plenty of users reported here three and four times for the same thing, and nobody does a thing about it despite the same complaints coming up. These complaints are often from different people, so it's not like it's always one person or the cabal. If a report was made, someone looked at it, and something was usually done one way or the other. Now we have threads with no response for days, and all of a sudden we have a preponderance of sock farms, COI, and other editor misbehavior that somehow nobody ever noticed before, and it often affects dozens of articles before someone notices. It can't all be griping when different people bring up the same problem independently. In short, I think we're letting a lot of things go (administratively speaking), in the hope that they will resolve on their own, and they don't. I'll avoid the laundry list, but it really does beg the question of "why should I even bother asking for help", doesn't it? There's clearly been a paradigm shift somewhere, even though the status quo is that nothing has changed, and maybe that's the problem. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

MSJapan, while this may be a troublesome editor, you majorly goofed by thinking he was me. Your article's going to get kept, isn't it? And if you're worried about this editor, try to get him on conduct, not socking. If he's an SPA, he'll leave when the AfD is over, and if he's just a general nuisance, you can get him later. pbp 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, MSJapan, it occurs to me that Moon King may be upset about the topic rather than about you. Regardless, if you create ANI threads that come off as punishing people for disagreeing with you, you're probably not going to get much of anywhere. pbp 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Try to get him"? ... "get him later"? An interesting, illuminating couple of suggested approaches to the realities of collegial editing as you see them... Begoon ^talk 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What can I say, @Begoon:, except that MSJapan has a history of trying to "get" people. He tried to "get" me because he I thought I was Moon King. And, at least when this was posted, there was a fair amount of evidence that Moon King was a disruptive SPA, though I've gone through his edit history of late and he does appear to now be turning to interests other than the AfD. BTW, the AfD has been closed as Keep. Perhaps it's time to close this as well with no action taken except an admonition to MSJapan not to use SPIs to fish. pbp 13:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What can you say? I don't know - that you'd stop treating this encyclopedia as a battlefield? Unlikely. I've known you a long time. I'd still welcome it though. Begoon ^talk 13:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm done with my AGF. The editor(Moon King) is clearly being pointy and disruptive now. PRODed and then AfDed an article I created because I warned them about edit warring. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Saigon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I nominated the articles because they are non notable. I came upon them because of our discussion. It had nothing to do with the minor misunderstanding we had.--Moon King (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How did you come upon the articles "because of our discussion"? We didn't have any prior discussion about the article or show me the diffs if we had.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We had a discussion on my user talk page to clear up the misunderstanding on the Beatles link. --Moon King (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This comment shows that you are simply being disruptive or wasting others time. I will caution you as it is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE/WP:CIR territory. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with nominating similar articles in one AFD? Seems efficient to me. --Moon King (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If you read that comment twice you would find what is so wrong in it - but you apparently you don't realise. This is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE or a WP:CIR. I'm going to stop posting as this is simply a waste of time and totally disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Lemongirl942, MoonKing's behaviour on the AfD is tending rapidly towards WP:Battleground behaviour (dispute with another editor and holding a grudge for no apparent reason). Going after a series of articles just because one editor created them. Your allegation that you learned about Pulau Saigon after talking to Lemongirl942 on your talk page is also false, you stalked her edits to do so. On top of that, you outright admit to stalking another editor's edits "You have brought yourself to my attention, I examined your edits, found that particular article, and determined that that particular article is not notable" and then on the actual AfD "I would like to include Pulau Seletar and Lazarus Island in this AFD as well." seems awfully like you're breaching WP:WIKIHOUND as per; "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I suggest you desist quickly. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So now that the same thing has happened twice, not to mention that the edit Moon King made initially at Sun King that triggered the edit war was not only [contrary to policy] as well as pointless (it substituted one redirect to the same article for another redirect to the same article), is it a little more plausible why I didn't AGF in the first place? I brought the issue here so it could be dealt with, not so that it could spread, as it clearly has. MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The edit on the Sun King was to avoid a redirect. the Beatles is not a redirect and is linked that way in every Beatles article. This was explained here. Your decision to start an edit war over this was an extension of your campaign of bad faith as was your improper rollback of a legitimate edit I made. --Moon King (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Patar knight suggested I avoid AFD for a time. I will honor his suggestion. In the meantime, I am writing an article in my sandbox. --Moon King (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In light of your recent comment and your disruptive AfDs and a severe case of WP:IDHT, I am politely asking you to drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You sure like to link to the IDHT page even though it is you who is refusing to get why you were in the wrong to edit war at the Sun King page to force a redirect. --Moon King (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted reversion and failure to collaborate

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

---

Recently I started to check the notes of WWII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, subdividing the work in five tranches, which I completed after some days. At that point Bgwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intervened in WWII talk page emphasizing that I was changing the notes' style and, in addition, putting some errors on the page (he noted three but in fact there were five errors: three missing <ref> tags, one typo, “sf” instead of “sfn”, and one missing vertical bar in an {{sfn}} short note). These errors are quite easily corrigible, and I would have expected Bgwhite to provide to it himself or to alert me to do so, as this is the usual editors' behavior. I would anyway found out these errors after a short while, being used to perform a diff after check, as I did in the third tranche, finding one error. Instead Bgwhite's attitude was quite different: the last two tranches of my work were reverted, so that the page was returned to a “version without errors”, as Bgwhite put it; in fact the page was returned to a version with:[29]

• more than one hundred erroneous, because unnecessary, occurrences of <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>, with a proportional amount of wasted bytes (quite important in an heavy page like this, ~220,000 bytes), which I had substituted with {{sfn}},
• 11 missing {{pn}}, which I had added,
• many unimproved citations, which I did take care of,
• one double full book citation (in Citations and in References), one of which I had substituted with a short note,
• one long quote regarding “assault rifle” which repeated text fully visible in the linked website, and absolutely irrelevant in an high level page like this, which I had removed from the note.

Isn't just absurd Bgwhite's request that, for these changes to be accepted, a preemptive discussion is needed? This is hyperburocratism. There is also an ethical question: the use of reverting without reason. There was no change in notes' style (it always was of the short note type with link to the full reference, before and after my changes), and after Bgwhite's reversion the page was left in a lesser, not better, state than before. On a more general level, I need to know if normal people like myself are still allowed to participate to the WP effort, which ought to be of a collaborative kind. Carlotm (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is this thread here? What are you looking to accomplish with it? Doc talk 08:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Carlotm, I think you mean citations since there are only two notes for the article. Currently there are four columns rather than five. Note, the call for a discussion is required especially for such a large and high profile article. Now, since this is a content dispute it doesn't belong at AN/I unless you can demonstrate that it is tied to behavioural issues. Follow the rules of WP:BRD, bold edit, if its reverted move on to discuss it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, here I am searching to know if reverting without cause and lack of a collaborative effort are unlawful or accepted/tolerated behaviors.Carlotm (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Carlotm The revert was not without cause, refer to WP:CITEVAR which recommends that you don't try to change the citation style without first consulting the talk page for discussion (especially on high traffic, high volume, and high profile pages). To quote CITEVAR; "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If there were errors in the references after Bgwhite reverted you, then those need to be fixed as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, surely you are aware that both <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> and {{sfn}} are used in the same short author-date citation style to solve two different situations, the former being necessary to bundle multiple short citations into a single footnote. In WWII page all the short citations used <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> markup even when it was not necessary and, as such, erroneous. My work was eminently about changing this erroneous, or if you will, inappropriate, because it consumes bytes for no reasons, situation. There was no change in citation style, rather a correction within the same citation style context. I even got thanks from Nick-D, who would not have done so if I had showed contempt for WP:CITEVAR. Carlotm (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AN/I is not the place to solve which ref style will be used in a talk page. Please discuss this on the talk page in question itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Magioladitis, is not about content, is not about ref styles. As I already wrote, the question is if reverting without cause and demonstrating an unwillingness to collaborate are behaviors deemed to be celebrated or to be disapproved. Carlotm (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Carlotm "But it seems you don't care much about that" your presumption of bad faith here is the most worrying thing written on the talk page of the WWII article. Now you presume that Bgwhite refuses to collaborate because he asked that you have a plan of action before you try implementing it on the article and reach a consensus on whether this change is needed. Is it absolutely necessary to have wide consensus, no I don't think so if all it's doing is saving bytes of space then that ought to be fine without consensus, except that is not the only thing being changed as Bgwhite and Nick-D have noted. Taking Bgwhite to AN/I for this minor friction will go nowhere, no action is going to be taken because none can be taken. You haven't demonstrated that Bgwhite is unwilling to collaborate and you also haven't demonstrated that his reversion of your edits was needless, it introduced a few errors, fix them and then re-implement it. If Bgwhite reverts you again, take it to the talk page. If that fails, then get some outside opinion (Nick-D has already given theirs for example). If all else fails, then and only then bring it to AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that this matter is resolved: over a week ago Bgwhite reverted the changes and started a discussion on the talk page largely on procedural grounds. I've supported the changes, and no-one else has raised any concerns, so they can be re-added with any necessary fixes made. Any further discussion would best belong at Talk:World War II#borked up refs (rude title courtesy Bgwhite) as this is a discussion over article content. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

When people play with rules as they please, a “law and disorder” environment is privileged, and productivity goes down, down, down. Carlotm (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Coming to AN/I with any problem (justified or not) causes an immediate drop in productivity (for all involved). As far as the above discussion has illustrated, there has been no playing with the rules only playing by the rules. You made an edit, Bgwhite reverted on the grounds that it caused errors, and now we're here. Content dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:LuisSuazo300

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

---

Luis Suazo has been a major disruption on the page about Borja Mayoral. He twice [30] [31] removed sourced information of the subject playing for Real Madrid, without any reason. I went to his talk page to try to discuss, he went to mine and just called me a swear word. That alone should be evidence of WP:NOTHERE.

Luis Suazo continues to make unsourced, unexplained edits to the page. He has now reached a halfway house of instead of denying the player ever played for Real Madrid, now saying that he no longer plays for them. I'm getting rather tired of this uncooperation and his lame personal attack against me really means I can not assume good faith or human error. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've warned the editor using {{uw-npa4im}} with Twinkle. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the swear word was several days ago (July 5). I apologized to the user for the late warning on my user page, but I didn't apologize for warning him. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, is there a point at which a conviction is "spent"? I could stomach at first an edit warrior calling me a swear word, but then he returned to the same article and made the same uncooperative edits. That's why I had to come to ANI '''tAD''' (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no exact cut off when a "conviction" is considered spent, especially for once off occurrences. For a once off personal attack, about a week is probably a reasonable period after which it shouldn't be held over the "perpetrator's" head, particularly if they've acknowledged that they should not do it again. However editors with long histories of attacking other editors, then incidents that date back months even years can be used as evidence of a pattern. Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Exclusion from discussion

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

---

AlexTheWhovian has been reverting several editors working on Quantico (TV series) ‎ over the past several days: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], most having to do with a list of episodes. I came across this looking at recent changes and reverted one of Alex's reverts suggesting in the edit summary "Massive reversion like this should be discussed first" so Alex reverted yet again still with no discussion on the talk page. Note that I have no contributions to this article. @Elainasla: took the issue up on Alex's talk page and I joined the discussion. After asking Alex for the specifics of his justification and waiting more than 24 hours without a response from Alex, I reverted Alex's reversion a final time (there will be no more from me) asserting that consensus is against his reversion in the edit summary and continued discussion on his talk page.

Since then, Alex has told me that I may not participate in this discussion twice [38] and [39]. We can talk about edit warring and content disputes all day, but nobody is allowed to unilaterally exclude comments on a content dispute like this.

I should also point out that there was a brief discussion on my talk page which I closed to consolidate it all in one place. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian notified Blackmane (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Already done. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Definitely completely stopped you. And I'm allowed to exclude who I wish on my talk page. If you required an even discussion, you should have opened it on the Quantico talk page. This is just the actions of a disgruntled editor who, when faced with the mistakes he did on the page, knew he had done wrong but attempted to turn it onto another editor. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

My first edit on this article was inviting you to discuss your reversions on the article talk page but you kept reverting instead. The discussion was opened in your talk page by Elainasla and you've asked the community to join there [40] [41]. If you want a community discussion, you can't exclude folks you disagree with. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Admins. Note that the user at hand refuses to confront their mistakes while editing, all the while knowing what they have done, and yet continues to turn the focus onto other editors. Such behaviour is atrocious when attempting to create such an encyclopedia. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering you actively refuse to cooperate with people who are trying to cooperate with you, this won't end well for you. Wikipedia is a collaborative space. You would be wise to discuss your edits instead of refusing to talk to people. --Tarage (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This escalated much faster than it should have and it doesn't belong here. I don't approve of user talk page banning, but the practice is permitted or at least condoned. Main idea: MOS:TVCAST outlines two ways to display cast information and neither is a table. I'm not a MOS regular nor a participant in the TV project but that seems conclusive. The MOS doesn't have the force of policy but edit-warring against is a bad idea unless there's a really great reason to. The proper place to discuss this would seem to be Talk:Quantico (TV series). Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Mackensen. Does that answer all of your concerns, Toddst1? Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, not at all. What is your aversion for discussion on your part? Mackensen is right that this should have been discussed on the talk page. Being right or wrong is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's almost like I suggested that it should have been discussed there. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And yet none of which you actually did until it got dragged here and dragged here for good reason. You still have not commented on the talk page. We recently had another editor go through a similar sequence with the edit warring, refusals to discuss the issue sensibly on the article talk page, bans of editors on their user talk page and continued reversions and the general consensus there was "even if you are right, WP:DICK applies as does WP:AGF which includes actually telling people what in the world you're thinking." In the future, I suggest that (a) you actually use the talk page as it is intended and (b) you not cause these pointless reports to be created by putting forth a bit more effort than "you're banned on my talk page and I won't explain to you why but trust me, I'm right." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Amen to that, brother. Luckily, I didn't ban anyone. Reports like these are a waste of good admin time. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, the report is entirely an unfortunate but appropriate use of time. It is you who created a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, 1) WP:TVCAST does not "ban" the use of cast tables, and 2) only a subset of WP:TV editors want to "ban" them (i.e. using them or not using them is thus "controversial", and is not a "settled" question). As to the specific circumstances, I'd rather not comment, as I already have a conflict with the editor named in this report, and consider myself tangentially "involved". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You already have commented, and recommended the removal of at least one table, and the moving of both. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion started at: Talk:Quantico (TV series)#Cast table. (This is how it's supposed to be done, folks!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Mogomaniac

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

---

Mogomaniac (talk · contribs)

Quick perusal of this user's contributions and talkpage (currently [42], with lots of diffs there in the last few sections) give a large history of edit warring to include unsourced information, uncivil behavior, and blatant vandalism. They don't seem to have learned from an AE block from May (which is pretty obvious from the unblock request itself), and have continued the same behavior on articles such as 2016 Munich shootings, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, Melania Trump, and United States presidential election, 2016. The user also doesn't seem to want to discuss any of their edits, with no recent edits to article talk pages and only one edit to their own talk page despite the number of warnings there. I think this editor, despite the small amount of good that they've done recently, is pretty much WP:NOTHERE. ansh666 00:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Not watching, ping to notify me please.

He's now blanked this section twice: [43][44]. ansh666 00:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As said by Ansh666, this user tried to twice minutes after said section was started, and without giving any rationale, pretty much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Before that, when warned by Majora about disruptive editing ([45] [46] [47] [48]) on the United States presidential election, 2016 article, this was all the user had to say. Then, the user has a small history of disruptive editing at the 2016 Munich shootings article, aggressively removing sourced information ([49] [50]). He/She has also repeatedly moved the article's title many times in a short time-span without even discussing it on the talk page first ([51] [52] [53]). When I moved the article to a suitable temporary title (I could not move it back to the original title at the moment), the user simply moved it back to titles he/she already used, again without talk page discussions ([54] [55]). This is all I know right now. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, half of their edit to the US election page was fine (just unsourced but true nonetheless). The other half, however, was not. Just wanted to point that out. --Majora (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, he was (half-)right...but we require properly cited sources - not just an edit-summary-"IT WAS CONFIRMED ON CNN". From the talk page history, this is something that Mogomaniac has had trouble grasping. ansh666 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is true. Just wanted to say that since I believe my level 3 warning might have been a little harsh. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, with a history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, I doubt nothing would be harsh to a user like that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh. It seems like this guy has stopped editing altogether. Did he rage-quit and leave? Parsley Man (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That which edits twice as fast as most on the most aggressive topics tends to burn bright half as long. Someone more concerned about "being right" and using themself as a source is going to trend a certain way. Hopefully the lesson is learned and it's not "blank the ANI discussion". - Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I move for a close on this discussion. It's pretty clear Mogomaniac won't be a problem at least in the foreseeable future, given he/she has been inactive for the past few days. Parsley Man (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposed TBAN on Ocdgrammarian

Ocdgrammarian, a new editor, seems like he could be a fine contributor to Wikipedia but I am concerned about a pattern of highly unusual behavior on Frank Gaffney by him, as well as a string of statements that seem to belie an ability to exercise good judgment. To wit:

• Here [56] the editor blanks the entire lede of the article in violation of a unanimous RfC decision made by Beeblebrox. After the blanking is undone, he immediately re-blanks it. [57]
• Here [58], here [59], and here [60] (and other places too numerous to list) the editor says various sources like CNN and so forth can't be used in the article as they're "leftist". At one point ArbCom member Doug Weller counseled him that none of the sources he'd identified as "far left" were, in fact, such but it didn't appear to ameliorate his concerns at all.
• Here [61], rather out of the blue, the editor seems to announce his belief in a "dastardly conspiracy" [sic] by Barack Obama to put "Muslims" in control of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency: "It's strange how well the US Missile Defense logo matches up with the Islamic Crescent. Unless Obama's supporters defend him instead of attacking Gaffney, there's enough there to prove a dastardly conspiracy."
• Here [62] the editor appears to accuse me of being a member of the Communist Party. (?!) That seemed so odd that I thought he was joking, but then he called me a "Stalinist" [63] which makes me suppose he might not be? Not sure. He also [64], accused me of of being part of the "mean girls club" which, I'm guessing, must be some kind-of Communist Party front group or fifth column.
• The editor has repeatedly announced he's a "refugee" [sic] from the Soviet Union (here [65] and here [66]and so forth); while I, of course, want to give GF assumption as to the veracity of that claim, there seems something a little off-kilter in the way this biographical note is repeatedly sprinkled into the conversation that gives me pause. For instance, as unsolicited proof of his refugee status, he tacks the words "Call of Duty" (as in the video game) onto the end of a post in Cyrillic script [67], which would kind-of be like a Syrian refuge randomly adding "حمّص" (hummus) to the end of his post.

This is a very delicate BLP on a current events topic and the above pattern of editing is a kind-of bull in the china shop approach which is not, how can I put this diplomatically ... helpful. I reluctantly propose a 90-day WP:TBAN on Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy be applied.

---

Amendment: I further request an IBAN be applied against the editor vis a vis both myself and RunnyAmiga. Since this very civil ANI has opened, the editor has:

• repeatedly linked ([68] / [69]) two off-Wiki Attack pages targeting me and several other WP editors, specifically two reddit threads where the last group of socks that I helped block gathered to have a "***** session" about myself and other WP editors including User:JzG, User:Robert McClenon, User:TheRedPenofDoom, etc. ([70] and [71]).
• He/she has also directed off-color insults against RunnyAmiga and myself in Russian, apparently to circumvent WP:CIVIL attention (see the sub-thread, below),
• and - in off-page discussion - referred to us as trolls [72]
• see, also, the previous accusations editor has made against me, charging that I'm a member of the Communist Party (above)

I am not asking for an IBAN as a punitive measure or WP:CIVIL complaint, but because the above pattern of conduct suggests the editor's continued involvement in pages we edit will create general havoc and chaos. Both RunnyAmiga and myself are prolific editors and this newly minted editor's continued engagement with us is likely to result in high level disruption to the project, through no fault of our own. I am pinging everyone who previously !voted (RunnyAmiga and Roxy the dog™) so they can change their !vote if they feel it is no longer reflected by this amendment.

---

LavaBaron (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Support

• Regretfully Support as nom LavaBaron (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Short comment, since you're proposing that Ocdgrammarian be banned from two pages for 90 days, I could suggest amending your request to Page BAN (PBAN) rather than topic ban. I'll take a look at the pages, but, from your diffs, a PBAN from both pages seems reasonable to be honest. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support (no regrets). LB has provided an excellent summary. Indeed, if this were an article the points raised would make an adequate lead, and the body would be easily written, sourced to the Gaffney Talk page. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support. Over and over, Ocdgrammarian has inserted text at Frank Gaffney that fails to comply with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and since neither LavaBaron nor I can revert because of 1RR, he's gotten away with it. At this point, Ocdgrammarian has been pointed towards SYNTH enough times that I'm going to start reverting violations of it as vandalism and whatever will be will be. Bishonen's casual dismissal of the ton of evidence LavaBaron compiled and posted at SPI was truly strange; this behavior is a lot more similar to that of other blocked users than just having a confrontational approach and a less-than-mainstream opinion or two. And Ocdgrammarian's defense of his activity has consisted entirely of refusals to answer whether he's a user who has previously been blocked alongside truly bewildering attacks against LavaBaron that sound, for lack of a better way of putting it, like stuff Frank Gaffney would say. It's really, really pathetic that decent editors are this hamstrung by a bad-faith actor who is gaming the everloving hell out of 1RR. This discussion shouldn't be necessary but then, a CU at SPI shouldn't have been necessary either. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Wow, I had no idea of the kind of sesspool I waded into here:

<links to offsite attacks removed>

I see this is a rigged game. I'll leave the pettiness for the petty. Peace, kids. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

I have to admit I didn't know about the rules re blanking, but the remaining accusations are pretty laughable. For example, the "dastardly conspiracy" post [73] is obvious sarcasm, which the admin to whom the post was addressed understood immediately and responded to with "Fair enough." I don't know what's so bad about writing in Cyrillic or being a Soviet refugee, but the rest of his accusations are just as weak

Meanwhile, LavaBaron has been engaged in a campaign of harassment against editors on this page long before I got there. Arm Chair General called him out on it yesterday: (sorry, I don't know how to link the diffs) "Why do I get the feeling that you'll only be satisfied if the lead reads: Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953): American conspiracy theorist, Spy for Israel, and probably eats baby's.?"

Almost as soon as I started editing the page, LavaBaron He went into personal attacks on my talk page, accusing me of being a Gaffney employee in some conspiracy theory of his: "If, like your previous userids . . ." . . . ". . .as I've previously communicated to your other personalities." . . . "In the meantime, many of us would appreciate it if you could let Frank know, next time you see him in the office, that simply shotgunning this same line that hasn't worked the last 20 times, repeatedly, in hope it will work the 21st time, is tedious for all of us." He then threatened me with and ultimately filed an SPI on me just because I disagreed with him. I've previously kept my contributions on Wikipedia mostly to grammar edits on science and history articles I like to read, and I am not used to either Wikipedia customs or how to deal with hostility and personal attacks from other editors.

For some reason, he called me a "loose one" on the article talk page, and engaged in lots of other uncivil behavior. If anyone should be blocked from editing the article, it ought to be him.

Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian.

True; actually my exact quote was "oh boy, we gotta loose one" [74]. This was in response to Ocdgrammarian's quoting a long passage from The Fountainhead (in response to a routine WP policy comment by RunnyAmiga) and then claiming the "Islamic Crescent" was hidden in the logo of the USMDA. Given this context, I feel "we gotta loose one" is probably an accurate analysis of the situation. LavaBaron (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It was Atlas Shrugged and the "Islamic Crescent" "claim" was obvious sarcasm riffing on Gaffney's claims and how similar they are in nature to your accusations of me being a sock in some conspiracy theory of yours. The admin to whom I made that sarcastic joke got it - and I'm sure you did too, but are just misrepresenting it to get me blocked. Your response, claiming that I'm "loose," was extremely uncivil and rude. You should be blocked from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It was Atlas Shrugged and the "Islamic Crescent" "claim" was obvious sarcasm riffing on Gaffney's claims and how similar they are in nature to your accusations of me being a sock in some conspiracy theory of yours. The admin to whom I made that sarcastic joke got it - and I'm sure you did too, but are just misrepresenting it to get me blocked. Your response, claiming that I'm "loose," was extremely uncivil and rude. You should be blocked from the page, if anyone is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, by "harassment campaign" I think he/she is referring to eleven different socks [75] I've got blocked who were active at this page (all of whom also blanked the lede repeatedly and complained that CNN was "leftist"). LavaBaron (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I'm talking about this, champ:

<Links to offsite attacks removed>

Comment - When Lavabaron's misconduct at Did You Know became an issue [76] I brought attention to the WikiInAction post detailing Lavabaron's misconduct at Frank Gaffney and Did You Know. Lavabaron responded by falsely accusing me of being a Gaffney employee and a sockpuppet of Zeke1999. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The above IP editor's other comments in this thread have been administratively deleted as trolling [77]. LavaBaron (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, LavaBaron, I removed the comment and warned the individual. I left the post above on the page deliberately, as arguably relevant, but the one I removed, along with this one on Talk:Frank Gaffney (also removed) were definitely trolling. People aren't supposed to log out from their account in order to disrupt sensitive discussions, especially not in this type of area. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

WP:AE

Please consider moving this proposal to WP:AE. LavaBaron, I believe you do misunderstand this post by Ocdgrammarian; it's a parody of the immediately preceding post by RunnyAmiga (note, not by LavaBaron, and no, RunnyAmiga is not an admin), not an actual suggestion of a dastardly conspiracy by Barack Obama. OCD is making a rhetorical point. I won't comment on your other points, as I prefer to remain uninvolved here. However, I have advice for you both: LavaBaron, I think your proposal would go better on WP:AE. You can refer to the discretionary sanctions for both post-1932 American politics and for biographies of living people there, compare my formal alerts on the user's page. And Ocdgrammarian, being unable to create diffs really hamstrings you in these kinds of discussions. I urge you to read the instructions in the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

Nah, arguing with conspiracy theorists about whether or not someone else is a conspiracy theorist is mindnumbing долбоёбье. (Use an accurate Russian translator next time Lavabaron.) You're a good and fair person Bishonen, but the mob rule and leftist dishonesty here reminds me of another place I left for good. Peace. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

Am I reading this correctly? Are you officially recusing yourself from editing Gaffney's page? Am I good to go on there and try to fix it without having to worry about you undoing any of my edits or adding more WP:SYNTH violations that I won't be allowed to revert without risking a block?

And Bishonen, if you're still here, to make it perfectly clear: the false claim of "leftist dishonesty" and the policy-violating remarks that LavaBaron, myself, or both of us are "conspiracy theorists" and/or "долбоёбье" are clangingly obvious tells that Ocdgrammarian has been here before under a different identity. I'm still trying to understand how you missed this stuff. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)RunnyAmiga: folks who tend toward conspiracy theories are often urged to use Occam's Razor. Perhaps the reason why I sound similar to other critics of yours is not because I've been sent here by Frank Gaffney on an important mission to argue with you kids - his greatest nemeses, but rather it's because 1) you do tend to think in conspiratorial ways about folks who disagree with you on Wikipedia, and 2) that your arguments and prejudices are indeed leftist. Judging from your user page and your comments about Ayn Rand, for you to deny that is indeed dishonest. Complaining of NPA as you personally attack me as a sock and LavaBaron calls me "loose" is also pretty rich. As I understand it, you've been an editor for three months. I've edited (very minor grammar stuff, but pretty often) for a year and a half. I would posit that perhaps it's you who's a sock. You do sound very similar to LavaBaron. . . Perhaps he created you to win votes in his Gaffney fights and his various purges of other users. I don't know, a well-meaning editor can be forgiven of accidentally accusing you. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian.

долбоёбье (Dolbo[ё]bye) I can approximate that to meaning a dunce or stupid donkey (ass). Russian is not my native, but, I am familiar with cyrillic (the e with umlaut over it is new to me though). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I know that's what the Google Translator incorrectly says, so no need to pretend that you know Russian. The actual meaning is something more of what the Hump Robot from Robot Chicken does. "Dolbit'" is to hit repeatedly, and often uselessly, and "ebat'" is to fuck. That's what I feel like I've been engaging in over the past day arguing with conspiracy theorists and dishonest leftists. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

Umm... I said I could translate the cyrillic approximately Ocdgrammarian and looking at google translate it goes for stupid ass whereas I first suggested dunce... not the same thing are they... let me tell you something. Odjebi -> Одjeбi -> fuck off. Negovori mi koji jezik ja mogu ili ne mogu pricat, razumjes? (don't tell me what language I can or cannot speak, understand?). Add; worth mentioning that this is Serbian/Croatian/Srpskohrvatski and not Russian. These are my native languages. Sub-add; don't take that personally, I am not actually telling you to fuck off, I meant that to illustrate a point, a little heated admittedly. I wouldn't claim to speak a language I don't and it's not the only bit of Russian I have dealt with recently, refer to [78] this page where I translated several pages worth of Russian, and not one or two words. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've struck through the thing about you not knowing Russian, my apologies. People are so aggressive on Wikipedia and I couldn't help but notice you took LavaBaron's side in his deeply unfair witch hunt against me. But, in any case, no offense taken, pichka. Don't take that as a personal attack either - in Russian, pichkat' means "to coddle." Just goes to show you that not all Slavic languages are the same and sometimes when you think you're translating something approximately, you can can get in a lot of trouble. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

Ocdgrammarian All good, I'm also fine with being called a cunt or 'to be coddled' in Russian. I am for the time being refraining from involving myself in the vote, for several reasons. I'll mention when you said Dolbit and Ebat, I understood Ebat (Jebat in my language) immediately, Dolbit would be Udarat in my own language (quite different). There's some similarity between our languages but obvious differences as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not he was joking on this point, or in fact all of them, I don't think ameliorates the disruption that's occurring (and, in fact, may even underscore it). Talk is a place to discuss edits to the article, not practice a stand-up routine. LavaBaron (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: re your deleted post. WP:AE is the place to ask for discretionary sanctions by admins, specifically TBANs. A report there is unlikely to lead to a block. By putting your proposal on ANI, you are in effect asking for community sanctions, a more complicated and less efficient procedure. But do as you will, I'm kind of tired of this. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

Incorrect Info

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

---

The user MariusEllingsen47 recently edited the birthdate, name & residence on the Scott Cawthon page and the information is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcawthon (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and removed (or hidden) all unsourced bio info at Scott Cawthon. This doesn't seem to require Admin attention, and can be closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Note: @Jcawthon: has not notified, MariusEllingsen47 of this discussion as required, I have done so HERE --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Adamsmith aka User:AdamSmith12

Hi, all using WP:ANI. I must first be apologetic about length of evidence following. Without it, I am thinking you will not be appreciating seriousness of problems being caused by User:Adamsmith. In short, he is a most disrespectful editor who shows complete disregard for other users and for process. I am taking the view that he is disruptive and this I am thinking is being done deliberately, certainly without any due care or respect. I am recommending that he is being blocked as an incompetent and untrustworthy editor. The points below are illustrating my argument and again I must be apologising for the length of this report.

• Denver Pioneers – claiming that it cited no sources (the one line of text was cited) and that it is needing expert attention. The latest update by User:MisterCake only TWO MINUTES earlier and, if he had taken time to check out MisterCake, he would be finding that MisterCake IS AN EXPERT on College Football (I have GA reviewed one of his articles). These tags were placed indiscriminately without any due care and attention, without any respect being shown to the article editor.

• Bangladesh national under-23 cricket team – claiming that the article has no citations, no categories and needs copyediting. None of these claims being true, article already had four citations and two categories. No copyediting needed at all, article clearly marked as a stub and nothing wrong with the narrative.

• 2016 King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes – claiming that it is an orphan (untrue), has no sources (untrue) and fails GNG (untrue, it is a major sportinmg event). Tag being immediately removed by experienced editor User:Tigerboy1966 who commented, "removed tag, it is referenced and notable and its not an orphan". The tag was again indiscriminate with no due care taken and no respect shown to the editor.

• 1955 English Greyhound Derby – claiming that the article lacks citations and fails GNG. It had FOUR citations and it does meet GNG as a major sporting event. Again, lack of care and no respect being shown to a good editor.

• application to be a pending changes reviewer – this being correctly refused owing to "quality concerns".

• TSBD – adding multiple issue tags wanting citations on a disambiguation page being clearly marked as such. This shows an appalling lack of care and of understanding about the purpose of disamabiguation pages.

• Musalman (Pakistani film) – demanding additional citations for a stub already having a citation for its main line of text. Article subsequently "cleanup" by User:JakeR, I am wondering why AdamSmith does not be doing cleanups himself, this would be helping project, Musalman tag being good example of AdamSmith breaching WP:NEWBIES, author of article being User:Nomi brother, only 25 edits.

• David Adolfo Flores Valladares – applying a {{stub}} tag to an article of 6.7kb size with introduction and two main sections of narrative. Again, an unbelievable lack of understanding about article status. He should not be applying stub tags indiscriminately like this when it is clear he has no understanding of what is a WP:STUB.

• Tošic – again claiming "no citations", there being three and it is another disambiguation page though, to be fair, there was no disambig label at that time.

• talk page message – he is here saying "I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Form 1040, and have un-reviewed it again". There being a few examples of these messages. He is not providing rationale for "un-reviewed it again". Is he knowing what he is doing, does he have authority to "un-review" someone else?

• Drag show – claiming that it is an orphan and lacking citation. There is one citation for whole paragraph (it is another stub) and I am not knowing how he can say it is an orphan if he is not even bothering to check "What Links Here", there being a long list there. It is most decidedly not an orphan and again I must be questioning his care taken and his competence.

• Dalarna University College – unnecessary use of the refimprove tag, article being short and with three citations where most needing

• Electric drill – claiming there are no citations. It is a single-paragraph stub having two citations already. Again, indiscriminate tagging and lack of due care being disrespectful to a good author.

• Namrata Sapkota – inserting Facebook links, afterwards being reverted by BOT.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aayush Rimal – had introduced this article, now deleted, that was "Clearly a promotional article. It looks like it was written by the subject himself". Self-promotion?

• Massage Abu Dhabi Services – subject to speedy deletion for "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, etc."

• Prakash Neupane ( Lil' G ) – subject to speedy deletion for WP:CCS

• Girish Khatiwada – subject to speedy deletion for WP:CCS

• Girish Khatiwada (Rapper) – subject to speedy deletion for WP:CCS and please to note that this is same subject as one above, slightly different title, being reintroduced only two weeks after first one deleted.

• Finally, though it being perhaps a minor point, why is he using both User:Adamsmith and User:AdamSmith12?

Once more, I must be apologising for length of this evidence. I am considering that to be trying to sum up in one short paragraph would not be getting the message across. There is above overwhelming evidence that this being an incompetent editor, being at turns disruptive and showing lack of respect to other editors through failure to be utilising WP:Page Curation discriminately and with due care. Yet this also being a person who is wilfully introducing promotional material and is having complete disregard for the speedy deletion process too.

Sadly, I must be recommending that this user be blocked for what is amounting to disruptive editing. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We've had plenty of socking from Nepalese editors recently. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My experience with AdamSmith12 (see above) made me think s/he was just clueless and over-zealous (and we were all clueless once, right?). But looking at the rest of the examples it seems pretty obvious that s/he is just being disruptive. Tigerboy1966  11:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all thank you very much for taking time out for writing it all. I have to admit and have to say that your articles do not have proper citation. I have went through each and every articles of yours where not even used proper citation as a topic needed and most of them seems like a fake too. I would love to have constructive debate about it and i hereby appealed to every administrator take a part on it. I have no problem with you as a person but the debate you presented is not seems that way. anyway, as you have brought up the issue up to here, i need to say few things about your articles if you are a good writer or GA rated writer you would not even write poor articles like that and those articles certainly need proper attention from every one. Dear please do a proper research before you present your articles on Wikipedia. I mean those articles certainly having poor citation that is why i had to give that tag on them. if you wish to improve your article or writing skills you wouldn't be here writing all these fake story. anyway i am out from here i wish to not to debate anymore as all the above whatever you have presented is not even true. good luck to you and thanks for being so rude on this platform by putting up all those poor articles.AdamSmith12 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours. Not at all, User:AdamSmith12, I checked out the above and it is true. You have added a lot of inappropriate tags and created quite a few unacceptable promotional articles, without apparently learning anything from the previous ones being speedied. Your comment above, with the "thanks for being so rude" etc, is unacceptable too. I have blocked both your accounts, User:Adamsmith indefinitely since you haven't used it since 2014, and User:AdamSmith12, the account you use, for 72 hours for disruptive editing. I have trouble getting my head round the mess of redirects around your userpages, caused partly by a number of previous usernames. It's not a problem that you've changed your name a few times, but it's certainly a problem that he userpages for User:AdamSmith12, which is the account you actually use, absurdly redirect to User:Adamsmith, which you don't use. I'm tempted to reverse the redirects, but I'm not sure I understand the whole nest of redirects (involving also User:Nepaliwriter123 and User:Rajusharmaofc. Perhaps you can explain it. Thank you for the report, Nazcheema. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

It is unbelievable to be reading the above. It is absurd to be suggesting that I have been creating hoax articles and that my articles are not having citations, it is so absurd that I can only be laughing and cannot be finding it insulting because it being just so ridiculous. Most of my recently created articles are only stubs, I am organising a task force and needing to create many new articles, for reasons of time they are tending to be stubs. For now. But I can be assuring everyone that all are being genuine subjects and having citations from reliable cricket sources.

I am still learning much about the site and wondering if all these name changes amount to sockpuppetry and with the comment by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi above that there has been socking by Nepalese editors. Could this Adamsmith be running more than one Nepalese account?

It is seeming that this is closed now. I wish to be thanking each of Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Tigerboy1966 and Bishonen for your help, much appreciated. Thank you, all. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nazcheema, don't worry about the accusations. The post by Adam Smith is quite unconvincing in several ways, so it does no harm to your reputation. (Admins get told worse on a daily basis!) As for the different usernames, it looks to me as if he has changed his username in good order; the userpages have been redirected by admins. It's just a mess, that's all. Currently he has the two AdamSmith accounts, but he is only using one of them. I've indeffed the other one, just to make sure he doesn't get confused and start using it, but I've no reason to suspect socking. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

It did this similarly on my talk page say its unrewiewed but don't worry, just patrol new pages correctly. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 16:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again, Bishonen. I noticed the message on your talk page, KGirlTrucker81, and am glad it is not a problem for you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 17:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

SPA and likely sock puppet Toto11zi

Toto11zi is a single-purpose created October 2015, with the overwhelming majority of their editing activity occurring since May of this year. Almost all of their editing has been related to China's territorial dispute with the Philippines, and almost all of it tending to make articles more pro-Chinese, including adding links to official Chinese government propaganda outlets that treats them as reliable sources. I've tried alerting other editors to Toto11zi's status as a WP:SPA with the template from that page, and they have deleted the tag based on an apparent misunderstanding of what it means (including the fact that single-purpose accounts are not in themselves prohibited, but are merely a sign of a potential conflict of interest). Toto11zi has also ignored other editors' warnings not to re-add disputed information without establishing a consensus. Based on this, and documented problems Wikipedia has had with paid socks, it seems likely Toto11zi is a Chinese government sock and should be blocked. See in particular their contributions to Philippines v. China, the talk page for that article, and their own talk page. Recent problem edits (though there are many): Special:Diff/731368349, Special:Diff/731353692 --Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the [[79]], this Chris Hallquist has just been become active from a dormant account which was created many years ago and done dramatic changes to the page only for the specific purpose of removing all the information from China's web sites without collaboration with other editors, at least 2 editors don't agree with his action and explanation. The information from Xinhua has been on this page for a long time, and editors don't have an issue with Xinhua. This Chris, not only removed information from Xinhua, also removed all the information from list of following sites, I would consider that's irresponsible way of making edits. Here's what he has deleted:

Information from China's foreign minister web site "fmprc.gov.cn"

Information from xinhua web site news.xinhuanet.com

Information from usa.chinadaily.com.cn

Information from shanghaidaily.com

Information from www.globaltimes.cn

Information from epaper.southcn.com

Information from english.chinamil.com.cn

Information from www.chinaembassy.cz

Infomration from www.reuters.com which relates to information from China's foreign minister

Information from zm.chineseembassy.org

Information from english.cri.cn

Information from sputniknews.com

WP:PUS says all mainstream can media can make mistakes. Specific examples to treat carefully include Xinhua, here you cannot conclude the statement "Xinhua is not reliable". WP:PUS does list sources which are not reliable and should not be included in section "Sites that may appear to be reliable sources for Wikipedia, but aren't", also in section "Scholarly journals". Again, this Chris cannot just remove information with a blunt reason like "it's from Xinhua, or it's from China." We should check each source and scrutinize each statement instead. His accusation is delusional. I suspect this Chris is a sock puppet of another account since he seems quite familiar with Wikipedia features, he only did 2 edits on other topics for the last 3 years and made sudden changes only for this purpose, he did not contribute to this page or discuss with any editors before his dramatic changes, he's not a major editor of the page (see Hariboneagle927's comment) Toto11zi (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond in greater detail later, but just to prove I'm real: https://topherhallquist.wordpress.com/about-me/. Also, Toto11zi seems to continue to not understand the distinction between sock-puppetry (absolutely forbidden) and being an SPA (which I may have qualified for by accident—it's true I rarely edit Wikipedia, and got heavily involved in the China v. Philippines article because I went looking for information on the subject and was horrified to see the Wikipedia page read like a Chinese propaganda site) --Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclinded to side with Chris here, seeing as Chinese media has a known bias.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen Chris contribute to the talk page for Philippines v. China (look at the edit histories) so the claim that he/she edits "without collaboration with other editors" is not true. Your logic that information from Xinhua has been on this page for a long time" justifies that it should remain is flawed. If this is the case, then info, even though it is clearly vandalized should remain on the page just because it has been there for a while. Also, the claim that Chris is a sockpuppet of another account just because he/she knows how to edit Wikipedia is flawed. Some editors started as IP editors and then eventually created an account. From Chris's edit history, he/she mostly comments on the talk page which is fairly simple. It is not like editing a template. The claim that "he seems quite familiar with Wikipedia features" as mentioned by Toto11zi is kinda wrong. I also find it wrong to accuse an editor of being delusional. That is a personal attack and could lead to a ban. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry before accusing each other of it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're telling an obvious lie. I didn't say he's delusional, I said "His accusation is delusional". Your activity started on 11 July, his activity only started on 12 July. Toto11zi (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay:

• The Chinese foreign minister is obviously a government source.
• The China Daily is state-run.
• southcn.com appears to be associated with the Nanfang Media Group, which is Chinese Communist Party-controlled.
• english.chinamil.com.cn is a production of the People's Liberation Army.
• The Chinese Embassy is obviously a government source.
• The issue with the Reuters cite is that Reuters reported "China's foreign minister said X", but a pro-Chinese editor cited this as evidence X is true.
• english.cri.cn is the website for China Radio International, a state broadcasting corporation.
• Sputnik News is a Russian government propaganda outlet. I'm actually fine with it being cited as evidence of Russia's position, but if you look at the contribution log, it was being used to make claims about India's position, and the Indian government has rejected claims it supports China's position in this case (as is amply documented on the article's talk page).

Everything I've just said is documented in my edit summaries, with much of it having already been hashed out in the article's talk page. But Toto11zi chose to ignore all that and re-add disputed claims without building consensus. If you look at the article's talk page, and Toto11zi's talk page, I think you'll see that I and other editors doing their best to assume good faith, but at this point I think they fail the duck test. At best, they seem incurrably confused about Wikipedia policies. And Ssbbplayer, I spent a fair amount of time reading Wikipedia Policy pages before posting this notice—though it's possible there's a better way to handle something like this. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you also list your edit comments you put with your edits? Again this page is not a good place to discuss whether what should be included or not included on a Wikipedia page, and we're still discussing on the other page. In general, in this particular scenario, we're trying to find out what countries supported China in the tribunal case, so information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China [[80]] web site is a good source of information for the relevant topic found in this Wikipedia page [81]]. Obviously you deleted more than you said. Toto11zi (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China is that it will twist the facts to support China. How is it a good source of information for the relevant topic. As well, you unilaterally added 70 countries without consensus on the talk page (there were objections to this) just recently on July 24, mostly with Chinese sources to give the false impression that many countries support China. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Toto11zi has been been a case of WP:DISRUPT. The edits against the consensus, refusal to follow guidelines like WP:PUS and pushing Chinese Media as source of edits despite having reliable sources needs to be stopped especially when the matter is already being debated in the talk page. Collagium (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"This page is not a good place to discuss whether what should be included or not included on a Wikipedia page"—unfortunately, I didn't have much choice, as you were accusing me of "irresponsible editing" and sock puppetry. I was merely providing evidence to the contrary—by repeating what I had already said elsewhere. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I have observed, this is just a hate campaign directed to an opponent in content disputes. I would advise user Chris Hallquist just leave it and go back to the discussion on how to improve the article. That's how Wikipedia works. STSC (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:Judor92

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

---

Recently, I reverted Judor92 (talk · contribs) at Fire in the Rain for adding a non-ranked song to a charts section, which he restored a second time despite being told the Ultratip chart in Belgium does not rank songs below 50. He was reverted again, and despite no contact with him for the better part of a week, I woke up to a personal attack to the effect of "FUCK YOU FROM MANS ZELMERLOW :)))))))" on my talk page. I'm sure he is well aware of WP:NPA and I really get the feeling he will do it again when a user does something he doesn't like. Ss112 03:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've warned @Judor92:. [82] Let me know if there are any other problems and a block may be in order. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Latest Lowlihao sockpuppet

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

---

Could somebody please block User:Hidup Raja 1000 a blatant sockpuppet of globally locked User:Hidup Raja, which was in turn a sockpuppet of User:Lowlihao - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Editguy111

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

---

Editguy111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm feeling WP:INVOLVED (though it may be because I'm fighting some serious heat exhaustion), otherwise I'd just indef him, but Editguy111's past few edits include:

• Undoing what bastard liars and moderators conspiring with them keep reverting i.e. Vandalism, while accusing others of Vandalism, it is sourced -- after coming out of a block for edit warring to cite some religious texts and a 20th century philosopher for an ethnological claim about a prehistoric peoples.
• I'm not the Vandal, you two are, the references are valid sources, there's no reason Gendun Chophel would lie, you two are the ones who are lying
• You're lying out of your ass, Vandal.
• You are outwardly lying, both are attested works of history, if you revert again I will report you for vandalism.

Before this are years of being reverted for inserting original research and fringe edits (typically unsourced, sometimes edit warring over the content) to religion related articles. His talk page is ample proof of this. This is not the first time he's been uncivil over his attempts to edit war.

I'm seeing little use in keeping him around. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A block just for edit-warring would still be a good block even if you performed it yourself. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:PsychopathicAssassin

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

---

The user keeps adding unsourced information in Drake (musician), ignoring WP:SYN (by adding "widespread success, critical success" on lead) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE[83] (by adding feuds and "beef" with other rappers, already removed weeks ago). He already ignored my message on his talk page. All the pictures he added to the article (claiming those were his own work) have been proven copyvio and removed from Commons. [84][85] Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: - should we leave a notice on her talk page to let her know that an ANI investigation has been declared on her? I can do that if you want. Alicb (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alicb: Please do. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You should always notify a user of an ANI report if it's filed against them, per the orange box: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I did notify that user. How was I supposed to know about this discussion; I just happened to stumble across it from my watchlist haha Alicb (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alicb: and ::@Cornerstonepicker: I believe my reply on Cornerstonepicker's talk page would now see that the edit warring is nonsensical and is without merit. Please do see it. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@PsychopathicAssassin: I have made a modification to the article. I can see Cornerstonepicker's point that "critical success" was WP:SYN. I have left the commercial success in as I believe there is merit based on the Billboard source. Dane2007 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

IP User:68.224.250.108 - Disruptive Editing on The Conjuring 2

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

---

IP User 68.224.250.108 has made multiple edits inserting contested and unsourced information into The Conjuring 2. I have reverted the edits as they are unsourced and/or incorrect, started a discussion on the talk page in an attempt to gain discussion/consensus and issued warnings to the users talk page. The user is adding Supernatural fiction to the lead which is not the case as the events described are based on truthful reports from Enfield, England. The user is also misinterpreting a spin off film as a continuation in a series. The user has not responded on their talk page or the pages talk page, as of the writing of this post. This user has also made contested genre changes in the past to a different films wikipedia page (Predator 2).

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

• Party seems to be over. IP editor has made other changes to other articles, but none that I looked at were negative. Let's close this. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Ilovetopaint

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

---

Seems to be adding songs to categories they do not belong to and changing genre's to own personal liking. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Who decides these categories? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• The genres are all sourced in Progressive pop#Notes. Some of them I didn't get the chance to source in the infobox. And for that Pink Floyd edit, I was trying to maintain consistency with Dark Side of the Moon, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, etc.. Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band." Er..what? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • What else have they been since 1971-2??? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd like to additionally register my astonishment and confusion with that bizarre statement, so: Say, what, now? They seem to be mentioned here a bit, and rightly so, although there's some odd "Bill Martin" thing (who he?) that seems to beg examination. Begoon ^talk 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pink Floyd is a rock band that has shifted from psychedelic rock to progressive and art rock. Revelatory, I know.

"The Beatles are primarily a rock band, not a psychedelic rock band."

"What a bizarre statement! What other kinds of music did they play... after 1967? Of course the Beatles are a psychedelic rock band and nothing else!"

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No lets get this straight, you said "Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band". Every album since their first has been either Prog Rock, or Prog+something. The 'shift' took place so early in their career, both in years and in output, it is a relative blip in their discography. You cannot make the statement 'Pink Floyd are not primarily a prog rock band' and expect to be taken seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Being taken seriously does not seem like a priority for this editor. They have a strange opinion to impose, and a visible place to do it. They should understand that the latter can disappear very quickly. And they should understand that right now. Begoon ^talk 15:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I stand by that they are not primarily a progressive rock band. Look at how many writers refer them to "art rock", a related but nonetheless distinct genre. And calling their psychedelic era a "blip" in their history is absurd. Just because you think the prog era eclipses the psyche era doesn't make the psych era any less valid. Again, it's like discounting the Beatles from Merseybeat and inflating their importance as a psyche rock band, "because the albums before Rubber Soul were just a relative blip in their discography". Pink Floyd were a psychedelic rock band between 1965 and 1970, recording 5 LPs that have been designated "psychedelic rock". Who decided that those 5 years and records are now a "blip"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What was it I said above? "Being taken seriously does not seem like a priority for this editor."? I'll leave it there, I think. All the best. Begoon ^talk 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't respond to my perfectly reasonable arguments if you have nothing of value to add.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't respond? Value? Seems a bit subjective to me. Nevertheless, please don't imagine this was anything more than a playful reaction to an utterly pointless display of pouting. I had fun. I hope you did too. Carry on with your important work. Wish you were here. Begoon ^talk 17:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about "utterly pointless displays of pouting". One thing's for certain: you're not a Barrett fan.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Please review WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how a note/reference on the article Progressive pop can validate adding songs to Category:Progressive pop songs. Maybe @SummerPhDv2.0: would like to weigh in on your Pink Floyd rational. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have much to say here. My revert on WYWH was strictly based on GWAR. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

GWAR covered Pink Floyd? That had to be interesting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: I think you should read WP:CATDEF. Categories must be sourced in an article. If you add "Category:Progressive pop songs" or "Category:Art pop musicians" in an article, then make sure you add the genre and a reference to support it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I just added sources to all of those articles and got yet another warning saying to stop my "disruptive editing". Thanks @Mlpearc:, you're doing an outstanding job.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint, please stop your disruptive editing. Thanks. See above. We'd rather not have to stop it for you, but genre warring, ugh. Really. Begoon ^talk 16:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

When did adding reliably sourced content become "disruptive editing"? This incident report was made by somebody who never bothered to check that I did add sources to my edits.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. Life is so unfair. Especially on important matters like this. Can we settle on "progressive", or is it not just the capitalisation that bothers you? I'll bow to your punctuation. Begoon ^talk 17:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is an unimportant matter then close it already. Mlpearc refuses to let me add back prog pop with citations. This is backwards genre warring. Also I have no clue what you mean by "progressive" or its capitalization. Am I missing something?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible hacked account

User:Kathryn Cartini has made several vandalism edits on 25 July 2016, including my own talk page. This user had been a constructive contributor in the past, courteous and open about their WP:PAID editing, so this recent behaviour is very out of character. Combined with the period of inactivity that preceded it, I'm lead to believe that their account has been hacked. I'm not sure what the protocol is in these circumstances, or if there is anything that can be done to investigate my suspicions. --Drm310 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2016 (

User:Drm310 this is unbelievable. Received a flood of messages to my inbox. This isn't the only account in jeopardy. Thanks for the alert, and having my back. PLEASE advise on next steps. Kathryn Cartini (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kathryn Cartini:, compromised accounts are indefinitely blocked as a preventative measure per WP:GOTHACKED. I'd recommend requesting an administrator block your current account and starting a new one with a more secure password. Then just place a link on the new account so that other users know. Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Create a new account, secure it with a good password, and tie a trustworthy email address to the account (that is also secured with a good password) in the event that you must recover it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a preventative measure only. Editor remains in good standing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Good call, NeilN; thanks for doing that. Kathryn Cartini, ping me on your talk page if you need help with creating a new account. You just need to go here to do it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Unclosing. The account is not comprised by the information I have unless the person directly accessed the same computer in the same location. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I was informed that this discussion was re-opened. First of all, I should say that I may have inadvertently implied that I confirmed the account to appear to be compromised and that action was needed. I did not check this user's contributions in-depth; I simply pointed Drm310 to create a thread here if he felt that there was a concern, and I gave advice to Kathryn Cartini regarding the need to create another account. Instead of simply deferring the discussion here, I should have helped look in Kathryn Cartini's contributions first and asked Drm310 more questions before recommending that he open an ANI thread. Had I done so, I would have established that there isn't/wasn't evidence to assert or suggest that a blatant account compromise occurred with this user. And for that, I apologize to everyone. I'll make sure to do my part fully before I recommend a discussion like this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong, Oshwah. Information came to light that you had no way to foresee. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You did everything right. When a constructive editor suddenly starts vandalizing, WP:AGF dictates we assume loss of control of the account and block because of that. The block can be changed, lifted, or stay in place as further details come to light. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

*Oshwah gives NeilN and Someguy1221 a fist bump* - I appreciate the feedback. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sea Lions Not !

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

---

I am re-starting Guy Macon's topic as I am the person at the top of the list of accused sea lions and only just got to read it and it is now closed. I was on a plane at that exact time going away from computers and only just got back to find that the sea lion topic seems to have resulted in the NPOV topic I started also being closed. Which means the real issue is still not being addressed, which is a clear NPOV issue. The sea lion topic revisted below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=730904539#Sea_Lions

I have limited time on computers so please be patient with my slow response time. In my opinion the editors at the "electronic harassment" are in clear violation of NPOV. All I and others, who have been accused of sea lioning, are doing is disagreeing with them. The NPOV issue:

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_dispute_in_.22electronic_harassment.22

How is it that an undeclared person can turn up and close the NPOV topic without giving reason and without discussion? It should be turned back on so the content question which I put in the appropriate place can be dealt with. The editors block at the "electronic harassment" article have not put up any defense of their position on that. It is not a question of giving equal weight to the claims of TIs and the psychiatric opinion for starters. TIs have very little weight, only a claim that most would not accept as possible. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me make this very clear: NO. WP:UNDUE is policy. WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE are also relevant guidelines here. TIs will be given no weight, because the best reliable sources give them no weight. The discussions were closed just fine. Drop the stick. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%, Someguy1221. To further answer Jed's direct questions: Firstly, uninvolved editors are exactly those who should close discussions. I was uninvolved. I closed the discussion on this board which, after establishing a clear consensus that the NPOV discussion had become circular, pointless and disruptive, had devolved into a rather tangential discussion about the "marine terminology". I then closed the NPOV discussion, with the reason "Asked. Answered...", on the basis of that consensus, the clear policy-based consensus there, and the fact that it had been open for 6 weeks, continually answering the same point - by now disruptive. My advice, Jed, is that you re-read the DS warning on your talk page, because IMO it is very likely the next step proposed may be a topic-ban to prevent the ongoing disruption. Begoon ^talk 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#Sea Lions
• Original Sea Lions cartoon

Jed Stuart, bringing this up once again is classic Sea Lion behavior. Administrators, if Jed does not drop the stick now, after multiple warnings, then I strongly suggest a topic ban to limit further disruption to the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism of the user Sad9721. Again, he didn't wait 24h to expire his block to start doing his acts again!

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

---

Sad9721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is doing disruptive edits again on the page List of European countries by average wage and Economy of Italy. The user waited to be an autoconfirmed user just to make disruptive edits. It's making false edits without any loyal sources (and those last 2 days even without sources, this user is just keeping to delete the numbers of Italy of the page of List of European countries by average wage because he doesn't like the data from the source). Before this, he was just changing the numbers of Italy inside that page without sources, or just putting "istat.it" which is the main website of ISTAT, without referencing his changes. I am warning him just as other users, then we created a talk page in the page of List of European countries by average wage, but he doesn't want to collaborate and just says redundant and nonsense things and keeps reverting or changing the consensual aspect of the page. He is also shouting on the talk page, and now he created a talk page on the page of the user Absolutelypuremilk to shout to him again and to put redundant and nonsense things, while he keeps changing , reverting and doing what he wants on the later mentioned page and in the Economy of Italy page. I've warned him several times; the last time was yesterday. And he doesn't care, today he made 3 different reverts again to change the consensual aspect of the page. He went through a 31 hour block, but now, he is doing exactly the same. Deleting the sources, deleting the numbers from the above mentioned page and editing according to his personal likings, not accepting the sources. --TechnicianGB (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I understand you mean well, TechnicianGB, and thank you for protecting Wikipedia, but please don't copypaste your old report; instead link to it. Also, it's always worth checking what a disruptive user is doing elsewhere before reporting. If you'd looked at his contributions, you'd have seen me talking to him. I've blocked him now. This report can be closed. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC).

True, I could link it instead of copy it here. Thanks, for the next time, I will know it better. I thought it was enough to copy and paste it because it didn't pass even 48h from the report... Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with archiving. Thank you, TechnicianGB. It's very good that you reported the first time, or no admin would have known. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: now sock-puppeting as 151.40.22.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Regards, HandsomeFella (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: also sock-puppeting as 151.40.73.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I request that the pages Economy of Italy and Power (international relations) to be protected to auto-confirmed users; also I will put it in the page of requests of protection. Probably it's using a mobile device on mobile internet which changes of IP every 5-10 minutes.

Comment - Clear, repeated legal threats in 151.40.73.239's edit summaries. Eik Corell (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Self-confessed sockpuppet needing CU?

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

---

[86]

Danratedrko (talk · contribs) is thoroughly blocked (hence no point notifying him) but one of his last posts admitted he was engaged in sockpuppetry. I honestly can't remember if I've seen this issue crop up before (Juzumaru (talk · contribs) did the same, but I didn't notice until the data was already stale...).

What to do?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 - Are there other accounts that this user shows evidence of being a sock puppet of? If so, have you opened an SPI case? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: No idea. If I did, I would open an SPI. How do we normally deal with a user who has admitted to being a sockpuppet but didn't mention their main account's name, though? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

SPI, of course. That's where the CheckUsers dwell. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 13:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

An SPI without a master/puppet account wouldn't work -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of what you're looking for, though? Kurtis ^(talk) 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Samtar is correct. An SPI case requires three things: A sock master account that you're reporting, the sock puppet accounts (or IPs too, sometimes) that you believe that the sock master is editing under and in violation of WP:SOCK, and you need evidence. You should not file an SPI case without having all three items first (especially item number three - evidence). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I would ask a CU to perform a check, which can be done here or by contacting a CheckUser directly. Most CUs would perform the check as there are "credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in this case I believe a checkuser should be contacted and asked to take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do admire someone going out in a blaze of glory. The "Fuck off and block away, loser" line made my day, hehe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A checkuser could be asked to look for "sleeper" accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No action is how you deal with this. If he edits another group of articles in good faith, then no action is needed. Some admins have gone all crazy by starting to block editors that seem to think alike or have nothing in common than isp.89.164.239.52 (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How would you know something like that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Gagz7

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

---

User:Gagz7 just WP:3RR'ed at Isaac Barrow. There has been continual reverting at Isaac Barrow by User:174.3.155.181 who puts up a screed of text mixed with personal accusations against any editor who he/she thinks opposes him/her diff, diff. This ain't 174.3.155.181's first rodeo, being blocked for "bigoted attacks" old talk. 174.3.155.181 was blocked for reverting (several times) the results of the RFC he/she called for diff. After the block, account User:Gagz7 suddenly came to life backing 174.3.155.181 edits diff using 174.3.155.181 arguments and even 174.3.155.181 talk formatting diff, and taking up 174.3.155.181 causes at another article diffdiff. Gagz7 also did 174.3.155.181's bidding here diffdiff, followed on by another reverting IP diff. Personal attacks/screed now spread to here diff. If this needs to go on to other forums please let me know since it spans WP3RR WP:SOCK WP:DISRUPT. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This probably does belong here since this user has violated multiple policies. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a look at 174.3.155.181's talk page history. He's been reverting warnings he's received for a while. Also note that the IP user is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Pinging David Eppstein, the blocking admin. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

actually, User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if you did your research you'd have looked in IP edit's history a bit more to realise that there is no secret here; only you think it's a secret. you have refused to answer IP's original inquiries when he provided multiple sources, both primary and secondary, to which you refused. he then procured two excellent sources using gregory's own words that took additional time and effort to find. you have arguably disrespected the tenants of this site by refusing to invest time to justify your reversion, which has now predictably lead you to report me.

both IP and myself have asked you many times to argue content and you have ignored this, hoping to coast off reputation of the institution you presumably graduated from whilst editing pages of "Rich people".

it is both inconceivable and inappropriate for non-experts such as User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr to make edits they have no business doing. when engaged, this individual refused to properly participate, yet expected their voice to carry equal weight without evidence. such conduct is the antithesis of the spirit necessary to productively contribute to an online encyclopaedia. please continue editing your "rich people" pages. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagz7 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Gagz7 was already blocked in April for block evasion as an obvious sock of User:174.3.155.181, by Floquenbeam. And the repeated reverts and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from both the IP and Gagz7 are suggestive. Another longer block-evasion block might be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record: User:Gagz7 has now made six reverts within the last 24 hours (with an obvious sock) though the revert history has been going on longer.

• 20:28 (on 24th) as 174.3.155.181
• 23:41 (on 25th) as 174.3.155.181
• 03:44 (on 26th) as 174.3.155.181
• 03:54 as 174.3.155.181
• 04:01
• 14:50
• 14:58
• 15:40

All on 26th July 2016. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• briefly User:Elektrik Fanne: if people want to refuse facts, which is that the new sources used to justify infobox insertion were never mentioned in the RfC (except the original one, [3]), and these new sources do not require consensus due to their verbose and incontrovertible nature, so be it. punctuate the affirmation of such a mentality by banning me. i am here to discuss facts and evidence, and i feel my edit history is demonstrative of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagz7 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

top o' the morning dr eppstein!!

actually, as i've maintained throughout, the newest sources used are incontrovertible. i would say that the sources used in the original RfC, while sufficient, did leave a very small sliver of doubt which User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr tried to exploit. However, as stated many times, the new sources used are in Gregory's own words and of sufficient calibre to justify infobox insertion.

further, i have repeatedly requested Bryn Mawr to actively engage in the discussion, but they have not. i don't blame them, i wouldn't want to get into a fact fight with me, either.

the only time they engaged was contesting the original insertion by IP claiming primary sources were insufficient, to which four (or five) (!) additional sources were given, excluding the two that were added yesterday (in conjunction with the original). this conversation has repeatedly focused on the old sources, instead of the new ones, in order to uphold the unjustified reversion.

this duplicitous conduct is to be expected on a site that has ulterior motives, but i cannot blame you specifically dr eppstein; you have done a great job of trying to stay out of it, but your hands are eventually bound by the "powers that be" who do not want the insertion to stay. IP and myself's contributions to this site speak for themselves, and i suspect if you look at IP's even *earlier* contributions, you'd see that this individual focuses on content. the facts presented are quite clear and demonstrative of an infobox-calibre insertion (on par with what is used to cite Barrow's influence on Newton [feingold ref]). Gagz7 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit history (and that of 174.3.155.181) shows only obvious WP:SOCKPUPPETry and violation of the WP:3RR bright line rule. How right or wrong you are is totally irrelevant at this point. I can only forsee that an inevitable block is on the way. --Elektrik Fanne 17:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Three months for both Gagz7 and their IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable blocking

Hi. To make this perfectly clear, this account is technically a sock-account. I'm an IP editor, and the address refreshes every 6 hours or so. I was blocked yesterday by User:Graham87 for editing the talk page of Star Trek Beyond. I noticed that the movie had a recent edit where China was one of the countries of origin. There was no source, so I removed the edit, and asked on the talk page if there was a reliable source. Graham87 then put back the edit, and deleted my question off the talk page. I restored the talk page, he redeleted, and he blocked me for 48 hours or so to prove a point. I waited, restored the talk page, asking the question, is there a reliable source, and he blocked me. I asked for an unblock on my talk page User talk:2a02:c7d:ca36:5800:7941:59b9:eca4:43b1 and he deleted my talk page to hide that unblock request, and then blocked me from editing the talk page. I then saw he blocked any IP I had used, but again, since IP address rotate every few hours on a dynamic IP in a big city, I didn't know that those blocks were in place. I would use the block reporting system, but I really don't trust giving my email to wiki right now, knowing he is an admin. I know he is also aggrieved by me asking on the talk page for French Fries why the section on the UK uses a different variety of English than the rest of the article. He is also deleting that conversation from the talk page.

There really should be a system put in place where the person who blocks you, can't delete your talk page and unblock request without answering. I understand why talk pages can be blocked as well, but that should be a second admin.

If there is to be a block, that is fine, but he is running roughshod over procedure, not answering questions, hiding evidence of his own wrongdoing, and generally trying to mute any viewpoint but his own. I've just asked, is Star Trek Beyond a Chinese movie, and do we have a source for it. I had researched it, and found no source. Incidentally, BFI just stated it was a USA movie. Cheerio2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding I had researched it, and found no source, you can't have researched very hard given that it's the very first reference in the article. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a chinese investor does not a chinese movie make. I noticed that, but the standard sources for the nationality of movies (i.e Variety, BFI, AFI) didn't have a listing yet. BFI now lists the movie nationality as 'USA'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it does; do you think Star Wars should be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, given that it was filmed in Hertfordshire and Tataouine? Film industry practice has always been that "country of origin" is who produced it, not the actual filming location. Anyway, this is a content issue and not appropriate for ANI; regarding the block, I'd consider it harsh but legitimate. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Star Wars shouldn't be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, but I'd also argue an investor in a production company based in a country, doesn't mean that the investors country is listed as a country of origin. Traditionally we use BFI, AFI, Variety, Hollywood reporter, or a film festival to determine country of origin. And, no, this isn't the place for this discussion. The place for this discussion is the articles talk page, which is blanked of this content by Graham87 every time this subject is broached....which is the reason for this ANI. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user talk page the IP wikilinked to was actually a talk page wikilink, not a user talk page link. I took the liberty to fix that. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that Graham has been blocking this IP user on site wherever he appears, even though in isolation each incarnation seems totally good faith (aside from some edit warring on French fries a couple weeks ago). Graham seems to think this IP is a troll and does not deserve to be listened to. I'm not so sure, but I have not been able to track down all previous IPs to make that decision. Perhaps Graham's input would be useful here. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

The user user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been harassing me for months on end. He constantly makes wanton edits with vague or little motivation, such as this one were I attempted to arrange into subsections, he reverted and called "clutter".[87] He has frequently called me names, such as "troll" and been rude, obnoxious and unhelpful.[88][89][90] These are just a few examples. I believe these are violations of WP:HOUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. Based on his talk page, it seems to be a recurring pattern with this editor. I would ask for a block to be implemented either from him editing my edits, or a two-way block so that neither can see nor edit the other one's contributions. Either way works fine with me. Holanthony (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

1. The supposed incivility Holanthany cites is more than six months old, and relates to harassing posts Holanthony made on my talk page, repeatedly and tendentiously disputing very basic aspects of BLP policy, including the basic definition of a self-published sourced. In contrast, Holanthony himself was far more uncivil in an edit summary earlier this afternoon [91].
2. Dividing an article with three sentences of text into two sections can certainly be described as cluttering up the page, especially since it also added a completely superfluous TOC box to a very short article.
3. Holanthony has a long and extensive track record of noncompliance with basic BLP requirements; his talk page shows concerns going back three years, and a warning from a highly experienced editor just four days ago. This is just another example of an editor very clearly on the wrong side of simple content disputes trying to use purported concerns over civility to obscure their far more disruptive behaviour, which actively damages the encyclopedia. It is clearly time to limit their ability to edit BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This happened over six months ago why being it up here now? Its too late for anything to really be done with the examples you gave. Also "neither can see the others contributions" thats not how an interaction ban works. As far as I'm aware there is no technical aspect to an iBan that stops you from being able to view another's user contributions. Also at this point I'd consider this non-actionable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what happened "six months ago", its about showing an ongoing behavior that has not relented in spite of this time having passed. More recently, he admitted to applying subjective double-standards in his BLP editing, suggesting the rules apply to some people and not to others, when in fact the BLP rules are uniform and apply to every person of notability i.e has a page on Wikipedia. My feeling is that the editor is bullying and actively hounding me, proven by the track records. His talk page shows that I am not the only one affected. The editor claims he is "treated like dirt by the administrators" when it is he himself who stands for the lion share of harassment. And if you want to talk about "issues" on the talk page, then look at the history of his deleted content and all the warnings he's been given (although he's tried to cover it up). Not a pretty sight at all. For the sake of peace, I would suggest a two-way interaction ban as er WP:IBAN, and I see no reason why User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would oppose such a ban, unless he is hell-bent on proceeding with the harassment and proving this fact to everyone. So User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is this the one thing we can agree on? You go your way, I go mine? A ban works just as well for you as for me.

Sock puppetry and date vandalism

Aliabbashiraqi79 (talk · contribs) is a sockmaster and vandal who specializes in date vandalism to Middle Eastern biographies. These are not heavily watched articles, and it usually takes me a few days to spot each new sock account, though I've now got about 20 Saudi football players on my watchlist. Salehiraqi80 (talk · contribs) is the newest person to go through the same articles and perform the same date vandalism. I filed a sock puppetry case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliabbashiraqi79, but it has sat unexamined for a week. In that time, Salehiraqi80 has continued to change sourced birth dates and add unsourced ones. When it looked liked like the SPI case was going nowhere, I gave him level 3 and 4 warnings for adding unsourced content. His latest edits have continued to add unsourced dates despite the level 4 warning. Could someone please either look at the SPI case (it's short and has diffs) or just block based on the disruption? Thank you. Here are some diffs, in case anyone is too lazy to click on the SPI case: Abu Qatada (Aliabbashiraqi79, Salehiraqi80), Haidar Abdul-Amir (Aliabbashiraqi79, Salehiraqi80), Bassim Abbas (Aliabbashiraqi79, Salehiraqi80). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Maybe you should just ping a checkuser/clerk? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Persistent OWN behavior despite multiple editors' warnings

With heavy heart and great regret, and after much discussion, I must ask on behalf of multiple editors for action regarding User:BaronBifford, who has exhibited persistent, and indeed defiant, WP:OWN at Superman. Perhaps this would take the form of a few weeks off Wikipedia in order to break what may be obsessive behavior. Perhaps a topic ban of some length would be in order. His behavior is not only disruptive, but at least a couple of us fellow editors are genuinely concerned for him, given his voluminous, nearly SPA pattern of editing.

After a talk-page consensus goes against him, he slow-motion edit-wars by biding his time and then sneaking in edits that other editors have rejected. Here are examples where another editor's edit-summary links to discussions he ignored: [92]; [93] after his edit-warring here; and [94].

Here are examples of more slow-motion edit-warring: this on July 23 following this on July 22.

He frequently goes against Project guidelines and MOS. Edit summaries that mention but do not link to relevant talk-page discussions, which are now linked to on this page, include: [95], [96], and [97] with discussions at Talk:Superman#"In other media" section and Talk:Superman#Publication that show no consensus for BaronBifford's unilateral changes. He initiated additional discussion at Talk:Superman#Radio, TV, and movie adaptations that also resulted in no consensus for his changes. Other examples of time-consuming and pointless arguments to go against guidelines and MOS include Talk:Superman#Cover date vs actual publishing date and Talk:Superman#Image staggering.

Other examples could be given. What's perhaps more troubling is that multiple editors have worked patiently with him to no avail, only to have him denigrate anyone who works on the article other than himself. For example:

• [98]: "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"

• [99]: "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work on this article… How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

• [100]: "I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Wikipedia's amateurs!"

• [101] "You haven't put any dedicated effort into research or refining the content of this article, or an other superhero article. The superhero articles of Wikipedia are generally shit, because they are written by fanboys who don't care for presentation, thorough research, or the perspective of the layman."

• [102]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article."

• [103]: "I don't think you have the same kind of perspective I have developed over the past nine months."

But I think the biggest concern comes out of a statement that shows he just doesn't get the idea of consensus and guidelines / MOS [104]: "the only reason he is opposing me is that I've failed to gain consensus with everyone else and that my proposed changes are not consistent with many other articles on superheroes." Well, yes! That's exactly right. And he somehow refuses to accept these basic tenets of Wikipedia.

Or as he puts it another way [105]: "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors."

If you go to the Superman talk page, you'll find multiple editors trying to talk him about this, going back to at least May 31 [106]. You'll find much regret in my voice in many posts, including one my last, at Talk:Superman#CC of notice just placed on an editor's talk page. But nothing any of us has said has had more than a very minimal impact. He regards us as impediments to his article. Or as he puts it [107]: "I am disappointed by the constant obstruction of other editors who take no intense interest in the development of this article." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)