Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

E.M.Gregory's latest actions

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

---

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)

• re: that AFD I want to add that it is not unusual for me to find myself the sole editor arguing one side of deletion debate, and thereby turning the debate around, simply by bringing persuasive sources - as I fully expected would happen in the AFD discussion that led to this complaint by ParsleyMan, I thought that it was inevitable because the sourcing was extremely strong and multiple editors had built the well-sourced but short article into quite a good page within the space of a very few days.

• Also, I want to add that it is not unusual for me to ask the Nom to withdraw in such a situation, as here: [7]., a half-forgotten i discussion that I noticed again today when someone linked to his article I started last year. What is unusual is ParsleyMan's bringing such a complaint here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 31 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 [8] I responded [9]. 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 [10]. 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. [11]. 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; [12], [13], [14], [15]. 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, [16] 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 [17] 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)

I really would like a third-party, experienced user or admin to look into these WP:WIKIHOUNDING allegations and respond, because I have looked up its definition and do not see what copy-editing and constructive editing has to do with confronting or inhibiting another's work. And unless the simple act of accessing articles through user's histories and editing them in a safe manner also technically falls under hounding, I don't see any reason why I should lay it off. I'm sorry if E.M. feels backed up and threatened by me (understandable considering our history about certain topics), but I think he's overreacting and should ease up a little. Parsley Man (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I clicked on two of the links provided by E.M. Gregory, James Peddie (author) and Kuruc.info, and it sure seems like Parsley Man followed Gregory there. Whether they did so to harass is hard to tell, but these two minor edits ([18] and [19]) are so minor that I find it easy to believe that they were making a point of some kind--even if only the "you're a lousy writer" point or something like that. Esp. the Peddie edit is off-putting: placing a bare URL tag when there is only one single bare URL? Why not complete that one reference if one really wants to improve the article? No, Parsley Man, this does not look good--and I say this as someone who has come down hard enough on E.M. Gregory. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That honestly wasn't what I was trying to come across, and regarding that one bare URL, I was too lazy to fill it in. I do it with any other article with just one or even a few bare URLs whenever I go around randomly editing Wikipedia articles. Parsley Man (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of what I'm talking about. ([20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]) Parsley Man (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't know what Parsley Man was talking about here either, so I clicked the 2nd link on his list. It leads to 2007 Basilan beheading incident that has hardly been edited in a decade; the fate of the kidnapped priest was left unclear. I googled, and added a sentence + a source [28]. Parsley followed me there [29].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what "what I'm talking about" has for an antecedent, but the odds of you randomly running into those articles right after E.M. Gregory, they're real slim. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That diff list was a follow-up to the comment above since I forgot to clarify on it. And only one, maybe two of those diffs were of articles also edited by E.M. But I can find more diffs of other similarly treated articles that weren't edited by E.M. if you're not convinced. Parsley Man (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. You're not going to convince me. I have thousands of edits in common with other editors. Here is me and Mandarax. Of those 4378 overlaps, the ones where one of mine follows one of his, it's on purpose. The odds are against you, and what would be a good thing for you to say is something like "hey I'll take better care and avoid the appearance of following E.M. Gregory". Drmies (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

So you're not convinced that I put up bare URL tags for articles with only one or a few bare URLs that aren't even edited by E.M.? Wha? Did you look at the other diffs? Parsley Man (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• No, you got misled by your own ambiguous grammar. I don't care for your diffs where you make edits; I am not convinced that it's just a coincidence, that you're either not following E.M. Gregory at all, or that you are following them only for the good of the project. More below. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. Sure, you're making relatively normal edits when you do it, but it does seem clear you are following E.M.'s edits, not merely coincidentally interested in the same topics. Is there a reason why you are doing this? --Mellsworthy (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Because I just want to? Is it really that wrong to do so? I have actually done the same thing to a few other users, both signed in and IPs. All normal edits. Parsley Man (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ParsleyMan continues to follow me closely and to make near-daily edits like this [30] edit on an article I created this morning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• ParsleyMan, no, not normal edits. Yeah, normal edits, but in this context not normal. I am baffled that, while you are being charged with hounding, you continue to follow this editor around. So here's the thing: if you do it again, I will block you (or one of my colleagues will, maybe), for a short time, and the next time for longer. What "it" means in "do it again", that's a matter of judgment, and the best thing you can do for yourself is NOT give any appearance that you are following this editor around. In other words, stay away from them and from articles that they are editing and that you wouldn't have come to unless they etc. etc. I'm not going to spell it out; you just need to avoid every appearance of hounding. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What?! 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." Please tell me how exactly my actions have been confrontational or inhibiting when I have not made a single attempt at outright disrupting E.M.'s work on articles. In fact, tell me what Wikipedia considers confrontational or inhibiting (and give me specifics), because apparently we're reading two different versions of the same book. Parsley Man (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello? I would very much like an answer... Parsley Man (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Please answer me... Parsley Man (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please... Parsley Man (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Can other admins please weigh in? I don't know what to think of this anymore... Parsley Man (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone there? Parsley Man (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll try weigh-in, cautiously in this case. Parsley Man, your edits are generally perfectly fine, the problem isn't your edits, it's the appearance of following the editor around. Wikihounding doesn't solely refer to following the editor around with the intent of inhibiting their work. It also refers to this; "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." The fact is, E.M. Gregory is feeling distressed even though you're not attacking them. The key issue here is this; "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". E.M Gregory has expressed their dislike of you following them around, even for these minor edits, and because of this, it's best that you stop going to articles that they are editing. It's not that your edits are wrong, or that you are trying to disrupt, it's an issue of personal discomfort that E.M. Gregory has expressed. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Then how in the world am I going to edit anything? My topic preference is pretty much the same as his (mass murders and terrorism), and chances are we will overlap on more than a couple of articles. And I would feel extremely tempted to pitch in if the incident is a current event. Parsley Man (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Simple; current events are for anyone to edit, just don't interact directly with E.M Gregory when and if you do work on them. I highly recommend you self impose a one-way IBAN with E.M Gregory to avoid conflict here for the time being. Any other articles that you do overlap with him on, don't change his work (regardless of whether it is correct or not, wait for another good faith editor to come across it if necessary) and avoid following him directly to any article. If anything, start hounding his contribs log and avoid going to those articles where you may draw attention to yourself and the ire of any admin or E.M Gregory. (Don't actually do that, just carry on with editing article's you're interested in and leave E.M. Gregory and his edits alone.) Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

And how exactly do I do this IBAN? Parsley Man (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not an actual physical or electronic thing, it's like a topic ban except instead of not editing on a certain topic, it means not editing and interacting with a certain person. Interaction Bans (IBANs) like Topic Bans (TBANs) are down to you to follow, in this case, like I suggested, if you seen a comment by E.M. Gregory, don't respond to it (except for here) and if you see an edit by them, don't revert it, modify it, or make an edit that affects it. This doesn't prevent you from editing any page or talk page, just editing that is connected to the other editor. If E.M Gregory posts a comment about you or directed to you, you are certainly allowed to respond to it, just avoid unnecessary contact with them. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I quit. I call for an immediate closure to this whole ANI discussion. Everything's pretty much talked out and simmered down now, and this has gone on for far too long. I also promise that I won't continue to "hound" E.M. ever again. I'm still unconvinced that my actions qualified as hounding and will continue to assure that they were done with the best and most honest intentions (in that case I would preferably call for a reevaluation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING's definition, because I am apparently and somehow missing something), but if not one but two admins pretty much clarified things for me, I guess I have to cease all contact with him now. I'm totally defeated. Parsley Man (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Parsley Man, I don't know how I did not make myself clear. Avoid the impression that you are hounding him. It's really not difficult. And I do apologize for not being on ANI 24/7. As for the definition of hounding, it appears that E.M. Gregory suffered "irritation, annoyance or distress" as a result of you being so damn hot on their trail in all these esoteric articles that were not about terrorism or mass murders or whatever, and that's enough for me. In fact, I myself am suffering "irritation, annoyance or distress" because a. E.M. Gregory makes a convincing case and b. I have to look into it out of some stupid sense of duty and c. you're not responding to the evidence, only clamoring that you don't know what's going on, and d. now I have to be here again to say the same thing twice. So here it is again: if you find yourself butterflying around articles on Wikipedia, make sure to check that this other little butterfly didn't just land on the same damn flower that you are eyeballing. That is all, for now. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, so rude. Parsley Man (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You can get all cute about this, but you fail to see a few basic things here: a. I was clear. b. You were wikihounding. c. You were rude in clamoring for an explanation where none was necessary. It is not rude for me to point out how you were wrong, and the very fact that I have no soft feelings for your opponent whatsoever, added to the fact that I scolded them when they were unacceptably rude to you, should make you realize that I'm not just joking around here, and that I am as neutral as can be. I am positively itching to find a reason to block E.M. Gregory, but there isn't one here, and they have done remarkably well with your hot breath on their neck. Now leave them alone. I don't care what you think about me: my job here is to enable editors to edit. In this case, that means I am protecting the other editor, no matter how much you want to argue that it was all just a coincidence. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

SPA and likely sock puppet Toto11zi

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

---

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 [[31]], 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 [[32]] web site is a good source of information for the relevant topic found in this Wikipedia page [33]]. 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)

Ssbbplayer, you lied again, that revert was done by another editor, not me. At least 6 editors including that editor don't agree with you team of 3:

Chris Hallquist (talk · contribs) started activity from a dormant account on 11 July,

Ssbbplayer (talk · contribs) started activity on 12 July.

Collagium (talk · contribs) started activity on 14 July from a new account.

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)

Collagium, you lied, WP:PUS is an essay, it's not Wikipedia guidelines. Toto11zi (talk) 04:31, 28 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)

I think we should put this on hold. There is not enough evidence that sockpuppetry is being used so far. I did realized that this topic is straying from the original intent. I recommend closing this case. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

One thing I should note: I posted this as a case of suspected sock-puppetry because I was under the impression that Wikipedia policy treats paid advocacy as equivalent to sock-puppetry. Then I couldn't find support for that on policy pages. But now I'm pretty sure I got that impression from Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, which though it's a history of the issue rather than a policy, guideline, or essay, nevertheless says, "In 2012 Wikipedia launched one of its largest sock puppets investigations, when editors reported suspicious activity suggesting 250 accounts had been used to engage in paid editing", which seems to imply undisclosed paid advocacy is sock puppetry. Clarification on whether that impression is correct would be appreciated. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The relevant document is WP:COI. In short, paid editors are expected to disclose their financial relationship with the subject. They are also "strongly urged" not to directly edit articles relevant to their client or employer; doing the latter is not considered a per se disruptive behaviour--that is, you can't really be sanctioned for it so long as your conduct is not otherwise problematic--but it is about the quickest way to arose the suspicions of just about every other legitimate editor involved and incline them to much higher scrutiny of the changes. However, editing without disclosing a paid relationship absolutely is proscribed by policy. It's not socking, which is a term for a very specific kind of behaviour, but it is considered disruptive and usually is met with the same kinds of sanctions, by and large.

However, the problem you have if your only charge is COI is that it will be incredibly difficult to prove based on your suspicions alone. The changes can and should come under increased scrutiny if we have significant suspicions, but there's very little point to seeking a sanction against an editor just because they "seem to be working for X", unless their behaviour in some way violates policy. If in fact they are shown to be a sock of someone whose COI in this area is established, obviously then an indef would be fairly certain. But no, a suspicion of a non-neutral position, or even a suspicion of COI is not on its own equivalent to socking. Even the implication of the two behaviours are not equivalent, since we can somewhat reliable test for one with our technical tools while the other is very likely to rest entirely on speculation--again, unless there is some compelling evidence beyond the bias (be it either just pereceived or real; people can be biased without having a financial COI, afterall).

So while I think we can all WP:AGF with regard to your intentions here, it really isn't appropriate to call this user a "sock" unless you have reason to believe they are abusing multiple accounts. So you probably want to re-read the above documents and be are surer footing with the terminology, especially when bringing accusation of disruption to ANI. Though, looking at some of the talk spaces involved here, I can't say as i disagree with your decision to bringing community attention to the matter in general. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

IP 50.35.84.247 may belong to Toto11zi also. @sysop: check the both sides, if anyone uses puppets, ban. Alphama (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Check both sides and ban those who are sock puppets. Also, I strongly encourage Admins to read this Talk Page [34]. Collagium (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconding Collagium's recommendation that admins read the talk page. Since I posted the original notice, there's been a huge amount of further disruptive behavior by Toto11zi on the talk page, particularly personal attacks and numerous refusals to recognize various Wikipedia policies after other editors have explained those policies to them. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that IP 50.35.84.247 is more similar to User:ExGuardianNinja with these examples [35], [36] and [37], and [38] where both of them accuse editors who object to Chinese sources of pushing the pro–American view (in different variants) and seem to edit their own comments (normally you cannot edit other user's comments). I suspect that User:Mmmvidyahoo is connected to Toto11zi since in this edit, he/she does an ad hominem attack to Chris on questioning the editor itself, similar to how Toto11zi considers him a liar ([39]), and one that lacks authority ([40]). This user also recently edited the talk page of Philippines v China today and the Philippines v China article on July 26 and it is surprising that he/she knew about Chris recently when I looked at the user's editing history. I know that Toto11zi knows Chris's actions the most due to the extensive conversation between both of them in the talk page. However, it needs to be checked if these claimed accounts are linked to User:Toto11zi before a conclusion can be drawn due to a similar editing behavior. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know if this would come up in a sock-puppet investigation, but I may as well disclose up-front that I've made some inadvertent logged-out edits, which I've tried to fix when possible (for example). Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• It would not but if you use both your username and that IP address in an attempt to think that there are more supporters on one side of an issue (e.g User x posted comment y and then an IP linked to User X posted comment z where comment y and z are different ones), that would be sockpuppetry in that one is trying to create an illusion of support. I think so but I am not sure if this is correct. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Addition To the analysis done by @Ssbbplayer I would like to add a non-technical observation. I don't know if User:Mmmvidyahoo, Toto11zi, 50.35.84.247 and ExGuardianNinja are socks of each other but I noted that they all have similar writing styles, points they make are similar and in the talk page they are the only ones with a distinct style of Very Very Long Titles for sections eg:

'Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus' By Toto11zi

'71 countries supporting China’s position on various occasions. published with official links on http://thediplomat.com' By User:Mmmvidyahoo

'Huge Deletion of Nations that are Against the Attribution/Support for China List seems to have a hidden agenda.' By ExGuardianNinja.

This is not to even mention use of harsh language against other editors, disregarding consensus by declaring self as 'Major Editor' and accusing them of 'western conspiracy', 'lying' and other lovely words by Toto11zi. Collagium (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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:

• [41]
• [42] after his edit-warring here
• and [43].

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:

• [44]
• [45]
• [46] 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:

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

• [48]: "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."

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

• [50] "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."

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

• [52]: "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:

• [53]: "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 [54]: "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 [55]. 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 [56]: "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)

As another one of the editors who has tried to help the user in question understand why this can't continue and why we need to discuss these changes and then being accused of knowing nothing of Superman I unfortunately have to agree with this. I have chosen to edit the article when it's needed IE: vandalism, incorrect info posted. As I believe Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is without users working as a team. The article has had several consensus done and the article has been written per those. I take no satisfaction in having to take it to this point. The user seems to be under the impression that they are the only editor who should be editting the Superman article and they are the know all be all of the subject. The larger concerns for me are the constant ownerish attitude and the constant dismissal of other editors edits or opinions or consensus. My largest concerns are comments like

[57]: "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." And [58]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article." And comments to other editors like [59]: "WarMachineWildThing, looking at his contrib history, is mainly interested in professional wrestling. 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."

Those types of comments are just a small sample. While I do edit wrestling articles more often it's because they seem to be vandalized alot I was in the wrestling business for 10yrs so yeah I have alot of intrest in it. But I have a Superman collection that was started for me over 40 years ago before I was born, I had the ONLY Superman Tribute Truck that was featured on the Chris and Dana Reeve Foundation website because Christopher Reeve was on the hood, and Im known as Superman by the kids in my area because of the Charity work I do, so I have alot of interest in Superman and knowledge. But the user seems to think because I don't edit the article obsessively my opinion doesn't matter. If you look at his edit behavior of his last 200 edits I would say 90% are on the Superman article alone which is a concern for me as I am concerned for the person behind the screen of their ownerish and obsessive behavior that has caused them to think that what they are doing is right and don't understand how this behavior is harmful to the article and themselves. Sorry for the long windedness but I agree this user needs to understand this is not acceptable behavior and should be given a "time out" Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae has been exceedingly patient and afforded BaronBifford every opportunity to demonstrate a sincere and consistent willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors. Unfortunately, despite the generous patience of Tenebrae (and several others like WarMachineWildThing & myself), BaronBifford has repeatedly ignored or outright mocked consensus-building and consensus itself. He has lashed out: telling an editor to "piss off"; criticized the "generally shit" quality of superhero articles; called others "squabble editors"; etc. What concerns me more, however, is when Baron repeatedly expresses what he sees as his right to edit certain content, even in the context of general opposition to his proposals. Here are just a few recent examples of Baron's general attitude of ownership:

• "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"
• "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work"
• "I have yet to hear anyone else put any critical thought into this."
• "Where did you get your bizarre notions?"
• "I'm the only [one] doing anything constructive on this article."

At the very least, I hope an uninvolved admin will seriously onsider a Superman topic ban for a time, though I defer to Tenebrae's greater experience in suggesting the best course to move forward. Levdr1lp / talk 03:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think Superman is within the scope of any ARBCOM sanctions so it wouldn't be just a uninvolved administrator but a consensus here for a topic ban. As of right now, everyone is posting talk page comments that show possible incivility but it would be helpful to show to see the actual edits and the actual RFCs and the actual discussion with the editor that are evidence said problems. This reversion may or may not be appropriate but I can't tell from the way BaronBifford edits what is the actual problems here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • I've given links to examples of his contentious edits at numbers 54 to 59 above. And the issue here is WP:OWN, so if there's a more appropriate venue than this, I'm sure we'd all be glad to move the discussion there. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The main arguments against my edits are that they are somewhat inconsistent with some (but not all!) other articles on superheroes. They refuse to take into account the specific nature of the history of the Superman character. There are also a lot of ad hominem attacks against me. They want me to pass every little structural change I make through a committee, a process which is extremely slow (how many days did it take an admin to respond to this ANI thread?). My detractors say I refuse to "collaborate". My rebuttal is that they fail to collaborate. I've numerous times asked Tenebrae and others to participate in my research. I even offered to buy reference books out of my own pocket to encourage him. But his meaningful contributions have been minimal. He has made corrections to my grammar and formatting, and he has mostly been correct in that regard. But he has contributed nothing insightful to the article, which is painful after all the time and money I have expended. He likes to flaunt his credentials as a professional editor (of what I don't know), but what I want is an historian. Tenebrae does not come off as an historian. A sincere fanboy, yes, but not a serious scholar. I once had a perspective similar to his, in fact. I too am a massive superhero geek. But my research into the details of Superman, the commercial and creative talent behind the character, has changed this perspective. As the knowledge in an article develops, the structure of its content must mutate. The traditional bindings the he placed on this article deforms its body.

The biggest point of argument here is my wish to place a summary about the movies and TV adaptations of Superman alongside the information on the comic books. This seems logical to me, because there is so much cross-pollination between the books, TV shows, and movies that I cannot imagine not describing it holistically. This is how the professional books have addressed the topic, including Encyclopedia Britannica and all the reference material that appears in the Bibliography. Only here on Wikipedia do we have the notion that Superman is "primarily" a comic book character and that his movies and TV shows are a footnote in its history. BaronBifford (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hardly a footnote, given we have entire articles such as Superman in film and Superman (franchise), as well as Category:Superman films and Category:Superman in other media, among others, so his claim is without merit. Organizing all this under an "In other media" section as the MOS has described for years is sensible and as per longstanding consensus. As for the Britannica article, one paragraph placed high in a short article is no different from what we already do in mentioning other media in our article's lead.

Refusing to follow MOS consensus when multiple editors on the talk page say they agree with the guidelines is contentious and WP:OWN-ish and in no way part of the collaborate effort for which we strive. It's like trying to edit with Donald Trump. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here, I agree with Tenebrae. The MOS has been consistent on pretty much every single fictional character article: the initial source is the main point and then films and TV shows and the like are separate. There is zero reason why Superman alone should be completely reorganized differently than literally every single other piece of work out there just because you personally like the way Britannica does it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

First, a college student with the hubris to refer to himself as a scholar when I've published and edited many articles about comics — though I'm not going to out myself — shows someone without the perspective that he might have gained by examining the more than 100 comics-related articles I've created in 11 years here. I don't know what criteria he uses to denigrate someone with the ad hominem label "sincere fanboy," but I would say his obsession with Superman as shown in his edit-history makes him the pot calling the kettle black.

In any event, his slow-motion edit-warring and his constant arguing with other editors over settled guidelines and MOS is exhausting and WP:OWN-ish. His idea of collaborating is to go on the article talk page, tell us everyone is wrong and that only he is right, and then to go back to the article and make contentious changes. I ask: What should be the community's response to this behavior? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you mistake dedication for "obsession"? I hear Wikipedia is struggling to retain editors and here you are trying to shut down a hard-working editor who is neither a troll nor a vandal.BaronBifford (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to listen to other people here and ignore the fact that this version has been built upon years of general consensus and views, then you're more of a hindrance than a help. Respect the fact that your suggestions are contentious and put forth some effort in convincing others to agree with you on them. Just because you most strongly believe in something doesn't mean that's the way it should be done. Again, if you only edit the Superman articles and only want them structured a certain way, propose that but realize that other people are concerned about how all fictional character articles are designed and in that vein, Superman is just a single article or series of articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page fully protected two weeks. In the mean time, RFC's should be started or WP:DRN should be used to help settle content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I like to think I got a lot of shit done up to this point. Four steps forward, one step back — not bad. BaronBifford (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish your comment above showed some indication that you see the problem, but you're just being self-aggrandizing. That's not actually helpful.

The ball is in your court, BaronBifford. As the admin suggests, please start an WP:RFC or start a detailed discussion at WP:DRN. But I think the issue is larger than specific edits, and three other editors here agree: Your WP:OWN behavior needs to be addressed. Because if you don't initiate discussion and simply return to contentious editing in two weeks, honestly, that's no good for anyone and it's no good for Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the comments he left above he doesn't care what anyone thinks or the fact that because of all of this the page is now locked down and he's going to continue with this behavior. When you can't work with others or follow the consensus that has been agreed upon and continue to do what only you want, that's not good for anyone. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Having read that talk page, I can't escape the conclusion that this is a bit of a mixed case. On the one hand, I find that I agree with a great many of the copy edit observations BaronBifford makes there, and I feel he presents his views generally in a very cogent manner. That said, there are also some clear issues with WP:OWN here, as well as a fair bit of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT with regard to said behaviour--which of course is not uncommon in such cases. Now, not meaning to backseat admin Neil here, but I don't think I would have opted for page protection in his place; if indeed there is one editor moving against consensus (as seems to be the case), then I don't think it's in the best interest of the article and share the skepticism of others that it will resolve the core issues.

That being said, Neil's approach does give BaronB an opportunity to back up and re-assess his behaviour here. DRN is an excellent way to iron some of the differences out and hopefully find some unexplored middle ground. But it can only work if all parties come to it open minded. And with regard to Baron I feel that can only happen if he accepts that, on this project, he must pick his battles and that, no matter how right he may feel he is on a particular content issue, it is vastly more important that editors embrace the principles of collaboration and consensus than that they stick to their guns on this or that particular issue; the latter might make one little passage more reliable, but it's the latter that makes our collective content vastly more reliable in the aggregate. If he cannot comport himself to this principle, this is likely just not the project for him to contribute his time to, and we can expect this problem to not only persist on the Superman article, but indeed to follow him wherever he takes his editorial interest. That would be a shame, as I think he has strengths as an editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Informationskampagne

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

This editor seems to have an agenda to add information about Karaites to articles. He wouldn't be the first. In any case. His every post on Talk:Haggadah#Karaite_and_other_versions has been a personal attack. Also, he edit wars to restore an article namespace template to the talkpage. His edits are so lame that I really didn't want to post here, but his personal attacks are getting more vicious, and I have run out of patience with him. His reply to my explanation on his talkpage only proves that he has no idea of the behavioral problems with his edits. We also had some problems on Lekhah Dodi and Rabbeinu Tam. Basically every article he edits. Perhaps some admin would be willing to talk some sense into this editor. By the way, if his edits weren't so lame, I'd suspect him to be a sock. Perhaps also something to look into. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

BOOMERANG. Debresser is a well-known edit warrior and long-term POV pusher who is a constant presence at AE due to his history of personal attacks and inability to follow policy. 2607:FB90:6858:B5D4:71BE:8519:5D3C:EC94 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't socked, as far as I know. He has no real need to, since he rarely gets blocked. 2607:FB90:6858:B5D4:71BE:8519:5D3C:EC94 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about you, not Informationskampage or Debresser. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This IP range is actually frequented by the now-blocked CrazyAces, unless I'm reading it wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's within the same /33 IPv6 range, TheGracefulSlick, which means a big range. It's only if the interests or the writing style are similar that we can apply WP:DUCK to CrazyAces in such a context. And they're not, to my ear. I think CrazyAces is a red herring. That said, I don't admire the personal remarks of the IP in this thread, I think they're most likely a registered editor editing logged out, and if they continue in the same vein, they can be blocked under their own steam. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

I'm not a registered user. I was at one point considering it, but why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Especially when you'd rather block people reporting problem users instead of the problem users themselves. Wikipedia is way too tolerant of actual problem users. 2607:FB90:6858:B5D4:71BE:8519:5D3C:EC94 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are. That's why you haven't been blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering this IP appeared out of nowhere and has no edits previous to joining ANI, I would most likely say they are a sock, possibly from what you're saying. I am not very familiar with CrazyAces. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree the IP6 address was a sock. Quoting WP:BOOMERANG makes that obvious. I would be happy to know who the real editor is (perhaps even Informationskampagne himself?), but it is unlikely we'll ever find out. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding the IP6 editor, and whether he is a sock, can we start discussing Informationskampagne and his problematic editing, please? Debresser (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Vmzp85, WP:UNBROKEN and WP:CIVIL

Vmzp85 (talk · contribs) keeps warring over WP:UNBROKEN issues at Mexico City International Airport [60] [61] [62]. He also uses vulgar language (In Spanish) for his edit summaries. I suggest anyone to take a look at his talk. He has been told about WP:UNBROKEN long ago.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's vulgar language. Google Translate confirms it. In his latest edit summary, he seems to be saying "Report me, but first check my contributions." Whether or not his contributions matter, he did violate the very first thing listed under WP:IUC by using profanity. I suggest an admin delete the edit summaries, preferably after this case is over so everyone, including non-admins like me, can see the evidence. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNBROKEN is not relevant to those edits. We went through UNBROKEN earlier this month, Jetstreamer, at WT:REDIRECT. The other editor is simply updating the target to the current title, and there is nothing wrong with that. If there were an existing redirect for "Minatitlán/Coatzacoalcos", UNBROKEN would dictate changing that link to [[Minatitlán/Coatzacoalcos]], but there is not one. That is the only situation addressed by UNBROKEN. Since the rest of the dispute follows from your misinterpretation of the guideline, any CIVIL would seem moot. You are both edit warring in violation of policy, but you can't complain about edit warring when you're doing it yourself. Thus you're misinterpreting WP:EW as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that I did not use vulgar/uncivil language. The corollary of this is that it seems I should stay away from WP:UNBROKEN-related edits for a while.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In my ideal Wikipedia, there is no justification or excuse for such language, but prevailing practice is that CIVIL is relative to context. Using the Spanish word puta, when your opponent is wrong as to the content issue, is probably never going to be actionable on this page.
I don't see why it's necessary to stay away from UNBROKEN, unless it's really impossible to grasp what it means. It can be concisely stated as: "If there is an existing redirect that matches your desired link text, use it. Don't bypass it using a piped link. Full stop.". This is an example of an UNBROKEN edit (I use the shortcut NOTBROKEN instead). The only reason to refer to the guideline text is to learn the reasoning behind it, and its very few rarely-seen exceptions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• So, you all got a little Spanish lesson, but is someone going to address both parties' 3RR and edit war for which a warning ought to be given? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well you could always place the warning or heck I could. Heck any editor could. As a matter of fact Vmzp85 Warned for edit warring and Jetstreamer Warned for edit warring --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC) apparently an admin needs to issue these my mistake --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Ok some confusion but apparently any one can give those warnings as was originally thought. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I wanted someone to make a difference between both behaviours. I've never used uncivil language. Both me and the user in question having the same warning at our talks does not make any difference at all. "Do not do it from now on" would suffice. The absence of comments from Vmzp85 is also intriguing.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The warning is generated by a template, its the {{uw-ew}} template that is used for edit warring. Which is what you two were doing. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As a sidenote, you may also use Twinkle.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That was the template generated by twinkle. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Trolling by DePiep

Recently I was trolled by an editor who has since been indeffed for it. Following disagreements at a couple of CfDs, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 14#Category:Narrow gauge railways in the Republic of Macedonia, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 20#Category:2 ft gauge railways, an established editor DePiep has decided to join in with the trolling. We should not have to work under such conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad faith accusation by Andy Dingley.

In timeline: the two CfD's linked do not even suggest undesired behaviour, not even did AD mention that. Maybe AD feels bad because of a CfD result?

Andy Dingley introduced the trolling accusation against me recently: keep your trolling to yourself if you don't want to go the same way. In that same edit, AD smeared me by associating me with a blocked editor, without proving that there is an inherent connection. Also, AD did not even try to clarify (on their own talkpage) my response [63].

For all this, I accuse Andy Dingley for abusing the AN/I option, and for smearing me with accusations of BF and trolling. -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You think this is an acceptable edit to another editor's .sig? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL another proof of bad faith by AD. Clearly, that username-change was caused by me by copy-pasting text. (Promise: I'll never ever copy/paste Adny Dimly's user name ever again).

But admins take note: why did AD not ask or notify me about this presumed attack? Could have been solved within one minute one the talkpage. But no, AD rouses ANI. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. This is clearly not acceptable behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See my response to prev point. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

DePiep You've been here 11 years, you should know better. This is clearly not acceptable from any editor let alone an established editor such as yourself. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the link vandalism DePiep did. It'll stay in the diffs, so there's no need to keep it here. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please be clear Gestrid Cameron11598. Exactly what is unacceptable (and why do you skip addressing AD similarly)? And: how is my 11 yrs an excuse for your bad reading? DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I self-correct: should ask Cameron11598 what is unacceptable. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

All you ani admins keep skipping the main point: that AD themselves started accusing me of trolling. If you admin cannot read & understand this thread, why use my "11 years" against me? I repeat: Dandy_Ingley started a BF subthread. No sense in trying to reason with ANI admins. That is my 11 yr experience. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not all of us are admins (including me). Many of us here just look for relevant facts, including relevant facts that both the accuser and accused neglect to bring up here. We attempt to bring up all the evidence. I was just fixing a wikilink that you seemingly broke on purpose, and then I notified everyone that I fixed it since it had been mentioned by others. I was trying to stay mostly uninvolved with this one, but, when I see vandalism, whether it be talk page vandalism or link vandalism (both of which apply to this), I'm gonna fix it.

His behavior does not excuse your behavior. It won't in the real world, and certainly won't here.

As for my reading skills, they're perfectly fine. Do not personally attack me again. DePiep had pinged the wrong user. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

-- Gestrid (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you are not an admin, why take offense? Anyway, you accuse me of "link vandalism", so I explained to you that you are mistaking. Why do you not reply to that point, Gestrid? -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(To be clear: better prove your fact that the link was broken on purpose, after I explained it differently.) -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In the heated back-and-forth of ANI (I'm not just following this thread, but a few others currently in progress.), I had missed your apology. In any case, you neglected to repair it. As for your comment about not being an admin, that was just clarification that we're not all admins here. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

DePiep's comment on Andy's talk page doesn't really rise to the level of action. Neither does Andy's calling it trolling. DePiep's intentional misspelling of Andy's username twice in this thread, however (after claiming that a previous change of his username was accidental) cannot be anything other that intentional trolling in the middle of an AN thread accusing him of trolling. So, if @DePiep: ever misspells Andy's name again, I will block him for 3 months (since the recent 2-week and 1-month blocks for similar behavior evidently didn't achieve their goal). If there is anyone reading this whose opinion DePiep respects, please have a quiet word with him offline. And everyone please do not do anything about any comments (or misspellings) DePiep makes about me, I am immune to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I intentionally misspelled AD's name when explaining that the accused misspelling was unintentionally, because of copy/paste mistake. The fact that Floquenbeam here reconstructs this as bad faith instead of tongue-in-cheek I dare calling bad faith by Floquenbeam. Once again F. is setting up an in/out of ANI blocking route. Why do you hate me? -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC) (late sign)

• Support 3-month block for intentionally trolling if DePiep doesn't knock off the childish misspelling routine. Either DePiep is trolling or WP:CIR is relevant and simply cannot focus enough in the midst of discussion to properly use the correct name and that doesn't matter. Otherwise, DePiep may or may not be trolling but encouraging trolling and basically not caring that a type of antic got an indefinite block is DePiep's choice in the end. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The 'misspelling routine' (already explained away some time ago) only started in this thread. So how do you Ricky81682 justify a "block'm" for an 'offence' that did not even exist when this ANI thread was started? (Nicely you did admit that you got the childish/comical point of these misspellings here). Your proposal does not even care about the core accusation of trolling. What do you want, seriously? -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• IMO just drop the 3 onth block and be done with it. Obvious trolling is obvious and it's just nose thumbing at this point. Blackmane (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please describe the 'obvious trolling' more specifically. Until that, I stand by my 1st post here. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Its obvious trolling. And @DePiep: This is what I'm referring to. Intentionally changing AD's name. I wasn't addressing any of your other conduct. Also Your 11 years of experience is extremely relevant, it shows you have been here long enough that you should be familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Particularly WP:NPA, Link Vandalism, and WP:CIVIL --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also on a side note I can read perfectly fine. You however seem to have an issue with interacting with others in a CIVIL manner. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not supporting sanctions because I have a bias and know from experience that DePiep is better than this, and does good work - but gee, DePiep, back off and apologise, please, because you often make it hard for even those of us with some respect for you to speak up. The "name changing" thing is something my 12 year old would be ashamed of. Do better, please. Please? Begoon ^talk 19:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A nice and sensible post, Begoon, thanks. But even you I want to ask: what exactly was my 'trolling' post? -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I said it would be nicer if you behaved better. I'm not here for the arguments. I'm here because I think you're a good guy who sometimes goes a bit off the rails. Apart from that you contribute awesome stuff. I wish you wouldn't do the "going off the rails" stuff. It pisses me off.Begoon ^talk 21:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Begoon, this is ANI not chit-chat. I am accused of serious stuff, and no one is providing a base. Just writing "... off the rails" is not enough. Actually, by writing 'back off and apologise' you do support some blocking route -- by sentiment only. And still you do not provide evidence? Again I ask: please clearly quote & describe what is my offence. (And, of course, one can always reread the origin of this thread). -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Question to all respondants here: exactly what was my 'trolling' offence? Quotes and arguments please. So far, I stand with my first response here. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a single diff that's been repeatedly posted here. The fact that someone accused you of trolling does not absolve you of all actions in response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What diff you mean? The fact that you do not produce evidence does absolve. -DePiep (talk)

At risk of falling for the obvious: Twice, DePiep, you have misspelled Andy's name in this thread. First, the time you say was intentional and tongue in cheek, that was the time you wrote "Adny Dimly"; second, the time you haven't addressed when you wrote "Dandy Ingley", by which point you clearly weren't just having a bit of fun. Neither of these are really acceptable; the second is clearly reaching the level of trolling, as several people have now pointed out. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, at similar risk, that was my point too, while stressing that DePiep is generally better than that, and wishing they would just apologise and stop it. I hoped it might help. Begoon ^talk 13:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Xboxmanwar on music articles

Earlier this month, User:IndianBio made this comment to Xboxmanwar (talk · contribs) which also summarizes my frustration:

Xbox, you are a valuable editor and the main discussion raised at Talk:Rebel Heart was to sough your expertise when I realized that there was a discrepancy. I wanted to involve the community also because there might be countless articles where such discrepancy glared. You never sought to edit collaboratively but went on this rampage of WP:IMRIGHT. That's not how this works. A WP:CONSENSUS is paramount to mass changes. You were being reverted across multiple articles and warned for it, but you never paid attention. The result was you edit warred so many times now across multiple articles, because you never thought of being the better person with your expertise and seek a DRN or BRD.

At the article Kodak Black:

I removed unsourced content here, as only one of the songs listed had a source, and the editor who added it also added a chart entitled "List of singles, with showing year released, peak chart positions and album name". Since only one of the songs actually charted, I reworked the edit, and added a source with this edit. Xboxmanwar reverted the edit here and added unsourced content back to the article; content which doesn't factually belong to the chart with that title. There was a clear purpose to my edit, yet Xboxmanwar had little regard for that. This sort of edit waring is endless with this editor.

On that same article, there has been talk page discussion here and here about not adding certain aliases to the infobox. Despite that, Xboxmanwar has added the aliases 7 times: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70].

• These last 2 lines are both inaccurate and misleading. First, the second "here" discussion highlighted above is timestamped after all of the 7 diffs provided, and per my comments below that discussion seems to have been accepted by Xboxmanwar once it was explained clearly. Additionally, the "seven times" is inaccurate and disingenuous since DIFFs 1-3 are contiguous (non-removed) edits for the same day, and DIFF 7 is the original adding of the problem content. I do not know if this was intentional or accidental misinformation but assuming good faith it still means that all other evidence and diffs in this report should now be considered potentially flawed and reviewed carefully for accuracy. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries: This editor regularly leaves unsourced edits, with edit summaries like:

• "please leave it like this, this is how it should be"
• "guys I got this tracklisting"
• "Its not unsourced, its a fact, and if don't believe so, check out this link: {{URL|http://thepatour.com/}} He used to be on that page, gone now."
• "Check BMI for proof on middle name".

Or bullies other editors in edit summaries:

• "Cleanup, replaced embedded lists with tables, looks cleaner, and the tables doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL or anything at all, if anyone has issues for ridiculous reasons, see WP:COMMONSENSE, and for other issues, see WP:IGNORE, thank you."
• "Bruh are you dumb?"
• "No offense Magnolia, but you are really bad at maintaining this article"

After I nominated this article for deletion, Xboxmanwar left this message on my talk page: "I am disgusted on how you nominate Allen Ritter for deletion, again". He then called me a "dick" here, and "disrespectful" here.

At Kodak Black, he wrote "you are too restrictive on this article, I never seen anybody kiss this article's ass as much as you, plus you removed the chart that @JustDoItFettyg: added, and you removed it because the source "isn't reliable", are you lazy? The source that Fetty provides is from Billboard itself, how can you call that not reliable, thats straight from the source of Billboard. You need to let loose".

I have sought help with this editor at dispute resolution, and at third opinion.

Section blanking

• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Billions, he twice blanked the deletion discussion, here and here.
• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoey Dollaz, he blanked the deletion discussion here.
• At Desiigner, he removed the AfD template here.

Canvasing

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination), he canvassed other editors for support here, here, and here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I both agree and disagree with the filer. I noted an interesting thing... it seems Xboxmanwar arrived here in January of this year and nobody posted a "Welcome" template that explained the rules of WP. In fact the very first thing that did happen was he was bitten by Magnolia677. Thus he got started off on the wrong foot from the get-go. That does not excuse all of his behavior but it helps to understand some of it. Xboxmanwar has been disruptive and at times rude and uncivil. However he has also shown the ability to respond positively to discussions that are calm, polite, and provide clear explanations such as here where he was corrected for violating WP:ETIQ and here where I was hand-holding him through a good faith (but aborted/unsuccessful) effort to try and salvage an AfD including where he acknowledges some of his faults .

Xboxmanwar has been here only about 7 months and in that time has produced hundreds of productive edits on many other pages. Yes, he has made mistakes and is still learning. Yes, he can be slow-to-learn and obstinate at times. And yes he can be hotheaded. So can other editors who have much more experience. I have tried to help him to learn because despite his prolific work he is still very much a newbie and I believe we need to dramatically AGF and nurture such editors yet at the same time call them out and politely correct them every time they make a mistake. We need to be teaching high-potential editors like this rather than attacking them and driving them away.

I think raising this AN/I is good to get this discussed but there are certain "big picture" questions that need to be considered in this case: Noting the volume of pages he has worked on is Xboxmanwar's problematic behavior present in many/most/all of the pages he edits or only on a few? If only a few then what are the common factors for the pages with problems? Is there perhaps one or more editor interaction issues that need to be addressed? Would an IBAN of some kind be helpful here? Or is the problem resolvable by more training or some kind of mentorship perhaps? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely 100% agree with Koala Tea Of Mercy; we must remember to always reflect a good faith-based point of view and in the manner that doesn't bite or make them feel discouraged for making mistakes (a completely normal thing that everybody does). We must be diligent at communicating with new users in a manner that welcomes them to the project, teaches them in a manner that makes them feel like they're important to us (because they really are!), and encourages them to learn and become a long-term contributor here. There's no reason why we shouldn't be doing this for all new users who make mistakes in good faith, and appear to be trying to contribute and improve the project. It's an element that we tend to fail at, and it's absolutely key if we're going to retain editors and contributors here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm 50/50 with the reporter as well. A few of the edit summaries and comments that Xboxmanwar added were not appropriate; some contained personal attacks and opinions towards others, calling them "bad at maintaining articles", a "kiss-ass", and were straight-up insults. But, Magnolia677, you're not entirely innocent from this either. The insults made on your talk page started when you said this to him in response to his initial message here. While I believe that his message was created in a bit of frustration and could have been a bit more calm in nature, I don't see anything completely uncivil or any personal attacks. Expressing feelings of frustration and disgust, or stating that something made somebody feel annoyed, in itself, is not uncivil. You started taking that discussion into an uncivil argument when you called his message "childish"and told him off.

I agree that the blanking and canvassing are disruptive, but I don't see the need for administrator action at this time. I think that Magnolia677 should be reminded to keep a cool head when dealing with difficulty such as this, and that Xboxmanwar should be given a warning (maybe even a final one) for civility and disruption; further violations of policy, or editing against consensus purposefully will lead to blocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Response

@Magnolia677: It appears that you have been following me around on Wikipedia, going through all my history, just to make this report, may I say that you have issues too? Before, you spam marked most of the articles I made before for AfD, including the article Desiigner, which he had a number one on the charts at the time, but still marked it for deletion here, with the other editors on that AfD page showing their disgust of this editor marking it AfD, with one notable comment:

• Speedy Keep, the artist has a top 5 hit in the US and you nominate this for deletion?

This shows that this editor carelessly just marks articles for AFD without backing it up, all with the same message (with Ben Billions being slightly different),

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Billions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoey Dollaz
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubeatz
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnage (DJ)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiigner

The messages he left on those pages has no backup information to support his claims as to why an article "fails", not pointing out what made the article "fail", I only blanked those pages because I was furious at the time on why this editor would AfD articles without backing it up, just with the same stale message, and eventually other editors agree with him, (Another editor has pointed this out to them before on the original Allen Ritter page, the one before I remade the new and recently deleted article, but they were ignored by them and other editors), still failing to say where the article fails, with most of them says Delete, fails this and that, and thats it, they don't where the "impact zone" is, so that can be fixed. These articles that this editor marked AfD had no issues with them, but then this editor came along and in my opinion, screw things up, because they didn't do any harm to anyone, and the other editors that saw the article didn't do anything because it was fine, but this editor didn't like that idea.

This editor's claim on my "unsourced edits", are hysterical,

For MC4, thats how the tracklisting should be, just like every other article with a tracklisting, so the unannounced songs can be put in there when the are announced, its logic.

For Major Key, I can't even believe this editor tried to use this excuse, this excuse doesn't help this editor at all, I simply filled in the tracklisting of the album, because it was released that night, I don't know how this is supposed to a "behavioral issue" in any way.

For this Kodak Black issue, the website (it takes time to load) removed him from the concert with Lil Uzi Vert, and even through I cannot find a older mirror of that website, I have one key evidence that he was on that website before, plus you can see here the original poster versus the new poster, as he was quietly removed when he got jailed, and the promoters obviously don't want to state about it, only to remove him, this editor doesn't want this information the article even through we have discussed about it before and that outcome didn't work, as I explained to this editor as to why to include it, but only to see to blatantly remove it again with no explanation, which shows that this editor is oblivious on this matter.

For D.R.A.M., simply do a BMI Repertoire search to find the info about a certain song if its registered in the system, just like ASCAP and SESAC, which you can find artist info (Example: Full Name, Award Winning Songs), which I used to find his middle name.

For Allen Ritter, I was furious with him because this editor stated to cleanup the article, but only to remove sources (that were even correct, just the parameter was wrong, but the editor didn't seem to care (If you read through that page, you will see what I mean), and they didn't add any sources to help contribute to the now-deleted article, you can't call that a cleanup, plus this editor did the same thing on the first nomination, and this editor claims that even through he has a Grammy nomination, they claim that it doesn't count, regardless of the other people nominated with him, he was still Grammy nominated and is liable for it. I angrily respond to this as this editor pointed, but they dismiss it, calling it "a teenage rant", which to my reaction, was an insult, so I insulted them back, by calling them a "dick" and "disrespectful", but then it looked like that turned my back on me, which made me even more disgusted, and I was trying to point out on the second AfD nomination with Koala Tea Of Mercy on how he is notable, plus that editor has had issues with this editor before. Thats also why I was canvasing other editors to help me save the article, but all of the editors I've reached out to didn't respond.

For my "bullying", this user states that I'm bullying other editors, whereas I'm only "bullying" him in all the entries he posted, which now shows that this editor likes to make false claims,

I'm not bullying, I'm "criticizing". This editor watches this article like a hawk, reverting every tidbit this editor doesn't like on the article, like in those entires he posted, I was putting embedded charts in the article, since that is the "norm" for musician articles, seen here, here, here and here, but this editor removes them and puts embedded lists instead, which isn't used often nowadays on Wikipedia.

For this Kodak Black issue with the charts, please look here near the end and here.

For this Kodak Black issue, the source was straight from Billboard, which is reliable, but this editor refused to understand it.

For the Kodak Black stage name issues, please look here.

For the issue with IndianBio is something else, please don't bring him into this and mix this up, I am done with him already.

This editor has put a ton of claims on me, I should note that even through this editor had AfD most of the articles I have made before, this editor's list of created articles appears that this editor has made peculiarly articles on ghost towns and small unincorporated communities that almost nobody will have an interest in reading them, also based on the fact that those articles have very little information on them, and the chance of regular users finding those articles are slim.

Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And this is why I have reported you here. Your last comment demonstrates your lack of concern for the Wikipedia project, and your inability to detect when you have just insulted a large group of people. Several editors on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about small communities and ghost towns. An excellent story was written here about User:Coal town guy, who wrote hundreds of articles about West Virginia. Most US states have active user groups, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. When I wrote the article on Bruinsburg, Mississippi I discovered that the largest amphibious operation in American military history (until the Allied invasion of Normandy) took place there. You can now find a link to Bruinsburg on the Ulysses S. Grant article. Hundreds of other editors could share stories of the importance of documenting small settlements and ghost towns. Yet to you, these Wikipedia articles are "ghost towns and small unincorporated communities that almost nobody will have an interest in reading", and "based on the fact that those articles have very little information on them, and the chance of regular users finding those articles are slim". How dare you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: The fact that you ignored all my other counter-claims I've written in response to your report on me, and only cared about my last comment about you, makes you look single-minded about the last thing that should be taken cared of. To re-clarify, I never said nobody, I said almost nobody, which means that you are in a certain area of people that have that interest, and thats fine, what I'm saying is that a lot more people will discover something popular and/or upcoming, like "Kodak Black", versus an article you made back in 2013, "Low, Utah". If you look at the stats for "Kodak Black" in January 2016 versus "Low, Utah" in the same month and year, you can see the obvious difference in article views. I'm not saying that its a bad thing to have these articles, I'm saying to for you to try to be pertaining about the articles you mark AfD, since people will be interested in more mainstream things, regardless if that article wasn't right (Example: This article fails this and that.), rather then something thats simply a ghost town in some area in the world that most people won't find out about or go to. You marked AfD on articles that I made that you and I both know will have more views than most of those ghost town or unincorporated community articles you or anyone made, unless something significant happened there, like the Castle Geyser, its a property not that's not very occupied, only to be known because its a geyser, they shoot water to the sky from the ground, plus, this particular one has specially formed cone. Also, I do care about Wikipedia, which is obviously the reason why I'm on here, making edits everyday, fixing things up and whatnot. I never insulted a large group of people, like I mentioned before, I know certain people like you have this interest, and I'm totally okay with it, but with the uprising of rappers, record producers, singers, celebrities etc. I'm pretty damn sure that people will take a look more at that "dumb" stuff (Examples: Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Taylor Swift (Their current feud), etc.), then lesser known properties. Those articles that you caused to be deleted could've had a bigger impact than lesser known properties with little information on them. Sorry, but thats the cold hard ugly truth, go ahead, hit me with more insults, but I'm simply saying what's happening. Also, just like you mentioned in your response to my first response, "Several editors on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about small communities and ghost towns." Oh yeah, well I on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about rappers, record producers, singer, etc. taking hours trying to contribute to the articles I make, and you come nominating them for deletion, whereas nobody ever touched your small articles for a couple years (Example: History of Low, Utah), basically hasn't been touched since 2013, versus the articles I make will be revised in the future, those small articles are dead ends. So if you think I've done wrong first, believe me, you did. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This gives me a headache wading through all these walls of text. I already had to bonk these two's heads together for edit warring at Kodak Black here, and since then they've gone on to make literally dozens of edits daily to this same article, arguing, undoing each other, name-calling, on and on. I wish I had this little to do over the summer break. Maybe a page ban for Xboxmanwar and Magnolia677 from Kodak Black would give us all some peace. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Demeaning others work is not going to score either of you any points with anyone. It's a childish waste of others time by both of you. KNOCK IT OFF!

That having been said, I agree we should have done better initially by the editor in question. I question whether it would have done any good. If you peruse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination) you will see at least three editors attempting to explain the concepts of WP:RS and WP:N. During that time frame, I left him a message on the same topics, along with a welcoming template and an invitation to Teahouse. I strongly urged him to make use of these resources and invited him to ask questions on my talk page if he so desired. To date he has asked no questions at Teahouse or at my talk. He seemed to at least not be applying IDHT to Koala Tea Of Mercy, but there is no indication if any communication there. (IMO, the reason for lack of bad attitude toward this particular editor is because he supported keeping Allen Ritter, even tho he conceded that the only basis was IAR. This shows an extreme BATTLEGROUND attitude). In short...for all our lack of cordial treatment initially, he still isn't getting it. Witness this response to a now blocked obviously paid editor two days ago. This edit was the topic of discussion. I would propose that we insist this editor get some mentoring. Perhaps KTOM would be willing? John from Idegon (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Coming from someone that dismissed Allen Ritter as not a musician,

That would all be great, except the subject of the article in question is not a musician and WP:MUSICBIO does not apply to him. Yawn. John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If he wasn't a musician, I wouldn't have added a Wikipedia article about him, but he is one, he is a singer, pianist, songwriter and record producer, here are his credits, WP:MUSICBIO does apply to him, as well as WP:COMPOSER, plus his Grammy nomination, regardless of the people he was nominated with, also the 1, 2, 3, 4 ASCAP Awards he got, makes him notable. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I was afraid someone was going to suggest that. Sadly I will need to decline. Normally I would be willing to mentor newbies on occasion but the next semester at my college is starting in a few weeks and I have materials to prepare for my classes and will be getting back into my research projects so I will have a much restricted availability for Wikipedia. In fact if you see me here after a few weeks from now until the end of the year it means I am playing hooky from my academic responsibilities. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for handling copyright, SPS, misrepresenting sources?

Racingmanager (talk · contribs) has been creating a lot of new articles basically by copying content from their personal website - www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/. They subsequently amended the copyright notice on their website when warned that these dumps appeared to be violations. Lots of threads, but this and the following section on that page are the gist. There is much more, for example at User talk:Racingmanager, but they keep deleting it. The discussions were messy and fragmented - there is also stuff at User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Copyright_issues, which raised ancillary points such as WP:SPS.

They have today created 1927 English Greyhound Derby and I have had to trawl through that, finding both apparent copy/paste issues and also some blatant misrepresentation of at least one source - discussion at User_talk:Sitush#Greyhound_Articles but, again, somewhat disconnected because Racingmanager has been refactoring, spewing their own comments across various pages and also deleting warnings on their own talk page.

Diannaa has been involved, as has Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Racingmanager has ca. 10,000 edits over a prolonged period, including the creation of everything in {{English Greyhound Derby}} and a lot of other greyhound related articles (regarding stadia etc). It is obvious they are knowledgeable but in their attempts seemingly to dump the masses of stuff they have accumulated elsewhere, they're creating a lot of problems relating to copyright and attribution/sourcing. I suspect the difficulty arises because they did not annotate their original research with source materials and are now trying to push things through without reconstructing the information from scratch.

I can't handle this. Can anyone suggest a solution? - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All of my articles are appropriately sourced. My website carries a wikipedia recommended message on the homepage but Sitush is still not happy because he does not like the wording used which I have already said to him I will clean up. In regard to the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article I have used sources and listed them but he has removed one even though it appears on page 54 of the book quoted.

He even accused me of so called blatant misrepresentation of at least one source which he has just realised was a false accusation and has just apologised to Diannaa and not me I might add! He now reverts edits that I have made regarding clarification and citations I added for the clarification and citation tags created by another user. Now he is even criticising the way I use my sandbox and is harassing me on my talkpage.Racingmanager (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, Diannaa has done some more digging and it looks like Racingmanager may have copied stuff from an older website (greyhoundderby.com) - to their own (greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk), then started dumping their own site on Wikipedia. Ok, in among the above linked discussions they announced changing the license at their own website so as to be compatible with WP ... but that is useless if they copied it from elsewhere in the first place. And there would still be issues such as the misrepresentation, eg: here. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comparing revision 732140547 of 1927 English Greyhound Derby to the source website http://www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/1927.pdf is a match; there's a pretty much complete overlap in the "Competition Report" section. But greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk is the website that's recently been released under a compatible license. HOWEVER, comparing with http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1927-greyhoundderby.htm also is a match (copyvios report), and the Wayback Machine shows they have had the content since 2006. This kinda throws all the material at greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk under suspicion as being potentially copied from other sources. The PDF from greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk was never archived by the Wayback Machine, so I can't tell using that tool, but two other tools (this one and this one) both show Racingmanager's PDF was created on March 21, 2015. — Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the article differences between greyhoundderby.com and the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article. The website states -

• the wrong result of the winner of the Northern Final
• the wrong northern qualifiers
• no mention of the illness of Great Chum
• no mention of the cost of Entry Badge
• no mention of the Hopsack

How can you possibly claim that the article had copied the website.Racingmanager (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the copyright issue, we normally don't cite our own research or copy-paste from our own website to this one. Your PDFs don't cite any sources. What makes them a reliable source for this wiki? Right now we have no information on that. — Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Racingmanager is trying to retrospectively source information from their site. The problem is, as noted above, they're not even getting that right. I've no idea how widespread the problem may be but I've looked at a few since this issue first arose a couple of weeks ago and the number of problems is astounding for someone with that number of edits. They means well, I have no doubt, but I'm on the verge of thinking we need to nuke the lot unless someone is willing to go through all of their creations. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks to Sitush for the notification of this discussion. Racingmanager was advised by Diannaa on 20 July to stop creating articles and resolve the copyright issues in those that still stood; this does not seem to have happened, as 1928 English Greyhound Derby was created only yesterday, still including WP:COPYVIOs. And older articles such as the 1979, 1984, and 1986 English Greyhound Derbys have not yet been rectified. This suggests that his interest in conforming to WP requirements is absent, and that the comunity is going to have a helluva lot of work repairing his damage. The question, then, seems to be wheteher Racingmanager is present when we do. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain where the copyright violation is on the 1928 English Greyhound Derby is? I don’t understand why there is a problem with creating new articles because I have already said I am going to clean up the earlier articles. The articles I am creating are for the benefit of Wikipedia in an area that Wikipedia does not cover well. I have continually proven that there are no copyright issues regarding my original website which has now prompted the other user to suggest that I have copied other websites. If it is such an issue I will start editing the older articles now starting with the 1953 event and then moving forwards to hopefully appease the user. If you require it to be done some other way then please explain clearly. I will ensure I put in the page numbers from the Barrie Dack book but please advise if I am missing something else.Racingmanager (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have completed the 1953 edit. I have added the appropriate page numbers of the sources, the information is in my own words and I have provided an explanation regarding a technical item. Can you please provide feedback if you think anything needs doing differently. I will not start 1954 until I receive some feedback because I would like to try and appease other users .Racingmanager (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the copyright violation on 1928 English Greyhound Derby: The "Competition Report" section has a large overlap with http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1928-greyhoundderby.htm. According to the Wayback Machine, they have had this content on their website since at least June 20, 2006, while your document http://www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/1928.pdf shows a creation date of March 21, 2015. It's the second one like that we've found. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I do seem to have used a lot of material from the 1928 report on Greyhoundderby.com, I will need to rewrite the section. I am sorry for this and will delete the 1928 report, this was one of many of the sources I used but was obviously not careful enough in formulating it when putting it together in the first place. Can you advise with regard to the 1953 report because I have received no feedback.Racingmanager (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any copying from http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1953-greyhoundderby.htm in your article 1953 English Greyhound Derby. I am unable to check what's in the book Greyhound Racing: The First Fifty Years by Barrie Dack, as the closest library with a copy is in Edinburgh so I have no way of knowing if there's copyvio from that source and whether or not you have represented that material accurately. There's still two overarching problems: you are using your own website, your own research, and adding that material to Wikipedia, without any outside confirmation that the information on your PDFs is correct. None of them list any sources. What makes this material a reliable source for use on this wiki?. Right now we have nothing but your word. And the second and most important problem is that you were asked to stop creating new articles or adding any additional material to this wiki until you've gone back through your existing articles and checked them for copyright violations. (While you are doing this, you could improve the sourcing on each article, adding in confirming sources that are not your own website.) This task has to take priority over creating new articles. How you would do this is use the copyvio tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ to compare each of your articles with the corresponding article at www.greyhoundderby.com, and remove any copyright violations that you find. As I said before, I can generate lists for this purpose, or you could use this list. The most important thing you need to do, right now, is stop adding more copyright violations to this wiki. If you don't you will be blocked. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Diannaa regarding this, and it extends to all the articles about stadia etc also, not just the Derby articles. It might be better if you pretend that your own website and those of others do not exist. Go back to the book and newspaper sources and start over. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Request unblock of User:Martinevans123

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

---

Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) is a prolific editor with nearly 90,000 edits and a strong track record in working with BLPs. Coupled with his enjoyable sense of humour and ability to walk away from drama, this led me to nominate him for Editor of the Week some time back. You can therefore imagine my shock when I pinged Martin yesterday to ask for help to get an article through a Good Article review only to receive an email saying he can't because he's been blocked.

The block was placed by Mike V for "sockpuppetry" [71] with a vague explanation of "block evasion, editing while logged out to mislead, creating an illusion of support, and avoiding scrutiny" - which could mean anything. As Martin was not blocked, it is impossible for him to evade anything. No diffs were supplied, no indication of what behaviour led to the block was listed and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinevans123 is a redlink. I see a vague reference to a previous block by Boing! said Zebedee in 2011 (which he later withdrew) - I don't know what that's about, but frankly I don't care. Don't remind others of past misdeeds.

In my opinion, is it completely unacceptable for checkusers to block long-standing content creators without a shred of evidence because they "feel like it" and I want to see Martin unblocked. I don't think it'll come as a surprise that I would unblock him right now and I'm only not because some busybody would haul me off to Arbcom for a desysopping, not because I think the block is justified, and my motivation for the unblock is so we can get an article improved.

I see that Martin is prepared to sit the block out, presumably at which point it'll be "business as usual", but IMHO this is the one of the more punitive and abusive blocks I have seen and I want a wider discussion of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect anything less from Mike V. He always was a terrible administrator. Cassianto^Talk 10:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks??? Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• The earlier block, back in 2011, was not by me, it was by User:Tnxman307 (who is now retired and has not edited since 2012). I have no recollection of it, but it appears I unblocked after accepting Martinevans123's explanation that his misuse of multiple accounts on that occasion had been an inadvertent breach of policy. The unblock request is at User talk:Martinevans123/Archive 5#Unblock request. I know nothing of the current block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional: The current block message and response is here, just before it was removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• You'll find some recent accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Martinevans123. I suspect the main complaint was the logged-out editing, but no checkuser will confirm the IPs used - it'll need review from other checkusers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, the community is entitled to view the SPI or the CU request (with evidence) that provoked this. Viewing his TP history [72], Martin did not receive any notification of an SPI or suspected sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

CU results linking a user to an IP (which is what appears to be one of the claims behind this block) are never published. There is also no requirement for an SPI or for advance notification. (I'm not offering any opinion on those, just pointing out the way it is.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of a filing at SPI is not mandatory. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge performing an unrequested CU is not allowed, however, so I'd like to see the request that was made to perform this CU -- or have the request at least be shown to another admin (say, ArbCom member) confidentially. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware that performing an unrequested CU is not allowed - can you find any policy that says so? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It is allowed with the proviso being that there must be grounds for checking that are provided on request. (See further down where it says "The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run.") This is obviously for Softlavender's benefit not yours Boing!. Since MikeV has never been hesitant about explaining his reasons for running a checkuser before, I dont expect him to be now, so I suggest people hold off until he responds. But in short: no a SPI is not required for checkuser use, no a request in any form is not required, all that is required is a good faith reason (by the checkuser) to suspect abusive sockpuppetry. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see some diffs that show actual abuse ie: making a net negative contribution to the encyclopedia. Indeed, one might say that since the only effect of looking at that sockpuppet category was to make me laugh, that it brightened my day a bit - and that's a good thing. Who really cares if people make edits logged out (whether or not by accident) or set up joke accounts? It doesn't actually prevent the encyclopedia getting written, does it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Since none of the handful of registered accounts was used abusively, I gather it must have been IP editing, and since the CheckUser is probably not going to reveal that because of privacy concerns (although heck we all know where Martin lives), the evidence is probably not going to be publicized; in fact, it may end up being only available to ArbCom and possibly other CheckUsers. That said, the accusation of "block evasion" seems patently absurd/impossible and in my opinion needs to be removed or struck from the block notice. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"There is no policy against editing while logged out per se",- and we know the rest. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I once chose to edit logged out. After a week or two, I was persuaded by an admin to resume logged-in editing, just for appearances sake. They certainly didn't block me for it, and the response from other editors who were aware of the situation was a distinct "meh"—except for one who insisted that I must be up to something nefarious and demanded that I confess my true identity forthwith. (I did so, unaware that the policy specifically says I didn't have to, thereby connecting that IP address to my username, but my IP address has changed since then.) I'm interested to see what Mike V says about this, but he shouldn't be issuing blocks of this type without a more thorough understanding of the applicable policy.
I also have some exposure to Martinevans123, and I've found him to be a good-faith, reasonable, and trustworthy editor. The jury seems to be still out on some of this, but, unless Mike V can justify his action, Martinevans123 is due not only an immediate unblock, but an apology in this thread and a barnstar for his grace in accepting an unjust block. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I see that the accounts Muriel Nobbins (talk · contribs) and Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) edited the same article on the same day, here (though apparently not abusively), with the former apparently pretending to be a new user at User talk:Muriel Nobbins. That's the only overlap I can find. (I offer no comment on whether that should be disallowed.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the comments presented above, I can only concur that this block was punitive and unjustified. As soon as an official discussion commences, I will support his unblock. Zero^talk 09:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

He accepted his block, saying "See you in a month, then".[73] Not one edit since July 7. The "content creator" thing is sort of a red flag. A divisive approach. Much ado about nothing. Doc talk 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw this block and wasn't clear about the circumstances. For the sake of clarity, can someone expand on this? At the moment is is something of a guessing game, as it came out of the blue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123 is perfectly capable of posting an unblock request on his own talk page, as his talk page access appears to be fully enabled. Doc talk 10:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but the fact that he didn't doesn't mean he deserved the block. The issue is here now and under discussion per IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Righting a political wrong. I get it. Carry on... Doc talk 10:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't requested an unblock because that is up to Martin. If the block is related to the Muriel Nobbins (talk · contribs) incident, it would have been helpful to make this clear at the time of the block.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would Martin want to allow the blocking admin to have his jollies by publicly grovelling for an unblock? Some of us are wise enough to deny these block-happy people from having their kicks whilst at the same time, having a break away to enjoy and concentrate on more important things. We need Martin more than he needs us. Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's no point in continuing the speculation, and it's now the weekend. We need to wait for Mike V to chime in. If he doesn't within 48 hours, enact WP:ADMINACCT and ask Arbcom to review the block. Anyone prematurey unblocking will get their fingers burned in a wheelwar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wheelwarring would apply to the third action, not the unblocking/reversal. Admins unblocking a checkuser block without consulting a checkuser or arbcom risk summararily being desysopped. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Folks, can I suggest that as we do not know what led to this block, none of us in in a position to judge whether it was a good or a bad one? From my position of ignorance, I certainly don't consider myself sufficiently informed to offer a judgment, and I don't see how anybody else can be either. So, how about we give User:Mike V (who is probably on a different time zone judging by his posting record) a chance to respond rather than all going off half-cocked? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  But of course. I'm personally far less than half cocked, whatever that means, unless it's some reference to the size of my sexual apparatus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Mandruss, I believe half-cocked is referring to the cocking of a gun. It means going off before you have all available information, as I recall. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you. I totally agree that this should be suspended pending Mike V's response. Hell, collapse it temporarily if that will help. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, Wiktionary to the rescue! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

So this was locked down before Mike V could come and explain his blocking? Why? Does that mean he can give out what looks like a bad block without being accountable? Talk about a lack of transparency. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lugnuts. As WP:CHECKUSER states, "The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run." This thread was a legitimate questioning of the CU, the block, the length of the block, and the claim that Martinevans123 had engaged in "block evasion". This thread, which was filed by an admin, in good faith, and was indeed serving a useful purpose, needs to be re-opened so that we may hear from the blocking admin. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I certainly think Mike V deserves a right of reply before we close this, unless we move discussion to his talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I was about to post a response of disagreement, I was under the impression that this was closed till MikeV had a chance to respond, I see now that it was closed to prevent discussion without a CU or arb endorsement. I think this thread was indeed opened to challenge a block, therefore, as SoftLavender points out, the onus is on the CU to explain their action. Closing this thread serves the purpose of allowing the complaint to be dismissed, that, I think, is not an acceptable response. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And never mind all that, the close was more than a little capricious considering that at least two admins participated in the discussion without saying anything about it being prima facie inappropriate. I'm re-opening on that basis and the above unanimous agreement. As I said above, I wouldn't see anything wrong with a temporary collapse, which is a different animal from a close. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: MikeV recently gave me a cry-uncle-or-suffer-my-wrath block (immediately overturned, I might add). I too have never been able to understand what this block was about; the community deserves some explanation. That ME123 doesn't wish to demean himself with the customary unblock-request groveling means nothing except that he has some self-respect. EEng 12:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all. A check was initially performed because I noticed that there was some disruption occurring from some IP addresses. (Disruptive editing and block evasion) The check revealed that these contributions belonged to Martinevans123. I then checked Martinevans123's account and found that there were further issues, including logging out to make disruptive comments and contributing to the same discussion (!vote stacking). The edits would connect IP addresses to accounts and I cannot provide that information to the community as per the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information, which requires me to follow the access to nonpublic information policy. Mike V • Talk 17:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a very strong accusation to make at such a longstanding editor, and I am not letting you make those accusations without a shred of evidence. Meanwhile I've got an email from Martin (which I can't go into in depth as I don't leak confidential emails) who flat out denies some (but not all) accounts on that list are anything to do with him. Do you want Arbcom to check this out, because frankly I don't believe a word of what you say. And even if it were true, did you need to block such a prolific editor for a month? Will you be addressing Keith Emerson's GA review? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, I think you pinged me, and I'm slowly working my way down. I know Martinevans, and his terrible sense of humor (my talk page is full of it, and I think him for it), and that he is a way more than just positive contribur; I also know Mike V, and while I personally like Mike D just a tad better, Mike V doesn't really pull shit like this without a really, really good reason. I'm just pausing here with this gratuitous remark to say that you can't fault him for not revealing privacy-sensitive information if you can't counter them because it's privacy-sensitive information. Let's all just cool down, realize that the world is not on fire (at least not this world), and figure it out. If ArbCom needs to get involved, I'm sure they're watching. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can I suggest that at this juncture, Mike V has told us all he is (presumably) willing and able to tell us; so it is purely procedural that his case should be heard by his peers. There is no alternative to ArbCom now, if only because, without their justifying his judgement there could always be a cloud over it. So it is clearly in his own interests to present his case and reignite the community's faith in him. After all, there he can go into the details the community is forbade. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It would be very good to have other CUs and Arbcom evaluate this. GAB^gab 20:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), DoRD (talk · contribs) and Materialscientist (talk · contribs) to ask if they might be interested in reviewing this. GAB^gab 21:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to ping Drmies and Opabinia regalis, who have checkuser rights but also know how to write articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Only because I was pinged am I commenting at all. I will not review Mike V's block as I see no basis for doing so. If someone wants to get Arbcom involved, that's their privilege, but it would be better and more usual for it come from the blocked editor. Finally, some of the attacks against Mike V are absolutely uncalled for.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• With the caveat that I haven't looked into the actual block at all:
  • Yes, arbcom is a good place to review this, and yes, ideally the request would come from Martin himself, if only to be sure we're all on the same page regarding which particular claims he disputes. Since we're already three weeks in on a one-month block, there's a real chance that nothing would happen till it expires anyway, though of course that wouldn't preclude review.
  • If arbcom accepts an appeal, that isn't "a cloud" over the original block, and shouldn't be interpreted as saying it was wrong or illegitimate or bad judgment or whatever. Sometimes it's because there's new information, sometimes it's just different people coming to different conclusions about the same data.
  • Ritchie333, I appreciate your robust defense of productive editors. But Bbb23 is right, the rhetoric in this thread (not just yours) is over the top. In particular, the OP says "without a shred of evidence" when I take it you mean "without public evidence". Although it can be frustrating to onlookers, that's a feature, not a bug :) If Martin wants to appeal then we can discuss the evidence in detail in private. Remember, nothing good ever happens at ANI! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mike V, I accept you had good reason to perform the CU and the block. However, since Martinevans123 had not previously been blocked since 2011, there was no current "block evasion", so can you please remove that claim from the block notice, unless you found block evasion between 17 August 2011 and 19 November 2011? Ritchie333, there's no need to go into a PA tizz every time an article review is disrupted by a block. There are plenty of people who can assist with a review, and also, even though there are timeframes for GA reviews, there is no rush on Wikipedia. As others have stated, you are welcome to take this to RFAR if you so choose. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• If Martinevans got one of his IPs blocked, and continued to edit from another, that is block evasion. People have to stop expecting complete transparency here - for MikeV to actually provide enough transparency to prove his actions were valid, he would have to compromise Martin's privacy. That is why there are options available for Martin to have his block reviewed in private, if he so chooses. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not ask for "complete transparency". I asked for some sort of confirmation that there was actual block evasion. If it was a scenario such as you described, or the scenario I described, or some other, I would like to hear a confirmation and/or non-privacy-breaching explanation from Mike V rather than speculations from other people. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Any confirmation regarding the exact sequence of events only makes it easier for people to trawl edit and block histories to figure out which IPs belonged to Martin. You should start expecting nothing at all. If you want a checkuser's actions reviewed, you have to ask arbcom. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What an absolute shitshow of cluelessness. You can't teach people to "have a clue". Seriously. Doc talk 06:34, 31 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

IP User 68.224.250.108 (talk · contribs) 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 was 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).

This user has begun making these changes again without participating in talk dialogue and continues to be problematic. Relisting for Administrative Review again; previous closed with no action by Drmies as it seemed the user relented. I added the new diff below (Diff 5). Dane2007 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 Diff 5

I checked their contributions and found this. While I've never seen these Conjuring movies, this source confirms that the movie is in development and was wrongfully removed from the article. I've reverted the vandalism and given them another warning (their fourth one this month) for vandalism. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Poodleboy at The Heartland Institute

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

---

Poodleboy (talk · contribs) is pushing their original research on the talk page Talk:The Heartland Institute. See the sections

Talk:The Heartland Institute#The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change

Talk:The Heartland Institute#It does no such thing -Stephen Schulz

Talk:The Heartland Institute#Replacement/correction of the 1st statement of the global warming section, the lead may also have to be changed

There's other sections too there where they've discussed other matters in the Heartland Institute article and always with their own thought rather than using sources and they stick in their thoughts into the article if people stop responding to the OR.

I have warned them about WP:Original Research a large number of times and explained as best I can why what they are doing is completely wrong as far as Wikipedia is concerned but they just continue on using the place as a soapbox for their ideas. There's been the same behavior at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change as well. [74] was my warning about OR on their user page..

I have asked them a couple of times if there is any dispute resolution process they will accept the result of but they evade the question.

[75]

[76]

Could something be done to stop this disruption thanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq has been unable to explain what is WP:OR about the proposed text. All my edits have proper sources, but sometimes it just proper representation of existing sources, so new sources aren't needed. I've given Dmcq several opportunities to try to explain how the proposed text is WP:OR, and have been responsive to each of his attempts. The text he is calling WP:OR is well sourced, as he should know because we have parsed the source in detail. It is rather deceptive of him to imply it isn't, because I went to a lot of work to make it easy to use by quoting the relevant text in the reference. Shame on Dmcq. Poodleboy (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This has gone beyond being a content dispute. If the Heartland Institute wanted to say something they would make it reasonably obvious, they are very well versed in getting their agenda across. You analysed their page and then said something that they did not say. There is no indication either they or an outside secondary source would agree with what you say. That page is also not a secondary source nor is it referred to by some secondary source, you just found it on their web. OR requires opinions to come from secondary sources. The implication of your proposed change would be to say something practically directly opposite to what secondary sources say. The survey you mentioned does not mention the Heartland Institute, that web page on the Heartland Institute is the only link to the survey. The purpose of the web page was to rubbish the survey not to say anything about the Heartland Institute itself. It does not give the survey or the opinions of the Heartland Institute any weight in the article. There's so many things wrong you should have stopped ages ago. It is pure original research soapboxing and disruption. Dmcq (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the first clear statement of the issues you have with the proposed edit, who wrote it for you? Would you like to discuss it on the talk page, because there are several points I would dispute.Poodleboy (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have the strong suspicion that every editor who has interacted with you already knows that you like to dispute a lot of things. I can imagine few who still like to discuss them with you. I've not seen any meeting of minds in the discussion at all - as I said, I suspect you use a language that suspiciously looks like English, but has a very different semantics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That probably is the case on WP:OWN pages where the believers are intent on preserving an attack or negative characterization. Success can usually only be obtained by parsing things down to the point where a contradiction or obvious ignoring of wikipedia's declared goals is evident. There was however a recent pleasant experience at Peter Gleick where some reasonable person eventually did see the importance of attention to detail. Sometimes it takes only one. Application of reason often requires reaching an agreement on definitions and the values or standards being applied. On science related topics it can require the ability to parse technical literature. regards. Poodleboy (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been lots of discussion already many other people have contributed. No-one has agreed with you. I asked you twice if there was a way of resolving this and ending the dispute where there was a possibility you did not get what you wanted. That statement is just a request to end this discussion at ANI and continue on as before. This has gone beyond being a content dispute. I would now like to leave it to Admins to suggest a better path. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Note in your new statement you did not detail how the secondary sources contradicted the specifics that are at issue with the Heartland Institute. Are you sure? Their words have meaning yet may not be specific enough to be meaningful in the current context. If they are doing anything more than expressing a negative opinion, then that opinion should be openly attributed. And you accuse me of not citing sources. Poodleboy (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to aggressively pushing WP:OR in preference to reliance on secondary sources, Poodleboy also is prone to disparaging other editors -- see the sarcastic "who wrote it for you?" in this very thread. Just a couple of other examples are "if you can't parse this, you shouldn't be editing or voting on scientific articles" (in reference to another editor's failure to follow a rather convoluted justification for his OR) and "the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail has nothing on you", which at least was somewhat witty. These are by no means isolated examples -- if this goes to WP:AE or something, plenty more are available. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ]

Poodleboy Blocked two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hopefully things will be a bit more constructive and collaborative after that. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Wiki vj20 and the Mehdi Hasan article

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

---

Intermittently for some time User:Wiki vj20 has inserted third-party claims from twitter that the journalist Mehdi Hasan is of Pakistani descent. Hasan has written and tweeted that he is of Indian heritage, but this is insufficient for this user. Wiki vj20 has repeated refused to take Hasan's comments in good faith, on the article's talk page and in the edit summaries, coming up with original research to dispute Hasan. Please look into this issue as soon as possible. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have started in December of last year. His first edits there didn't change his ethnicity but placed a tag? stating that is was self-claimed. Which, in all honestly, the fuck? who would go around saying they belong to one ethnicity when in fact they belong to another. I count a total of eight edit, mostly disruptive for this period, it's a slow burning and long running edit-war as far as I can tell. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal. EEng 17:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can anybody explain, why this is not considered "self serving". As per WP:BLPSELFPUB #1 self-publishing is (only) allowed if "it is not unduly self-serving;"? The claim on ethnicity is a key credibility criterion on which basis Mehdi Hasan's work as a journalist are predicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki vj20 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you EEng To spell out for Mr rnddude " who would go around saying they belong to one ethnicity when in fact they belong to another." one such example is Rachel Dolezal. There is no independent source to establish his Indian ethnicity, it can be changed to "unknown" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki vj20 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I took a look at the article and found that the claim that Hasan is of Indian descent is backed up by an article that Hasan has written, where he self-identifies as being of Indian origin, and says that both of his parents were born in India. So from what I can see there's nothing to discuss here, he's Indian. Period. (And Rachel Dolezal has nothing to do with this...). Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:The assertion "he is Indian. period" is again being sourced through one source, that is the subject himself.

Yes, she does. The question was asked, "Who would go around saying they belong to one ethnicity when in fact they belong to another?", and she's the answer. EEng 19:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: No, she doesn't. Mentioning her was relevant only as an answer to the question in the post preceding yours, but not relevant to this discussion as a whole, since we're not investigative journalists but an encyclopaedia that reports what reliable sources say. And the subject of an article self-identifying in a reliable source is accepted as proof for nationality, ethnicity, religion etc in BLPs here. Thomas.W ^talk 19:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so now you want to distinguish whether a question asked and answered five posts ago is relevant the discussion as a whole, or someone's question, or whatever. Jeesh, can you just let a question be asked and answered, and leave it at that? Crikey. EEng 19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither the question asked nor your reply to it is relevant to the discussion here, which is the repeated insertion of insufficiently sourced content on a BLP. Third-party claims on Twitter are never enough to support a claim about someone's nationality, especially in a case like this when the source for the nationality currently in the article is a published source where the subject of the article self-identifies as being of another nationality... Thomas.W ^talk 19:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Dozel is clearly an example of a person who took on the ethnicity that was unduly self-serving despite being inaccurate. Mehdi Hasan claim that he is Indian and his parents are Indian are self-serving considering he is a journalist covering the Indian sub-continent. Can Thomas.W or Mr rnddude or Philip Cross please answer why this cannot be changed to "unknown". There is absolutely ZERO objective source that he is Indian. Also can anyone please clarify why this self-identification as "Indian" is not considered self-serving.

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

User:Toto11zi

User User:Toto11zi has been disrupting the talk page for Philippines v. China with personal attacks, and by responding to comments by editors they disagree with that are either irrelevant or based on clear misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. Often, the comments involve simply repeating talking-points that had already been addressed. This appears to be an attempt to filibuster proposed changes Toto11zi does not like.

Toto11zi accused me of vandalism for removing disputed content [77]. Another editor pointed out that per WP:ONUS it's adding, not removing, disputed content that requires consensus, Toto11zi responded by claiming incorrectly that "the main idea of WP:ONUS is consensus" [78] (see also [79]).

Toto11zi also argued the deleted material had been on the page a "long time" (in this case, two months, as far as I can tell). Multiple editors pointed out problems with this argument (including the fact that it would justify preserving a hoax that had initially gone undetected), but Toto11zi continued using this argument when they created an entire new section devoted to personally attacking me. [80] Though that section has since been closed, I strongly recommend admins read the section in full (CTRL+F for "offtopic bickering"), as it's a pretty good example of Toto11zi completely refusing to accept guidance from other editors.

Yesterday, I made a last-ditch effort to get Toto11zi to read the relevant Wikipedia policies by posting on their talk page [81]. Toto11zi responded [82][83] primarily by linking to things they had previously posted on the talk page—claims whose problems had already been explained pretty clearly by the other editors.

More examples of Toto11zi apparently attempting to filibuster discussion, by repeating talking points without adding anything to the discussion (often after the argument had been addressed by other editors):

• Question begging statements about "reliable information", that assumed disputed information was reliable without engaging with arguments as to whether it was reliable or not.[84][85][86][87]
• Invocations of "common sense".[88][89]
• Saying "I don't agree with you" without further explanation.[90][91]
• Claiming six editors agree with them, and ignoring questions about who those editors are.[92][93]

Finally, as an example of the ongoing disruption Toto11zi is causing on the talk page: since the section attacking me was closed, activity on the article's talk page has centered around a series of baffling arguments Toto11zi has made regarding Fiji, starting here [94] (again, entire thread is worth reading, to see how Toto11zi interacts with other editors). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs)

As I explained here (Go to almost end of page, then search for section "Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus") with facts, this newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus. He deleted dramatically and blindly information from from the Wikipedia page which is violation of our both established explicit consensus and implict consensus. Experienced editors have explained this in details to him regarding how sources can be used on the page here. Toto11zi (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe Chris Hallquist has abused this noticeboard board since his violation has been clearly written, I put it here also so editors are clear about his violation of the Wikipedia policy:

Let me explain this with facts in details:

Our original/current consensus for the International Reactions (Before the ruling) section has been to include the information from both China and the Philippines (their media, government, public officials) proposed by the page originator Hariboneagle927. And that explicit consensus was reached among major editors including myself, the relocation part is not reaching consensus yet. Discussion and conclusion can be found here

This newly activated account from a dormant account Chris Hallquist (talk · contribs) violated our established consensus by promoting his own agenda in the following ways:

1. He deleted all the information from China's Foreign Ministry, China's main media and various Chinese sites and claimed the support information from those sites including China's Foreign Ministry is not reliable, he violated our consensus already established, we rely information from both Philippine and Chinese governments. Certainly he did not read our established consensus on this Talk page, he did not discuss first before he removed blindly and dramatically all the information. More information regarding his actions can be found here, also here

2. Then he's promoting his own criteria for the section here

The table/group issue has been discussed before in various places on this Talk page, we even considered to use the same format AMTI used, but there're issues. Here's discussion, also here

The conclusion of all this is unless we establish a new consensus for this section, we will stick with the original consensus for this particular section. Without new explicit consensus, reverting this section in order to promote one's agenda or new criteria is considered disruptive. Editors may propose a change to the current consensus, however, proposing to change a recent consensus can be considered disruptive.

Since Chris Hallquist (talk · contribs) is a new editor joining this complex topic discussion, he might not know our consensus which has already been established in this before he joined. Toto11zi (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I also believe Chris Hallquist has abused this noticeboard board in the following case (SPA_and_likely_sock_puppet_Toto11zi) he filed: [95] Toto11zi (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Toto, you obviously have a very strong pro-China slant. I'd suggest you step back from the article for a while and cool off.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi, can you provide any evidence that the alleged "consensus" existed, beyond "trust me, I've been editing the article longer than Chris has"? Also, for editors new to this controversy, when I began editing the article, I did talk about the changes on the talk page—see "Use of Xinhuanet as a source" and "General problems with sources on this page". The issues I raised had previously been raised by other editors in the sections on Venezuela, Fiji, and Poland, but not as far as I can tell discussed extensively. See also "Use of Chinese government sources in International Reactions section", started by another editor later on and which shows fairly strong consensus in favor of my position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Your violation has been clearly stated in "Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus" Toto11zi (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to point out that Chris Hallquist lied about the section "Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus"

Chris Hallquist wrote: "since the section attacking me was closed", that section contains only facts of his violation of Wikipedia policy, based on his comments, he admittedly implicitly his violation. I had been warning him many times that removing dramatically/blindly information from the Wikipedia page needs discussion. I've also told that "Without new explicit consensus, reverting this section in order to promote one's agenda or new criteria is considered disruptive".

Chris hallquist also lied here, he said he would only delete information from Xinhua.net, but he deleted more than he said, I've already explained in here. here Toto11zi (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

---

User Qed237 (talk · contribs) many times canceled my edits at 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round.

Website UEFA made a mistake. In fact Budnik scored goal. But the report is misspelled. I corrected this mistake. I specified information from the official website Dinamo, independent sources [96][97], wrote a link to the video. The above video is completely proves my point (It can be seen that the number 9 scored goal; Eugene Budnik has number 9). But Qed237 does not agree with my arguments.Roman Minsk (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? The editor want to impose a change against the current matchreport, which is the official matchreport from UEFA (the governing body of the tournament). This is what effect all official stats for the tournament and is a WP:RS. All I did was to tell the editor to go to the article talkpage to find consensus per WP:BRD as the article is currently correct according to its official sources so changes should be discussed first. Qed237 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I brought proof that your official source has a mistake. You refer to the website of UEFA. You have no more evidence. What did you want to discuss? And you 4 times canceled my edits (3RR). Roman Minsk (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The article talk page is a red link. Why didn't you take it to the talk page as you were told to do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, other than the 3RR, of which both of them are guilty of. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reported them both for edit warring over at WP:AN3. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid wait, you're counting their first edit to the article as a revert? Although I agree with the rest of it since there's been zero attempt at dispute resolution. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mr rnddude, not anymore. That was a mistake on my part, and I've removed it from the report on AN3. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, they were both edit-warring for their preferred versions, no attempt at dispute resolution, I do note that Qed237 requested that the discussion be taken to the talk page, something they could have done themselves and then pinged Roman Minsk of the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, whether they mentioned that or not, they still violated 3RR. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I brought all their arguments on the user's talkpage. But he did not hear me. He repeats that UEFA are tournament organizers and their report are the official report. Discussion on the article talk page would not bring results. I canceled only 2 of his edits. I did it for displaying the correct data in the article. What is my fault? Roman Minsk (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Minsk: WP:3RR doesn't just apply when you hit "undo". It applies whenever you've undone another editor's actions. As the rule says, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: You talk about this edit 23:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)? Roman Minsk (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Roman Minsk, I'm talking about that one. However, remember that I'm not an administrator and do not have final say in the decision. If you and Qed237 are blocked (which, if it happens, will likely be just for 24 hours), both of you will be able to appeal to be unblocked. Also, I'm currently adding a comment to both reports mentioning the talk on his talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have fulfilled the requirement of Qed237 (And you have a source for that? 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)). I wrote the reliable sources. This can not be regarded as an attempt to cancel the edit. Roman Minsk (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Even though you provided a source (which may or may not be WP:RS—I haven't checked), you both still edit-warred, and you still fully reverted someone else's edit. It's up to an uninvolved admin (I'm not uninvolved, nor am I an admin) to decide what to do now. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237 and Roman Minsk: Do you want blocks for both of you or do you want to start discussing on the article's talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: As I said repeatedly both at my talkpage and in the edit summary (the other editor refused to listen), this is something that should be discussed at the article talkpage and not my talkpage to get input from more editors. Per WP:BRD he should open that discussion instead of constantly trying to insert his material as he is he editor who wants to introduce a change against the official matchreport. I am all for a discussion in the correct place. Qed237 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Qed237 this is something you could have started yourself, you could of opened the article talk page posted a comment and pinged Roman Minsk to alert him of your starting the discussion. I recognize that you mentioned that a discussion needed to be held on the article talk page in your edit summaries and on your talk page, but, this in no way precluded you from starting it. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is a bit of a daft dispute. The video clearly shows No.9, Budnik, scoring the goal (it's No.7, Bykov, who actually provides the assist), and the UEFA page is therefore incorrect. I suspect a number of other sources have taken their information from the UEFA page. But there are also a number of very reliable sources showing the correct goalscorer - Sporting Life Sky Sports and more importantly Dinamo's own website - I suspect they're probably reliable as to which of their own players scored. I'd say that's enough to change the information. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there any circumstance in soccer where the guy who physically kicked the ball into the goal would not be credited with the goal, but rather someone else would? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • One, when it bounces of the goal keeper and is in that case an own goal, that's the only situation I can think of. In all cases, whoever touched the ball last, is considered to have scored the goal. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm confused about that too -- in the video, one guy made the long kick, and then the other guy deflected it into the goal. So who actually "scored" the goal? Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The goal is scored by the last attacking player to touch the ball (in this case the #9). If a defender/goalkeeper touches the ball last, but it is considered that the ball would have entered the goal even without their intervention, the goal is credited to the attacking player (like this case where the goalkeeper gets a small touch on the already goalbound shot). Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
        • If the stats folks for the league have something that appears to be clearly wrong, someone in-the-know should contact the league and ask about it. And I concur that all of this should be moved to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gestrid: Do not report people at WP:ANEW unless you have first done all of the following: (1) opened a discussion on the talk page of the affected article, (2) Given them a user-talkpage warning of edit-warring (3) observed that they continued reverting after that user-talkpage warning. Also, do not report anyone at WP:ANEW when there is an ongoing discussion about them on ANI or AN. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well... I would agree with not adding ANEW reports if an ANI report is open, and that the ANEW reports in this case were not needed, but the first three points preclude uninvolved editors reporting habitual edit warriors who should know better. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither of them are habitual edit warriors, and in addition Gestrid needs to know not to jump from warning to reporting without any intervening reverts by the editor. In addition, Roman Minsk has only made less than 70 edits on Wikipedia articles, and apparently does not know that the place to discuss differences of opinion is on the article talk page, not a user's talk page. Someone needed to help him out and open the discussion for him, which Kinetic37 just did. Can we close this thread now? As everyone has acknowledged, it's just a content dispute, and the filer didn't know how to correctly resolve it. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has very sensibly opened a talk page discussion. Can we please continue the discussion there and use some common sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Dr.saze going crazy again, need an admin to revert his page moves

Dr.saze (talk · contribs) is now on a spree of moving his talk page. These moves need an admin to revert. And he needs a stiff block for this current round of DE (for which he has already been blocked once [98]). Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I can't even give him the ANI notice because his talk page is no longer his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved his TP back, someone else will have to follow up other alleged DE since I'm going out. BethNaught (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in the previous ANI, this is smelling even more like a returning or blocked troll bent on destruction. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Note also that after being blocked and warned for adding unnecessary AFI nomination info to articles that didn't need it, he went right back to doing that at warp speed after his previous block expired on July 15: [99]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry about this, but I must infrom you that some editors have already appreciated my (according to you baseless) editing. And this fill-up will help all the film fans. Dr.saze (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Did someone say fans? EEng 15:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Some editors? Who? There's not a single note of appreciation on your talk page (although there are numerous warnings which you have continued to ignore), and you've received exactly one "thanks" via notification [100], from Rms125a@hotmail.com, but it's not possible for third-party editors to tell what that was for. Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I wish I could find out for which edit I thanked him. I don't knowingly give encouragement to vandals or trolls, so I guess whatever edit I thanked him for is akin to that old jibe, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day". Quis separabit? 16:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to request that SchroCat look into this as well, as he had repeatedly warned the editor not to add the AFI nominations. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about the AFI nominations, but the change of Little Johnny Jones (film) to Little Johnny Jones (1929 film) looks like it was to distinguish from Little Johnny Jones (1924 film), if such an article were to be written. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not the move in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But it got reverted nonetheless. As to the moving of the talk page, I assume he wrote the article as his talk page and then moved it, which is not the recommended way. Instead, he should have created a sub-folder - or, just created the article as an article to begin with! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. He moved his entire talk page to "Little Johnny Jones (film)": [101]. --Softlavender (talk)

Well, that was a stupid thing to do - as he admitted here.[102] But he did eventually create a "Little Johnny Jones (film)" article, for what it's worth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Softlavender on this: there is something decidedly wrong about this editor. Assuming GF and that this is not a returning editor, I've previously tried to point out some basic errors (in terms of formatting, etc), but the editor doesn't seem to want to listen to what I or anyone else has to say, which never augers well for a collegiate editing atmosphere. It's a poor way to crowbar information into an article, but they don't seem to want to listen or learn how it should be done properly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And I noticed that his user page redirects to Deep in the Heart of Texas (film). Something's definitely out of whack here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That was another page move. I seem to remember a user page shouldn't redirect to main space, so I've taken the redirect out. (If I've misremembered that piece of guideline, Dr.saze can revert). - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Mainspace redirecting to a User page seems much more troublesome than the reverse. It may be this that is prohibited. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's having mainspace redirect to outside of mainspace that's the prohibited one, but as this redirect was left over from a page move then it makes sense to remove it anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal from Santiago, Chile

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

---

IP changed dates on A Puro Dolor and Son by Four without providing a source. See the long-term abuse for the IP. Erick (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked one month. Haven't seen this guy around for a while, but maybe I've been looking in all the wrong places. Katie^talk 15:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal for Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own

Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been actively socking since being blocked for VOA in April, with 47 confirmed and 54 suspected sockpuppets. Their editing patterns show a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, and I thinked they should be banned as a formality. Their disruption patterns include addition of inappropriate toilet humour, in new articles and usernames; creation of pages that attack admins; personal attacks on other users through talk page messages, edit summaries, usernames and obscene unblock requests; vandalism on their SPI and page blanking. Linguist 111 ^talk 17:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Obviously. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support No argument here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support as a formality. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Now that I have had black and white, night and day, the living and the dead explained to me, endorse this proposal. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)