Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

E.M.Gregory's latest actions[edit]

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) 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'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 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 '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, is Bell Canada so it isn't me and there is no obvious similarity in the writing styles. Sockpuppet allegations should not be made without strong evidence and a formal WP:SPI, otherwise they are just a way of badgering the user.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Respond. From my perspective, 2016 Ramadan attacks is an ordinary sort of article, similar to 2015 Ramadan attacks and in a sort of category with 2000 millennium attack plots; 2015 New Year's attack plots; Rizal Day bombings; 1919 United States anarchist bombings. I was surprised that it was brought to AFD, very surprised that the grounds were OR and SYNTH since the article was based on solid sources and other editrs had immediately started to help build it [3]. I only just now realized that the IP who showed up [4] and blanked material related to well-sourced 2016 Hamas calls for Ramadan attacks was the IP discussed above. Nevertheless I was genuinely surprised, not shocked, just surprised when ParsleyMan started the AFD. Parsley, as you will see from my occassional comments on his talk page, has been hounding me almost from the time he began editing, with what I then described on his talk page as unusual familiarity with Wikipedia and its rules for a new editor. Here: [5] is one of several complaints I have posted on his talk page. I am far from the sole editor to have posted such complaints on his page. His response has been to intensify his WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me. His behavior towards me meets the textbook definition of WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." The discussion "Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing" on his talk page on Feb. 16-19, 2016 documents his behavior, and another editor weighs in to advise him to stop. I wish he would. Stop. Instead, he lurks, reading all of my thousands of edits and bringing me here when I, very occasionally, lose my temper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, about the recent edit on his talk page: [6]. I not infrequently suggest to editors who have started AFD discussions unlikely to lead to deletion that they change their opinions where, as here, the sourcing becomes overwhelmingly strong (usually as a result of WP:HEY - it saves a great deal of editorial time when editors do so. As for my other suggestion, I give charity regularly, and it is my routing custom to sent to a medical charity when a particularly distressing terror attack occurs. I find that it alleviates the horror, and, given ParselyMan's emotional involvement with these issues, I sincerly thought it might relieve his stress. I am more than a little surprised that my suggestion that he follow such a common practice elicited such a negative response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This edit was a sincere suggestion meant in good faith? If you sincerely believe that, I strongly suggest you consider reading about etiquette and tone in communication. To me and other folks here, it was an insincere, assholish thing to do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think you could've worded the message way better than that if you were really trying to be sincere. It doesn't help that that was literally the first post you made right after you explained your vote to keep the 2016 Ramadan attacks article. "The graceful thing to do now would be to reverse your opinion"? With that timing, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were thinking your vote was all it took to justify keeping the article and that you were trying to force me to withdraw my nomination. Parsley Man (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

To User:Parsley Man, in my opinion there is no action to be taken. And the issues have been addressed, in that this ANI proceeding happened, in which you criticized E.M. Gregory and you obtained support from others who also found fault. All of this is punishment delivered to E.M.G. I have been there in both roles: I have been pilloried here at ANI with people chiming in negatively and I experienced that as the punishment it was intended to be. And I have been here with a legitimate complaint or two or three and found that no one was taking any action when I felt it was darn sure that something should be done. Here there is nothing so darn sure. What you and others seem to focus on most as somehow horrible is that E.M.G. suggested at your Talk page you retract your AFD, just after they argued Keep in the article. That diff has been given three or more times above. I think that the kind of suggestion EMG made is perfectly reasonable and I believe I have done that. When I think the article should be kept, and when I think the AFD nominator can also see that the nomination was not justified (or at least the situation is not like they thought), and when nudging them on to do the right thing can get them to withdraw it. That would cut short the drama of AFD which in general a negative experience, and it would save other editors' time. Obviously you are sensitive and did not interpret EMG's suggestion as a polite nudge to go ahead and do the right thing. You find it foreign and interpret it to mean something it did not, in my opinion. EMG's suggestion to withdraw was followed by suggestion to make a donation, which is unusual, and I can see that you could wonder what was meant by that. Another here said they interpreted that as sarcasm. EMG has replied they earnestly meant it, and that is what I then believe. Assume some good faith here, and wouldn't EMG have gone on with sarcasm if they had meant the first to be sarcasm?
I think this ANI proceeding should be closed. There certainly is no evidence adding up to requiring any negative action; at most one or two or more persons could be advised to be careful how they say things and/or be careful how they interpret things. But if no one who regularly closes things here wants to take it on (because it takes some effort to give a good summary and smooth things over where things should be smoothed), I think it is also okay to just let this fade away without a formal close. Parsley Man made their complaints, they were heard. --doncram 03:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Bless you, Doncram. (I am not certain if this is appropriate, but when I heard about last evening's atrocity, I made a donation to a fund for victims. It relieves the horror better than getting irate on Wikipedia does.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Uh...since when did I start thinking the AfD I started was not justified, or that it wasn't turning out like what I had thought it would? I have absolutely no intention on withdrawing the AfD and will wait until a decision to delete or keep the article is made. Parsley Man (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

  • I stand behind my behavior in writing and and continuing to edit each of the 3 articles mentioned. As MSJapan's accusation that I had a personal grudge against Matthew C. Whitaker; it is quite simply false. I have had no contact with Whitaker, his institution or this case, which I read about in the news. I do regard plagiarism as "unprofessional behavior." My error, my first contact with MSJapan, was when, as a still very inexperienced editor leaning the WP lingo by cutting and pasting code from the edits of other editors, I somehow managed to mess up a comment made by MSJapan that I was merely attempting to copy some phrasing from. I apologized as soon as the mistake was called to my attention. She has been flinging accusations at me ever since, on the Whitaker page and on others. Once she brought my editing of Matthew Whitaker to this board; no sanctions were imposed. Her accusations about the IKEA stabbing attack are equally false. This was a stabbing by "Eritrean asylum seekers" my edits are there; I consistently described them as "Eritrean asylum seekers" precisely because that was all that was known about them at the time. You can read my edits. As far as I can tell, her claim that I was supporting a "white supremacist" is a badly garbled account of the fact that I added news reports about an uptick in support for the Christian Democrats (Sweden) and comments made by the deputy speaker of the Swedish parliament, Björn Söder in the wake of the Ikea stabbing attack in a section on "Impact". This was early in the refugee crisis, I was in and out of Sweden and other parts of the continent last summer, watching the migrant crisis develop with astonished fascination, and wrote and edited a number of articles on aspects of it (Hungarian border barrier). In the Ikea stabbing attack article, as with the 2016 Ramadan attacks that launched this discussion, feelings run high, different editors perceive these events very differently, tempers flare, and editors fling accusations. I trust that the closing editor here will read the personal attacks against me made at the 2016 Ramadan attacks AFD (some by editors commenting above,) the intemperate accusations flung by MSJapan on the talk page at Matthew G. Whitaker, and the talk page and edits at 2015 IKEA stabbing attack before rendering judgment. As I said, I am human and I do make mistakes, but MSJapan's description is highly colored.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't what I was talking about at all in respect to those articles, and I had in fact forgotten about your "behavior" on Whitaker - you didn't "mess up a quote", you attempted to associate me with the article topic by editing talk page material and then accused me of sockpuppetry by being the subject of the article. Your "uptick in support" in the IKEA article wasn't supported by sources - you put it in there to make a connection that simply wasn't there. The fact that you were in Sweden and have a heretofore undisclosed "fascination" with the topic might cause an objectivity issue, which seems to actually have been the case now that you've admitted it, again, well after the fact. I see that you've also become concerned enough to start posting apologetics on the talk page of the Whitaker article so nobody "misunderstands" you. Sanctions or not at a previous time are irrelevant - the behavior you are engaging in now is the same behavior you have always engaged in since you started editing here, and that is what is at issue here. Diverting it to specifics doesn't change the fact that you have a fairly lengthy record of doing exactly what it is you're being brought to ANI (once again) for doing. MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
sigh. I should perhaps mention that I have had cause to refute MSJapan for his tendency to misread, misinterpret or misunderstand WP policies, or, at least, to mis-cite them to win a debate or fling an accusation on talk pages and, especially, at AFD. For example, on that original Whitaker page she accused me of COI [7] I responded [8]. Today at an AFD for a "Murder of..." article, he wrote that "WP:BIO also indicates that we have to show notability prior to death" to which I responded [9]. I seem to recall that he has made similar assertions, and that I have called him on them, at 1 or 2 other AFD discussions in recent weeks; I cannot recall which discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A short defense of E.M.Gregory[edit]

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[edit]

  • Thank you, AnotherNewAccount. It is true that I have sometimes lost my cool, and also true that [[User:Parsley Man noticed this when it happens among thousands of edits because he follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, behavior for which he has been cautioned on his talk page by an editor with whom I an wholly unacquainted. [10]. Certainly, I do feel that I have been unduly harassed by editors who make little effort to be collegial. A particularly remarkable example of harassment was the nomination of 3 articles I was involved with for deletion by the editor who was the harassing me, for what I perceived as political reasons. One was an article that I had created 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, one was a SeaGlass Carousel (for speedy deletion), and the third was 2012 Paros (Greece) rape (an article I had happened on at AFD). At the AFD on the Route 60 ambush, Nom described the incident as having had "no lasting significance.' (Note that I wrote that article 12 years after the event; far more difficult than creating an article about a recent attack since sources disappear and become hard to find by searching (spellings of perps's name vary; keywords like "shooting" "Hamas" etc. are so common). Still after 12 years of stories in major international newspapers, the incident did seem to merit an article. My iVote to KEEP read: "*Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Again with the WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusation. Since when have I been hounding you? And really? The AfD nomination of 2016 Ramadan attacks was NOT for political reasons. Parsley Man (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you're not going to respond, then I'm just going to assume it's just an empty, unfounded accusation. On ANI, no less. Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Any editor who cares to, although I hardly see why a sane editor would, can compare your edits and mine. It's all on the record. You have been WP:HOUNDING me for well over a year, almost since the moment you began editing. Nearly every day, you follow me to a series of disparate pages just as you did today; [11], [12], [13], [14]. Sometimes, your edits are disruptive (I have complained about a fraction of these on your talk page.) Now you have dragged me to this page. Mostly, however, your HOUNDING edits are minute changes or improvements in an article I have just edited; they have the impact of making editing creepy and unpleasant; like being WP:STALKED. This is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I hate it. But you know that. We have fundamentally opposing perspectives on major issues, and I suppose that your purpose in WP:WIKIHOUNDING is to drive me off Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Taken straight from WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." In the examples you just provided, I don't see how my edits qualify as hounding.
Yes, I do follow you around, and yes, I guess my first "hound-edits" have been aggressive (I forget now). But I can say for sure that I dropped that attitude now. Everything I've been doing right now (such as in those examples) has just been constructive edits, if anything, and not anything direct such as undoing your edits or recklessly challenging you in edit summaries or on talk pages. All the recent hashing-out between me and you has been happening on this ANI as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure if my "constructive edits" imply something else to you, but if you feel there is some other implication, please specify, because I'm sure I didn't mean it.
But long story short, my recent edits have been nothing hound-like of the sort. Unless I'm literally not supposed to edit on any articles you've edited, are editing right now, or will edit (if Sir Joseph's contribution below is anything to go), in which case there's going to be a problem for me, because that potentially means locking me out of a lot of articles that fall under the mass murder and terrorism categories, possibly others. In other words, a topic ban. And I'm not sure if that's justified... Parsley Man (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This, [15] certainly seems like hounding to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The vast majority are in the same topic area, and current events articles (and associated discussions) mean quick edits from everyone. ansh666 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I know tht it is tedious to look through that long list of articles, I have the advantage of remembering them, and knowing how widely they vary: minor poets, scholars influential within in narrow fields, neo-fascist news sites, and Captain Video and his Video Rangers (don't ask). It is a long list, but if you look closely you see that it is a diverse and improbable list to have come randomly or natrually to two editors. Abovce I linked to an editor on Paarsley's talk page who noticed the pattern months ago and warned him to stop dogging my steps. But even with the "shooter" and terror attack articles, many of the ones he followed me to were small incidents or older pages, with few or no other active editors. In other words, we migh randomly have both shown up shown up at July 2016 Dhaka attack, but what are the odds that any two editors, even with an interest in mass killing attacks, would both show up (Murder of Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi AND also both show up in 2016 at 2006 UNC SUV attack, Norma Lee Clark, 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack? I mean , Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine...
To see how particular his pattern of following me to odd articles for no purpose is, however, please look at Tyler Anbinder, James Peddie (author), Rajan Menon,, 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! E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised this ANI discussion became more about me than about E.M. Maybe a new discussion should be started, since we're getting off-track. Parsley Man (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • But, enough about me. Parsely, let's talk about you. Why are you still hounding [16] me with trivial edits on pages just because I created them? What was it that you needed to delete on your UserPage? And, it's been ages since you first appeared, editing with an ease and aplomb that I have still not attained, prompting me to ask if you had ever edited under a prior name. Perhaps it's time ask that question again, since you never did give a straightforward yes/no answer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If you really want to talk about me, why don't you start another ANI discussion? This feels like a diversion from the ANI I started about you. At least keep the topics relevant and in their proper organization. Also, it's just trivial edits, as you say! Copyedits and fixing. It's not some AfD nomination or outright vandal edit! Is it really the act of simply editing articles you create that falls under WP:WIKIHOUNDING, without any indication of vandalism? Because if you think so, please read the definition I put up; it's completely unchanged and taken directly from the main page. And I can't resist the urge to bold the titles in the ledes, since you did not do so. Also, why should I tell you if I edited under a different account before? If you're really that suspicious, go use WP:SPI. Do whatever, but I'm not going to answer that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment on this and can say only that Parsley Man's decision to nominate 2016 Ramadan attacks for deletion was correct (not wikihounding) as it was based on policy. The article was deleted because it had WP:SYNTH problems.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If you really want to talk about me, why don't you start another ANI discussion? - I have advocated for that change, and gotten almost no support. The current community view is that two quarreling editors' behavior can't be evaluated separately and independently. For now, that's just the way it is if you open an ANI complaint, and it's pointless to demand otherwise for your case. ―Mandruss  14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, this feels like a diversion from the main topic at hand. Parsley Man (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing it always feels like that to the target individual. Matter of perspective. It's routine on this page for the defendant to try to "turn it around", and that's apparently how the community wants it. So be it. All you can do is try to defend yourself against the accusations. ―Mandruss  16:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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, 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 ([17] and [18]) 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. ([19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]) 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 [27]. Parsley followed me there [28].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)

Unwarranted reversion and failure to collaborate[edit]

Even with World War II, peace at last. The matter appears to have been resolved, and the parties have moved on to other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Why is this thread here? What are you looking to accomplish with it? Doc talk 08:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Carlotm, I think you mean citations since there are only two notes for the article. Currently there are four columns rather than five. Note, the call for a discussion is required especially for such a large and high profile article. Now, since this is a content dispute it doesn't belong at AN/I unless you can demonstrate that it is tied to behavioural issues. Follow the rules of WP:BRD, bold edit, if its reverted move on to discuss it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, here I am searching to know if reverting without cause and lack of a collaborative effort are unlawful or accepted/tolerated behaviors.Carlotm (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Carlotm The revert was not without cause, refer to WP:CITEVAR which recommends that you don't try to change the citation style without first consulting the talk page for discussion (especially on high traffic, high volume, and high profile pages). To quote CITEVAR; "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If there were errors in the references after Bgwhite reverted you, then those need to be fixed as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, surely you are aware that both <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> and {{sfn}} are used in the same short author-date citation style to solve two different situations, the former being necessary to bundle multiple short citations into a single footnote. In WWII page all the short citations used <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> markup even when it was not necessary and, as such, erroneous. My work was eminently about changing this erroneous, or if you will, inappropriate, because it consumes bytes for no reasons, situation. There was no change in citation style, rather a correction within the same citation style context. I even got thanks from Nick-D, who would not have done so if I had showed contempt for WP:CITEVAR. Carlotm (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry, Magioladitis, is not about content, is not about ref styles. As I already wrote, the question is if reverting without cause and demonstrating an unwillingness to collaborate are behaviors deemed to be celebrated or to be disapproved. Carlotm (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Carlotm "But it seems you don't care much about that" your presumption of bad faith here is the most worrying thing written on the talk page of the WWII article. Now you presume that Bgwhite refuses to collaborate because he asked that you have a plan of action before you try implementing it on the article and reach a consensus on whether this change is needed. Is it absolutely necessary to have wide consensus, no I don't think so if all it's doing is saving bytes of space then that ought to be fine without consensus, except that is not the only thing being changed as Bgwhite and Nick-D have noted. Taking Bgwhite to AN/I for this minor friction will go nowhere, no action is going to be taken because none can be taken. You haven't demonstrated that Bgwhite is unwilling to collaborate and you also haven't demonstrated that his reversion of your edits was needless, it introduced a few errors, fix them and then re-implement it. If Bgwhite reverts you again, take it to the talk page. If that fails, then get some outside opinion (Nick-D has already given theirs for example). If all else fails, then and only then bring it to AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

When people play with rules as they please, a “law and disorder” environment is privileged, and productivity goes down, down, down. Carlotm (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Coming to AN/I with any problem (justified or not) causes an immediate drop in productivity (for all involved). As far as the above discussion has illustrated, there has been no playing with the rules only playing by the rules. You made an edit, Bgwhite reverted on the grounds that it caused errors, and now we're here. Content dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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


Warning issued, some suggestion it may all have been weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable. In any event, nothing more to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've warned the editor using {{uw-npa4im}} with Twinkle. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the swear word was several days ago (July 5). I apologized to the user for the late warning on my user page, but I didn't apologize for warning him. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, is there a point at which a conviction is "spent"? I could stomach at first an edit warrior calling me a swear word, but then he returned to the same article and made the same uncooperative edits. That's why I had to come to ANI '''tAD''' (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no exact cut off when a "conviction" is considered spent, especially for once off occurrences. For a once off personal attack, about a week is probably a reasonable period after which it shouldn't be held over the "perpetrator's" head, particularly if they've acknowledged that they should not do it again. However editors with long histories of attacking other editors, then incidents that date back months even years can be used as evidence of a pattern. Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Exclusion from discussion[edit]

In view of the fact that the discussion has effectively been moved to an article talk page, I don't think there's anything left to be done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

AlexTheWhovian notified Blackmane (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Already done. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Definitely completely stopped you. And I'm allowed to exclude who I wish on my talk page. If you required an even discussion, you should have opened it on the Quantico talk page. This is just the actions of a disgruntled editor who, when faced with the mistakes he did on the page, knew he had done wrong but attempted to turn it onto another editor. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
My first edit on this article was inviting you to discuss your reversions on the article talk page but you kept reverting instead. The discussion was opened in your talk page by Elainasla and you've asked the community to join there [40] [41]. If you want a community discussion, you can't exclude folks you disagree with. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Admins. Note that the user at hand refuses to confront their mistakes while editing, all the while knowing what they have done, and yet continues to turn the focus onto other editors. Such behaviour is atrocious when attempting to create such an encyclopedia. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering you actively refuse to cooperate with people who are trying to cooperate with you, this won't end well for you. Wikipedia is a collaborative space. You would be wise to discuss your edits instead of refusing to talk to people. --Tarage (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you, Mackensen. Does that answer all of your concerns, Toddst1? Alex|The|Whovian? 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No, not at all. What is your aversion for discussion on your part? Mackensen is right that this should have been discussed on the talk page. Being right or wrong is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It's almost like I suggested that it should have been discussed there. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And yet none of which you actually did until it got dragged here and dragged here for good reason. You still have not commented on the talk page. We recently had another editor go through a similar sequence with the edit warring, refusals to discuss the issue sensibly on the article talk page, bans of editors on their user talk page and continued reversions and the general consensus there was "even if you are right, WP:DICK applies as does WP:AGF which includes actually telling people what in the world you're thinking." In the future, I suggest that (a) you actually use the talk page as it is intended and (b) you not cause these pointless reports to be created by putting forth a bit more effort than "you're banned on my talk page and I won't explain to you why but trust me, I'm right." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Amen to that, brother. Luckily, I didn't ban anyone. Reports like these are a waste of good admin time. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, the report is entirely an unfortunate but appropriate use of time. It is you who created a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting that, 1) WP:TVCAST does not "ban" the use of cast tables, and 2) only a subset of WP:TV editors want to "ban" them (i.e. using them or not using them is thus "controversial", and is not a "settled" question). As to the specific circumstances, I'd rather not comment, as I already have a conflict with the editor named in this report, and consider myself tangentially "involved". --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You already have commented, and recommended the removal of at least one table, and the moving of both. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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


I stumbled across this user before they were reported to ANI and I was about about to pull the trigger on an an indef WP:NOTHERE block. User has stopped being disruptive for now, but if they come back and continue, a block is in short order. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Mogomaniac (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

In all fairness, half of their edit to the US election page was fine (just unsourced but true nonetheless). The other half, however, was not. Just wanted to point that out. --Majora (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, he was (half-)right...but we require properly cited sources - not just an edit-summary-"IT WAS CONFIRMED ON CNN". From the talk page history, this is something that Mogomaniac has had trouble grasping. ansh666 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is true. Just wanted to say that since I believe my level 3 warning might have been a little harsh. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Trust me, with a history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, I doubt nothing would be harsh to a user like that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

SPA and likely sock puppet Toto11zi[edit]

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 [[56]], 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 ""
Information from xinhua web site
Information from
Information from
Information from
Information from
Information from
Information from
Infomration from which relates to information from China's foreign minister
Information from
Information from
Information from

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: 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. (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)
  • The Chinese foreign minister is obviously a government source.
  • The China Daily is state-run.
  • appears to be associated with the Nanfang Media Group, which is Chinese Communist Party-controlled.
  • 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.
  • 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 [[57]] web site is a good source of information for the relevant topic found in this Wikipedia page [58]]. 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)

IP 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 [59]. 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 is more similar to User:ExGuardianNinja with these examples [60], [61] and [62], and [63] 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). Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible hacked account[edit]

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

User:Drm310 this is unbelievable. Received a flood of messages to my inbox. This isn't the only account in jeopardy. Thanks for the alert, and having my back. PLEASE advise on next steps. Kathryn Cartini (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kathryn Cartini:, compromised accounts are indefinitely blocked as a preventative measure per WP:GOTHACKED. I'd recommend requesting an administrator block your current account and starting a new one with a more secure password. Then just place a link on the new account so that other users know. Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. Create a new account, secure it with a good password, and tie a trustworthy email address to the account (that is also secured with a good password) in the event that you must recover it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Blocked as a preventative measure only. Editor remains in good standing. --NeilN talk to me 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Good call, NeilN; thanks for doing that. Kathryn Cartini, ping me on your talk page if you need help with creating a new account. You just need to go here to do it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Unclosing. The account is not comprised by the information I have unless the person directly accessed the same computer in the same location. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I was informed that this discussion was re-opened. First of all, I should say that I may have inadvertently implied that I confirmed the account to appear to be compromised and that action was needed. I did not check this user's contributions in-depth; I simply pointed Drm310 to create a thread here if he felt that there was a concern, and I gave advice to Kathryn Cartini regarding the need to create another account. Instead of simply deferring the discussion here, I should have helped look in Kathryn Cartini's contributions first and asked Drm310 more questions before recommending that he open an ANI thread. Had I done so, I would have established that there isn't/wasn't evidence to assert or suggest that a blatant account compromise occurred with this user. And for that, I apologize to everyone. I'll make sure to do my part fully before I recommend a discussion like this. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You did nothing wrong, Oshwah. Information came to light that you had no way to foresee. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: You did everything right. When a constructive editor suddenly starts vandalizing, WP:AGF dictates we assume loss of control of the account and block because of that. The block can be changed, lifted, or stay in place as further details come to light. --NeilN talk to me 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
*Oshwah gives NeilN and Someguy1221 a fist bump* - I appreciate the feedback. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sea Lions Not ![edit]

The previous ANI filing was closed after 48 hours. That Jed Stuart was unable to participate is unfortunate but would not change the outcome. No administrative action appears to have been taken (no blocks given, no pages protected). Result appears to have been additional eyes on the NPOVN post and page. No admin action appears required now unless the OP continues to abuse a horse carcass. Questions were answered repeatedly here and at NPOVN. Nothing more to do. Enjoy your breakfasts. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Let me make this very clear: NO. WP:UNDUE is policy. WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE are also relevant guidelines here. TIs will be given no weight, because the best reliable sources give them no weight. The discussions were closed just fine. Drop the stick. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree 100%, Someguy1221. To further answer Jed's direct questions: Firstly, uninvolved editors are exactly those who should close discussions. I was uninvolved. I closed the discussion on this board which, after establishing a clear consensus that the NPOV discussion had become circular, pointless and disruptive, had devolved into a rather tangential discussion about the "marine terminology". I then closed the NPOV discussion, with the reason "Asked. Answered...", on the basis of that consensus, the clear policy-based consensus there, and the fact that it had been open for 6 weeks, continually answering the same point - by now disruptive. My advice, Jed, is that you re-read the DS warning on your talk page, because IMO it is very likely the next step proposed may be a topic-ban to prevent the ongoing disruption. Begoontalk 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Jed Stuart, bringing this up once again is classic Sea Lion behavior. Administrators, if Jed does not drop the stick now, after multiple warnings, then I strongly suggest a topic ban to limit further disruption to the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You wont have to ban me I will volunteer to leave entirely because Wikipedia is not continuing with its policy "do not state opinions as facts". I have read the articles that you keep pointing me at and nothing changes the fact that the electronic harassment article is stating the psychiatric opinion as a fact, which is contradictory to how the reliable sources have described the issue. Only one has stated the psychiatric opinion as fact as far as I know and that was the New York Times which more recently wrote up the issue again correcting that error of balance. Wikipedia is a joke if ANI does not insist that the editors dominating that article come up with good reason to change the policy. Maybe there is in this instance but I do not see why. Also, the discussion at NPOV that has been closed was nearly all in support of my opinion and just more of the same garbage from the other side. Guy Macon was the only one making any effort to put a justification for the way the article is. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable blocking[edit]

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

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

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

Regarding I had researched it, and found no source, you can't have researched very hard given that it's the very first reference in the article. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Having a chinese investor does not a chinese movie make. I noticed that, but the standard sources for the nationality of movies (i.e Variety, BFI, AFI) didn't have a listing yet. BFI now lists the movie nationality as 'USA'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course it does; do you think Star Wars should be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, given that it was filmed in Hertfordshire and Tataouine? Film industry practice has always been that "country of origin" is who produced it, not the actual filming location. Anyway, this is a content issue and not appropriate for ANI; regarding the block, I'd consider it harsh but legitimate. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No, Star Wars shouldn't be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, but I'd also argue an investor in a production company based in a country, doesn't mean that the investors country is listed as a country of origin. Traditionally we use BFI, AFI, Variety, Hollywood reporter, or a film festival to determine country of origin. And, no, this isn't the place for this discussion. The place for this discussion is the articles talk page, which is blanked of this content by Graham87 every time this subject is broached....which is the reason for this ANI. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The user talk page the IP wikilinked to was actually a talk page wikilink, not a user talk page link. I took the liberty to fix that. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

This was the edit that first caught my attention, that I reverted. I then reverted, maybe poorly, the specious edits that this editor made, which put me on Graham87's radar.
The other question to be addressed, is when is it ok to repeatedly delete a discussion off a talk page, just because you don't like the editor, as Graham did at Star Trek Beyond? This question I asked in Star Trek is by no means settled (i.e look at Talk:Mission:_Impossible_–_Rogue_Nation which has the same issue), but Graham87 deletes it out of hand as 'trolling'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Content dispute pure and simple, whether the blocks are appropriate becomes of less importance the more the IP keeps doing whatever it did to get blocked in the first place. Really, in all of wikipedia is there nothing else you want to edit other than whatever gets you blocked? If not, you'll end up with a permablock. Right or wrong you may be, but best to move on to something else that isn't going to get you a block. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I ask, an administrator can then "win" any content argument by repeatedly blocking those who disagree (as Graham87 is doing here)? Is the way we are supposed to be running wikipedia? I was trying to establish consensus about the article in question. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
IP, can you point to the first time Graham blocked you? I don't think you did anything deserving of a block aside from that edit war, but it's hard to follow your edit history when your IP changes about every 8 edits. I'm trying to figure out why he thinks you're a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems to originally stem from Blue cod, where the 2A02:C7D IP editor had reverted four times, though the odd thing is that Graham87 blocked the editor after the first edit, not the fourth. Can't see the logic for that one. Mind you, that means that the other three edits were after the block and were therefore block evasion, which may be something that Graham87 has been taking into account since. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I can't. I just looked as well. I know that I have probably annoyed him as well, as I have been quite frustrated that he basically follows my edits and immediately reverts them, and thus, I haven't always said things in the most collegial manner. It still doesn't explain his blocking, and nor his deletion of a talk page when requesting an unblock or discussion. Nor does it explain why he repeatedly deletes a perfectly valid conversation on an article talk page, which has yet to come to consensus. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I will not be answering questions on this again for a day or so. It's midnight local time here, and there's work in the morning! Thanks all for looking into this, regardless of outcome. I really have no problem with Graham, I really do have a problem with blocking without regard to allowing an appeal, and a HUGE problem with people deleting talk page discussions because they don't like the topic of discussion. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorely tempted to block 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800::/64 for block evasion. We don't allow IPv4 addresses to evade blocks, and I see no reason we should allow dynamic IPv6 addresses to evade either. We have UTRS for block appeals and allowing this kind of thing here is, IMO, a bad precedent. Katietalk 23:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else - and I'm not impressed by the IP's edits either - Graham87 shouldn't have declined the unblock request himself, per WP:Blocking policy#Block reviews, let alone delete the user talk page entirely. Putting "Specious" as a comment under the unblock template would have served just as well as putting it in the delete summary. —Cryptic 23:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I first encountered this editor as 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:9CC1:7D2D:67E9:7675 on the Truck article. I have almost zero faith in IP's or very new accounts who come out of the woodwork to impose a certain variety of English or their warped interpretation of the Manual of Style on articles, so I reverted their edits and blocked them. Then 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:E878:6550:502A:8B98 came along and reverted my edits. I let some of them go, such as at Total Recall (2012 film), where the original edit turned out to be right. However, their edit summaries were very personalised, which raised my suspicions even further. Then 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:C065:A724:4184:1048 complained about me on ANI. I agree it probably wasn't a great idea for me to delete the unblock request. Graham87 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The interesting thing is, I also don't like when IP's come out and impose a certain variety of English or their interpretation of MOS, so when I saw : had done that, I went ahead and reverted them (for what it's worth, they just did it again at Chard but someone else can revert that while this discussion is ongoing). Then, when Graham87 saw me do those reversions, he then reverted those edits. I did become personalised, as, I believed he was trolling me to keep the other edits in place (as he did at Star Trek Beyond with China as a movie of origin). I reverted, brought to the talk page, and asked (unless it was clear cut). Graham87 reverted, and immediately blocked me, because as an admin, he can do that. So, I did the same type of reversions he claims he loves to do, but I don't block the editor, and try to wipe all their comments from wikipedia. Yet still we can't have a consensus discussion on Star Trek Beyond as he keeps deleting the discussion there, which is a violation of Talk Page guidelines, but this doesn't bother anyone. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:BCE4:CF2:D7E9:6D88 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As Graham has admitted he has done something that probably should be left as long as he learns from the event that's fine and we can move to the meat of the question: is there any compelling reason to keep blocking an IP user that appears to be trying to improve Wikipedia? If so can we see links on problematic behavior? Tivanir2 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is the admitted block-evader and IP-hopper still being allowed to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz[edit]

The user user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been harassing me for months on end. He constantly makes wanton edits with vague or little motivation, such as this one were I attempted to arrange into subsections, he reverted and called "clutter".[64] He has frequently called me names, such as "troll" and been rude, obnoxious and unhelpful.[65][66][67] These are just a few examples. I believe these are violations of WP:HOUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. Based on his talk page, it seems to be a recurring pattern with this editor. I would ask for a block to be implemented either from him editing my edits, or a two-way block so that neither can see nor edit the other one's contributions. Either way works fine with me. Holanthony (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. The supposed incivility Holanthany cites is more than six months old, and relates to harassing posts Holanthony made on my talk page, repeatedly and tendentiously disputing very basic aspects of BLP policy, including the basic definition of a self-published sourced. In contrast, Holanthony himself was far more uncivil in an edit summary earlier this afternoon [68].
  2. Dividing an article with three sentences of text into two sections can certainly be described as cluttering up the page, especially since it also added a completely superfluous TOC box to a very short article.
  3. Holanthony has a long and extensive track record of noncompliance with basic BLP requirements; his talk page shows concerns going back three years, and a warning from a highly experienced editor just four days ago. This is just another example of an editor very clearly on the wrong side of simple content disputes trying to use purported concerns over civility to obscure their far more disruptive behaviour, which actively damages the encyclopedia. It is clearly time to limit their ability to edit BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

It's not about what happened "six months ago", its about showing an ongoing behavior that has not relented in spite of this time having passed. More recently, he admitted to applying subjective double-standards in his BLP editing, suggesting the rules apply to some people and not to others, when in fact the BLP rules are uniform and apply to every person of notability i.e has a page on Wikipedia. Beyond that, his manners are beyond the pale![69] My feeling is that the editor is bullying and actively hounding me, proven by the track records. He is consistently uncivil, such as in the examples here.[70] [71] His talk page shows that I am not the only one affected. The editor claims he is "treated like dirt by the administrators" when it is he himself who stands for the lion share of harassment. And if you want to talk about "issues" on the talk page, then look at the history of his deleted content and all the warnings he's been given (although he's tried to cover it up). Not a pretty sight at all.[72] For the sake of peace, I would suggest a two-way interaction ban as per WP:IBAN, and I see no reason why User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would oppose such a ban, unless he is hell-bent on proceeding with the harassment and proving this fact to everyone. So User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is this the one thing we can agree on? You go your way, I go mine? A ban works just as well for you as for me.Holanthony (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I doubt that HW would agree with something like that. The whole "treated like dirt" spiel is getting old, and it is true that HW is really a total pain to deal with, lashing out before you said even hello; terrible manners. But comments like this, as unpleasant and uncollegial as they sound, aren't really blockable, and who knows, maybe HW is right, maybe you have made those mistakes before. I can't judge that, but either way, I don't think ANI is going to be much help given the reticence we seem to have these days with iBans. Sorry, I have little to offer, accept to keep your cool and let HW do the yelling; it'll make HW look bad, not you. BTW, please sign your name consistently here and on talk pages... Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)Okay yes those edits are pointy but are they a block able offense? I'm gonna agree with Drmies they probably aren't. I'm also fairly sure most of us are tired of the seeing "treated like dirt" comment but hey its not against policy.I seriously doubt an iBan is going to be issued out for these remarks. Unfortunately WP:CIVIL is one of the most ignored policies on this project and I'd wager also one of the most under enforced policies. All I will and probably can suggest is to "be the bigger man" and keep a cool head while dealing with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It sucks but unfortunately it is what it is. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Being a "bigger man" is one thing, being a push-over is another. They guy clearly has me on his watchlist and has little better to do than to revert nearly every edit I (and others) make. I suggest looking at his "contribution history" [73] he never ADDS any content, only REMOVES. The only exception to this, is when he adds a "nomination for deletion" for an article and that's only to for the purpose of removing more content. This guy does nothing for the community other than spreading negativity. If I request a ban, and the other party does not actively oppose one (and for what reason would he other than to continue bullying?), why shouldn't there be one? I see no reason not to grant an interaction ban, because I certainly don't want him anywhere near me, not now and not in the future! Worst part of all, the guy is impervious towards learning! Look here for instance! [74] [75] Holanthony (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Snark aside, that looks an awful lot like someone removing stuff that actually doesn't belong. Anmccaff (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I monitor a fair number of porn performer blps. There is a genuine competence issue underlying this kerfuffle. If anyone feels moved to do anything here other than simply closing the thread, please review the last 2 days edits at Bridgette Kerkove, Alex Jordan and Randy West (actor) first. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And this brings me to another point, the guy NEVER assumes good faith, which is what one is supposed to do. This goes for his deal with people by and large, which you can see on his history. Notwithstanding, this goes beyond the past two days at those three pages. I still request a two-way interaction ban!Holanthony (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If you don't like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz why don't you just watch MSNBC instead of CNN? EEng 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
An interaction ban would do even better! Isn't there any way to get an admin to review this? Holanthony (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be added that HW has already received an interaction ban towards User:SimonTrew recently. [76] What he did to that user is what he has been doing to me, and I would call for a similar resolution as to that issue. He has also received numerous warnings on his talk page, such as this one [77] I notice that User:Mike V and User:Ivanvector appear to have handled the situation with the other editor being harassed by HW, and therefore I kindly ask you to review this case as well for insight. Holanthony (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry and date vandalism[edit]


(non-admin closure) Aliabbashiraqi79 blocked by Drmies and Check User ran by Ponyo --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@NinjaRobotPirate: Maybe you should just ping a checkuser/clerk? Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I blocked for 72 hours for the disruption. I think it's wise to ping a CU like Bbb23 (who ran CU on this cat before). Drmies (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it came about, but someone let Bbb23 go away on holiday for a few days. I've closed the relevant SPI as the account is a confirmed sock.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 26 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[edit]

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: [78]; [79] after his edit-warring here; and [80].

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: [81], [82], and [83] 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:

  • [84]: "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"
  • [85]: "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."
  • [86]: "I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Wikipedia's amateurs!"
  • [87] "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."
  • [88]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article."
  • [89]: "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 [90]: "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 [91]: "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 [92]. 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 [93]: "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
[94]: "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 [95]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article." And comments to other editors like [96]: "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:
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)

Threatening behavior by user CrashUnderride.[edit]

(non-admin closure) Just a waste of everyone's time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This user falsely claimed that I was "harassing" another user. Actually, that other user had just harassed me, and I responded on his Talk page. Note: This is a recent offshoot of a more complex situation: I am being repeatedly victimized by people, based on editors who act as if they "own" a page, "Dreams From My Father". Fortunately, this matter can be dealt with separately, as this user (Crashunderride) was simply harassing me because I'd complained. (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This IP has been warned by users about harassment and this is a way of getting back at User:Crash Underride one of the users who warned them. Judging from their own IP talk page that they have linked for us above, they have been warned by an Admin User: NeilN on said talk page as well for disruptive behavior and harassment of users. This ANI has no merit as there is no evidence of harassment by Crash Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'm about to block you for wasting more of people's time (disruptive editing, personal attacks). I'm also going to semi-protect the article, in case you jump to yet another IP (see Drmies (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • IP blocked. We're done here. ~ Rob13Talk 03:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've decided to adopt this complaint; it looks interesting. The complainant objected to "being repeatedly victimized by people", he then files a WP:ANI complaint, and just a few minutes later he is blocked for no obvious reason, which as I understand it will prevent him from continuing with the complaint. It sure sounds like the harassment he is complaining about. I've already found that user BU Rob13 harassed him and threatened to block him, at One of the comments that BU Rob13 made was "Stop edit warring to reintroduce BLP violations onto the talk page." However, I can't find the BLP violations he's talking about. A good place to start is to ask BU Rob13 what these "BLP violations" are, or why an edit on a Talk page would constitute a BLP violation. (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Woohoo Portland in the house! Yes, the BLP extends everywhere; I believe you were told this two IPs ago already. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Really??? The only edit this IP has ever done is on this ANI and so happens to be after the other IP was blocked?? This IP as well linked the talk page info which show NO harassment only a warning to disruptive behavior. Drmies you might wanna have a look at this, to odd not to call sockpuppet. [[97]] Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Competence issues, tagteaming and hounding[edit]

After a number of recent ANI postings, it is clear that the community's patience has been exhausted by these editors, not to mention the hounding of other editors. Both User:Maybeparaphrased and User:Zpeopleheart are therefore blocked indefinitely. They may appeal these blocks to the usual venues. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I had first encountered Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased recently during the last ANI about a now blocked editor User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#Exhausted and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#Exhausted_and_Fed_up. Maybeparaphrased was suspected of tagteaming with Fouette and hounding HappyValleyEditor. I now see that Zpeopleheart had joined in as well. HappyValleyEditor has now put up a retired sign and not edited since several days. Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased are now hounding me ever since I got into an argument with Zpeopleheart over here. Ever since then, they have tried to follow me. The reason I'm bringing this to ANI is not simply because of the hounding, but because they both display severe competence issues. Here's an incomplete list.

  1. Zpeopleheart closing a discussion they were involved in (over the objections of others) and edit warred to close it. Here's the sequence: Z's first close, close reverted by me citing involved, second attempt citing "An admin's wish to close", reverted by Xxanthippe, third attempted closure, reverted by me again. Zpeopleheart also uses blatantly untrue edit summaries to justify their 2nd and 3rd closure - no admin had ever requested to close the discussion.
  2. Zpeopleheart then decided to "get back at me" and removed a speedy template from [98]. This article btw, was substantially edited by paid editors from the beginning and I was actually trying to explain the COI and paid editing to the latest editor [99] who had started another similar article which I moved to draft Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited to allow an AFC review.
  3. After speedy was declined, I moved the article to draft space[100] pending clarification of paid editing concerns. Zpeopleheart immediately submitted it for review at AFC [101] and then hilariously moved it to mainspace themselves[102]. Since when do editors accept their own AFC submission?
  4. Maybeparaphrased seems to have a lack of ability to understand what is notable. (See AfD stats). I tagged an article (created by Zpeopleheart) for speedy A7 [103] and 5 minutes later this was removed by Maybeparaphrased [104] citing "(speedy declined, article asserts signifigance and notability). In addition Maybeparaphrased has never edited the article before, so I find it a bit suspicious that they managed to come and remove the speedy only 5 minutes later. (I do suspect that some offline collusion is happening).
  5. Maybeparaphrased seems to have a lack of ability to differentiate between A7 and G11. I had tagged the article for G11. Maybeparaphrased declined it [105] (edit summary:Speedy declined again, shows credible claim of significance, take it to AFD if you feel so strongly.) and [106] (edit summary:speedy declined, article asserts signifigance and notability). Zpeopleheart also displays the same characteristic and removed the G11 speedy again:[107] (edit summary:Speedy declined because article asserts a credible claim of significance. In not a single instance was it ever tagged as A7. It was always tagged G11 so I don't understand how can someone remove it multiple times citing an incorrect reason.
  6. The page in question Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd was also "reviewed" by Maybeparaphrased (even though the page was clearly problematic) due to which I then unreviewed it. This left a message on Maybeparaphrased's talk page and they responded asking me to "BE GONE" [108].
  7. Zpeopleheart has been accepting AFC submissions even though other more experienced reviewers had expressed concerns over content/notability [109], [110], [111]. I find it strange that an editor whose recent AfD stats indicate a lack of understanding of notability is now reviewing AFC submissions. I also find it weird that Zpeopleheart is allowed to review, considering that they came off after a block of 6 months.
  8. 2 days after an article had been deleted at AfD (and later draftified), Zeopleheart moved it to mainspace [112]. This was substantially similar to the original version.
    1. I tagged it for G4 [113],
    2. this was declined by Mayabeparaphrased [114] with edit summary:speedy delete is declined since new version of article subject has many more added references and is substanially different than a version that was discussed at afd.
    3. Speedy was restored by K.e.coffman [115] (edit summary:I believe this is reserved for admins -- so restoring, unless I'm completely off)
    4. again declined by Maybeparaphrased [116] explaining on the next edit "speedy may be declined by a non administrator"
    5. I reinstate G4 again[117] (edit summary:"Revert. Let an admin decide this please."
    6. Finally moved to draft by an admin after a discussion is started on their talk page [118] who agreed that the issues were not addressed.
  9. Both editors are clearly tagteaming and I now noticed an early instance at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Scherman. I find this particularly curious. I mean, the vote doesn't make sense at all. More importantly, Zpeopleheart templated HappyValleyEditor about "not assuming good faith" [119] and then voted this confusing vote [120]. I don't understand what is happening.
  10. Both editors also keep removing maintenance templates without fixing the problem. They also add back promotional content, move articles unilateraly in violation of MOS Capitalisation and add back unsourced content without providing any citations. (See the history at this article)
  11. There is some indication that Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased are linked to Fouette. (Zpeopleheart admitted that they are in contact with Fouette and has been instrumental in defending them). I find it weird that they are going to great lengths to defend a clearly problematic editor who is a sock of an editor blocked earlier by community consensus. Btw, Fouette had first come into my radar when they awarded a barnstar to an extemely disruptive sockpuppet.
  12. There is a current SPI going on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WordSeventeen. Some more information (with respect to suspected socking) maybe available. My main complaint here is however that the editors in question are clearly not competent.

I am now explicitly asking the community to evaluate the evidence. I would like to propose an indefinite block on both Maybeparaphrased and Zpeopleheart (if agreed to, I would actually prefer a ban as WP:REVERTBAN comes into play and it makes it easier to revert clearly questionable editing). This has gone on for long enough and my patience has been exhausted. They have driven one editor off the project and I think it is time to put a stop to it before they drive off any others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: They seem to have opened an SPI case against me and several others now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lemongirl942. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would also like to add that at WordSeventeen's sock puppet case, Zpeopleheart is acting inappropriately. Seemingly anyone who had disagreed with him, he tried to add to the ongoing SPI case, even though there is no real connections between the users. It just shows he is less than willing to collaborate and work with editors if they express a different opinion from his.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I fully support Lemongirl942's remarks. I have been following the edits of Zpeopleheart for some time and they are invariably part of a tag team hounding someone. If 1 member is banned then another pops up. (user:WordSeventeen, now banned, user:Jilllyjo sock of WordSeventeen, Fouette (above).) Unfortunately it is difficult to follow the ramifications of the history of these problematic editors. Oculi (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal up to the ban. I've interacted with both editors, and these interactions have been problematic, and similar to what the OP observed. I'm more concerned that both editors in question frequently move new articles into mainspace. With the issues that are outlined in this ANI, I'm concerned that these articles may be problematic as well. Please see this diff for example. One of the two editors (Zpeople) notifies the user about their article having been accepted, while the previous edit on this page is a warning about COI editing, which is a bit ironic. The other editor (Maybeparaphrased) frequently declines speedy deletion tags, such as in this example of an article previously deleted at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article is democraciaAbierta, the main editor is user:FrancescBadia, and the article states "Francesc Badia i Dalmases[9] is Editor/Director of democraciaAbierta". Subtle. Oculi (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • While the ANI is on-going, editor Zpeople removes a speedy deletion tag; pls see diff (already been restored). With zero learning curve, a community ban looks like the only option. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - User:Maybeparaphrased had a good shot at not getting dragged down into this whole mess, but has clearly chosen to not learn from what happened to User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. Neither editor is a net positive to the site, so what needs to be done needs to be done. --Tarage (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment; I think it's worth mentioning that Maybeparaphrased narrowly escaped receiving a block only two weeks ago despite strong calls for a block of up to six months for tag-teaming and harrassment, [121]. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - might sort things out once and for all here. Hopefully they will find a better hobby after a ban is enforced. Zerotalk 09:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Maybeparaphrased should have been blocked the previous time, as community consensus was for it. Considering that this user hasn't learned a thing after the previous ANI, an indef block is in order. This harassment will just continue unless Maybeparaphrased is blocked. Zpeople is clearly in communication with Fouette and MaybeParaphrased, and the user's behavior warrants a indef. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The sockpuppet report filed by User:Zpeopleheart is further evidence of what is mentioned above, as it is clearly retaliatory (and obviously unfounded). My interactions with User:Zpeopleheart have been limited so far, but what I've seen has left me unimpressed. I've had less contact with User:Maybeparaphrased, so I can't add any comments about that editor. freshacconci talk to me 12:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - Looking at the evidence provided above, as well as the previous ANI discussions and the reports filed against other accounts -- I can assert the following:
  1. Frequent and consistent disruptive behavior have occurred by these users, and to the point that their contributions can be seen as not being a net positive to the project.
  2. The disruptive behavior has been discussed multiple times by the community, and to a significant extent.
  3. The users involved have been sufficiently warned about the behavior, and they are aware that they are causing disruption that is ongoing.
  4. Reasonable, fair, and appropriate actions have been previously imposed in order to prevent further disruption and correct the behavior, and to no avail.
  5. The disruptive behavior will continue to occur if appropriate sanctions are not imposed by the community.
  6. A community ban is the logical next step to prevent further disruption to the project, and stop the disruptive behavior.
I agree that enough is enough, and that (while I absolutely dislike ever having to show somebody the door) it's time to say goodbye and wish these users well in their future volunteer hobbies. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I had opposed any first time block that exceeded a month in that previous discussion with some hope that MBP would take the hint. But they've decided to go entirely the other way. Zpeopleheart's outrageous behaviour is beyond the pale. Thus, Support the ban for both of them. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Community ban - They clearly know what they are doing is wrong. They've been warned and now they've chased away a good editor. Support per Oshwah's analysis and for clear violations of WP:CIR, WP:HOUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASSMENT. We shouldn't allow these users to create a toxic environment. The fact that they are using WP:SPI as a battle ground for petty vengeance is one of the most concerning things in my opinion. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a community ban for both. This is a clear example of wiki-hounding and harassment. There's no excuse for this kind of conduct, and this is not an editor that is a net positive for the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support based on the outrageous behavior listed above in conjunction with the frivolous SPI Zpeopleheart has opened here [122]. Obviously, the SPI he filed is in retaliation for this report as well as the SPI filed with him as the suspected sock. I'm not one to go for the ultimate of a ban with users, but his behavior at SPI took it to a whole new level. -- WV 15:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a community ban for both. This is a clear example of wiki-hounding and harassment.They have already chased away one editor and now they are trying to bully another.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow support the CBAN, as per all the reasons made cogently and coherently above. Particularly, I am noting how the community's repeated assumptions of good faith have been repeatedly thrown back in our faces. This stops right now.
I also note that Zpeopleheart has been blocked twice for disrupive editing, the last time for six months, and that Maybeparaphrased only recently escaped a block of similar duration by the skin of. This tells me they are as aware of our procedures as frankly it is possible to be. Muffled Pocketed 17:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I want to make it clear per my comment above that I support this ban, at least for User:Zpeopleheart. I agree with the points raised by others and I see his/er edits to be disruptive, they add nothing to the project, and his/her interaction with other editors is hostile and petty. I see that the spurious sockpuppet report against Lemongirl942 is now closed (as it should be) and it was clearly bad faith retaliation. freshacconci talk to me 17:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. In the past few days, Zpeopleheart has inappropriately put {{in use}} templates on at least 2 articles and left them up for extended periods of time (~2 days on Frank S. Welsh), here and diffs aren't available for the Welsh article b/c of an unrelated copyvio, causing other editors, myself included, to have to remove them on his behalf. I started following his edits a little more closely after I noticed that he'd placed a bad-faith warning on K.e.coffman's talkpage. Then out of the blue (to me), Maybeparaphrased inappropriately re-inserted an {{in use}} template with a bad faith and absurd edit summary about K.e. being "disruptive" and then reverted K.e.'s good edits and made 3 other minor and blatantly pointless edits, i.e., adding one wikilink, a comma, and to change the template from {{in use}} to {{under construction}}, preventing other editors from working on the article for several hours until Freshacconci finally removed the template today. PermStrump(talk) 20:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disclosure of personal information[edit]

Mad666paul blocked indefinitely by Floquenbeam and the edit in question has been deleted. In the future, everyone is advised to email for dealing with personal information. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Could someone please take a look at the edit by user:Mad666paul on the Talk page of user:Epipelagic. Although the content is extremely "unusual", my concern is that Mad666paul reveals detailed information about where they live. In the UK, a postcode can sometimes refer to just a few houses. They also give the name of the road on which they live. I think this post needs reverting to protect someone who may be vulnerable at this moment in time. I have not pinged Mad666paul as I fear this might cause them undue alarm. 14:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OS may be appropriate here. BTW DrChrissy if you think someone is giving out private information as is the case here, email to deal with it privately. Zerotalk 14:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that, I suspected there might be a method of doing it privately rather than drawing public attention to it. I will follow your advice, so this thread can be closed. DrChrissy (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's a good idea - do link to these diffs on here too just in case these need suppressing too. Zerotalk 14:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I deliberately did not link to the single edit as I did not want to leave another trail of information. I have e-mailed the oversight team so it is in their hands now. Thanks for the advice. DrChrissy (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem has now been addressed by @Floquenbeam: - thanks. If there is any merit in having this thread suppressed, I would not object. DrChrissy (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No reason to suppress this thread, but (as Dr Chrissy acknowledges, but which bears repeating for anyone reading this) please report oversight/revdel requests privately; I suspect ANI is the most highly watched page on the project. Everything that I think needed revision deletion has been revdel'd; I don't think Oversight is needed. Also blocked Mad666paul. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this Floquenbeam. This thread can now be closed officially I reckon. Zerotalk 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Also you can always ask for oversight on WP:IRC in #Wikipedia-en-revdel --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As a remark, there is information provided in the editnotice for this page about how to contact oversighters privately. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Beth and others. I was unsure of how much of a problem this disclosure was which is why I posed it as a question here - I think next time (if there is one) I will go straight to oversight. It sounds like is the safest default in such cases. DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation at Salvador Dalí[edit]

Persistent addition of apparent copyright violation text, as here [123], [124], [125] and [126]. This seems to be identical, whole cloth, to text here [127], which I explained in edit summaries. If I'm in error regarding the copyvio assessment I'd appreciate it; otherwise this really needs to be removed from the article, and rewritten in an acceptable form. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin) It does appear to be a copyvio to me, I've gone ahead and removed the content again per policy and re-linked the source page in the edit summary and commented on Sapphorain's talk page. Given the edit summaries Sapphorain left, I think they just missed the link to in the first edit summary that pointed out the copyvio. Provided they don't restore the copyvio content again, I'd say it's just a simple mistake and nothing to see here. Waggie (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Waggie. You're probably correct, but after four reversions and two different editors, I thought it was time to solicit further assistance, rather than edit warring. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Informationskampagne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

User:Vmzp85, WP:UNBROKEN and WP:CIVIL[edit]

Vmzp85 (talk · contribs) keeps warring over WP:UNBROKEN issues at Mexico City International Airport [128] [129] [130]. 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)

OWNership issues on BlackBerry-related articles.[edit]

Peter K Burian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been getting into disputes with me on multiple BlackBerry-related pages over my refactoring and copyediting of his edits, to an extent that I consider aggressive ownership of the articles. This includes situations in which he reverts back to his preferred version, and specifically calling me out on article talk pages in reminders essentially instructing editors not to refactor or fully remove his work (which in some cases, clashes with the accepted format that smartphone-related articles have used. although cited, it contains stylistic issues, as well as redundant details at times), and properly use edit summaries. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Peter K Burian. The complainant, ViperSnake151 has reverted all of my edits to the BlackBerry Priv article on at least two (possibly three) occasions in order to delete content that I had added. See the Talk page at that article AND the July 2016 item on my Talk page.
He had provided no reason whatsoever for reverting the content I had added. I explained this in the Talk section:
QUOTE: My edits which updated this article were reverted by ViperSnake151. Why? Who knows? He failed to provide an Edit Summary as Wikipedia requires. Since he has not done so, I have reverted his edits. ....... WP:Edit summary Always provide an edit summary: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.
Yes, I did revert his edit (that deleted all of the content I had added) to get my content reinstated. He reverted my revisions again. Finally, I have just been making edits, adding fully cited content instead of reverting. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Reply 2 from Peter K Burian. The complainant, ViperSnake151 deleted 90% of the content I had added today to the BlackBerry DTEK50 article. See the Talk page at that article. I did not Revert him but simply added content that I believe is valuable.
More specifically: This article was little more than a stub this morning. I added fully-cited content; later in the day he deleted most of it. He did not Revert, he just deleted large sections of the content that I had added. I did not Revert his deletion of my content, not wishing to start a WP:WAR. Instead, I added back content that I felt was valuable to readers of this article. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
On the DTEK50 article, I did not delete most of it. In fact, I actually expanded it just now. It disseminates the exact same information, I just re-organized it into a more cohesive layout with sections and organization. Note that some of the more finer technical details are in the infobox. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Require Conflict Resolution Skills[edit]

OP blocked for ban evasion -- samtar talk or stalk 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Help required: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent sock of banned user. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Trolling by DePiep[edit]

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 [131].
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)
Seconded. This is clearly not acceptable behavior. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 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)

Possible paid editing at Hillier Parker May and Rowden[edit]

Philjonescomp is an SPA who has created and been assiduously editing Hillier Parker May and Rowden. This was tagged for speedy deletion (soon retracted) but in a lengthy defence on the article talk page here Philjonescomp writes "...this information has been looking for a new home since and it was felt that Wikipedia was a good place. Mr Couch has made a cash donation to Wikipedia for this purpose.". This comment has subsequently been deleted (rather than redacted). However it leaves a strong suggestion that payment has been made from one party to another to get this article on Wikipedia. The user name also suggests a company rather than an individual.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm also suspicious of this "Richard Ashworth" who posted to the talk page. The account he created (after editing via IP one time) seems to also be an SPA. It's also possible that one is a sock of the other, but there isn't enough evidence (in my opinion) for an SPI to be opened, much less for a CU to check into it. In the meantime, I've added the {{Connected contributor}} template to the talk page. It can be changed to be {{Connected contributor (paid)}} if need be. Since I've mentioned Richard here, I'm also gonna give him an ANI notice. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I've also notified WP:UAA of the potential "implies shared use" username, "Philjonescomp". -- Gestrid (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but an article on a now-defunct real estate agency is small beer as these things go. The agency probably is notable in a historical context although the article certainly could stand to be cleaned up if anybody cares. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm being attacked again![edit]

I'm being attacked again, through various personal offenses (see here, here, here and here), by an anonymous editor who is WP:DUCK of this case. Chronus (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for a month. Not indef only because I don't know when the IP will reset. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The IP user basically violated the policies WP:NPA and WP:SOAPBOX over and over again. But if you see my talk page there's another IP user which made similar claims. Probably somebody would need to take more actions. Also, can I deleted the lame discussion from my talk page??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, you can delete it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thanks, but there are two IPs: and Chronus (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Guy seems to think his purpose on Wikipedia is to defend Brazil's former military dictatorship and point out how everything bad in the country is communism's fault. Anyone who disagrees with him is a communist vandal. On that note, I have also blocked the other IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Chronus took better action than me. I notified about the incident to other WP:ARBCOM members and administrators but only User:Drmies answered. Should I deleted the messages I wrote to the other users now that the trouble is solved by now??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)