Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:54, 17 October 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Persistent addition of unsourced content

• Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a concern about this editor's pattern of making significant edits without adding appropriate, or in some cases, any reliable sources. This editor has made over 5000 edits, and was blocked twice this past summer for adding unsourced content. I looked carefully at five edits this editor recently added to AccorHotels Arena, and asked them to explain these edits. This editor responded here, stating that "Just because nobody knows how Jesus look like gives you the reason to prove that He doesn't exit only because you can't find a photo of him showing his appearance? Do you think that it is possible to provide 100% references to all the information I've added? The inability to provide proper cited reliable references doesn't discredit the existance of a past event." Thank you for looking into this. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Please note that during September and October, this editor made over 70 edits to Entertainment events at Sydney Super Dome, adding the names of 44 performers this editor claims to have performed there. Just 10 of the performers were sourced, and of those, two sources didn't support this editor's claim. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the linked article AccorHotels Arena is a WP:LINKFARM. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Please take a look at how I have defended myself against a Misplaced Pages lawsuit filed by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today.

I am in the midst of adding proper references (not just bare URLs) to AccorHotels Arena. It is not my intention to add inappropriate references. I am still quite new to Misplaced Pages since I am unable to tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate references. I have added bare URLs because I find it too difficult, troublesome and tedious to do so on mobile edit as I was unable to use my laptop for a while due to some technical issues. I believe that unsourced content regarding to concert should be marked with a WP:CITENEED tag instead until someone else adds proper references to it one day. Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing Misplaced Pages for the past 8 - 9 years & I will always leave a message on his talk page whenever I am in doubt. He understands my editing pattern better than anyone else here. Please discuss with him for a remedy instead.

Just like I said, I have no intention to violate any Misplaced Pages guidelines's in the first place. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes or otherwise please kindly inform me if I have added any irrelevant references so that I can remove and replace it with a reliable one or WP:CITENEED tag instead. Adding bare URLs or unreliable references doesn't equivalent to WP:DE and thus should not warrant any block at all. Do not block me as I believe that I have already learned my lesson from it last time which is why I'm making a habit to add more references right now although it's tricky for me to differentiate or to decipher between relevant and irrelevant references as I can often gets confused at times. But most importantly, Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) threatened to block me if I continue to make unsourced edit which is why I was so scared. I had to quickly add new references to defend my actions. Magnolia677 is causing me to distress because this editor seems to be unfriendly when he/she left a message on my talk page. I believe that there is a strong misunderstanding between Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over how I edit the articles. My sincere apology for any inconvenience caused & thank you for your understanding in hearing my side of story. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment I have noticed that User:Xinyang Aliciabritney likes to add a lot of content about events and I first saw it months ago at One-north#Notable_concerts and other Singapore venues. I don't think the additions itself are in bad faith, but it creates a problem if other editors (like Magnolia677) have to spend a significant amount of time checking the edits. We only add notable events and those with reliable sourcing. Our standards of what constitute WP:RS are strong and it would be helpful if it can be explained to Xinyang as well. Personally I think Xinyang needs to be advised here, rather than blocked, as they seem to be a good contributor otherwise. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Attention: @Musicpoplover12:, @Arjayay:

Apologies for the delay in responding, I have been away for 4 days. I have no doubt this users edits are in good faith, although his enthusiasm to add new material needs to be tempered by the policies and guidelines. I had to explain several guidelines, such as date format, overlinking and the use of flags in April, and verifiability and bare URLs in September. The user finds adding proper references "time consuming" stating "It has become especially inconvenient for me when I am editing the article using Misplaced Pages app on my smartphone as it takes me at least 2 - 3 edits just to get a proper references published." The users English has noticeably improved over the last 6 months, although he still tries to use the Other stuff exists argument. I think that bringing this to ANI has made the user realise that proper references from reliable sources are a fundamental requirement, not an optional extra. I am willing to keep an eye on their edits for the next few weeks, but having no Admin powers, can only re-report them back here - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War detailed map

Three editors:

• Lists129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pbfreespace3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Coneleir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

keeps re-adding challenged material into the Syrian Civil War detailed map, and refuse to provide an inline citation to a reliable source when they do. It is explained how to add an inline citation on the map here. I have tried to explain that they, according to the verifiability policy, have that burden, but it's like they don't want to listen. See e.g. this diff which is a revert of this edit. Note that Lists129, after several requests, did provide a diff that included a citation for Jubb Hamad, but no one have ever provided any source for Abu Mendil (except from maps which we can't use according to the Rules for Editing the Map), and they never use inline citations. See also this, this and this discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

To clarify a bit:

• On 23 September, I removed Jubb Hamad ash Shallal from the Syrian Civil War map. Ref. diff
• On 27 September, Lists129 readded Jubb Hamad. Ref. diff
• On 28 September, I reverted Lists129, asking for a source. Ref. diff.
• On 10 October, I removed Abu Mendil. Ref. diff. Lists129 restored the material without a citation. Ref. diff. I started a discussion about Restoring unsourced places. Ref. diff. Pbfreespace3 restored Abu Mendil, making a duplicate listing of the village. Ref. diff. Note that none of the sources given are valid (Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.).
• On 11 October, I reverted Lists129 and the duplicated listing of Abu Mendil Pbfreespace3 added. Ref. diff and diff. Coneleir reverted me. Ref. diff and diff.
• On 12 October, I removed Abu Mendil again. Coneleir restored again. Still no source given. Ref. diff.

So. "Jubb Hamad ash Shallal" are now marked as IS-held on our map. That is sourced by this tweet, but you have to find the diff manually to check it. Its here. "Abu Mendil" are now listed twice on the modulpage, and as far as I know, no RS have ever been given. It was added by Pbfreespace3 on 15 July. Ref. diff. The source given in that diff does not even mention the village. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Some questions:

1. Is it vandalism to remove information that lack an inline citation to a reliable source, as they claim here? If not, is it harassment to repeadedly mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism?
2. Does the burden to demonstrate verifiability lie with the editor who restores material as the verifiability policy says?
3. Should challenged material be restored with an inline citation to a reliable source as the verifiability policy says?
4. Is it disruptive editing to repeatedly add and re-add material that does not satisfy the verifiability policy?

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Felsic2

User:Felsic2 is an agenda driven POV pusher who is desperately trying to add a body count or murder, death, kills to as many pages as possible. He has even created a POV pushers guide to doing so (User:Felsic2/Gun use) in clear violation Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. In his latest edits to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms he claims his position is supported when it is in fact heavily opposed (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Firearms). I recommend a permanent firearms topic ban and the deletion of his POV pusher guide (User:Felsic2/Gun use).--RAF910 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Whew. That's a lot of personal attacks without any real support. I suppose that RAF910 could be called "an agenda driven POV pusher" who is desperately trying to prevent some type of information from being added to firearms articles. However he won't find me making a bunch of edits of the type he's describing. I've enaged in discussions anywhere I've made potentially controversial edits. FWIW, the community supported the edit the SIG MCX, in a well-attended RFC, Talk:SIG MCX#‎RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? RAF910 is mistaken when he says I claimed support for the change to the Wikiproject style suggestions. Rather, I noted a lack of opposition for the change and a lack of support for the existing text, which is contradictory to the actual Misplaced Pages guidelines at WP:ADVICEPAGE. I request that RAF910 stop making personal remarks about myself and other editors on article talk pages. Doing so is disruptive and prohibited by WP:NPA and by specific ArbCom edict. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. One person's POV-pusher's guide is another person's essay touching on important aspects of policy. It is not a great surprise to see a division such as this, and I doubt it'll be healed anytime soon. But there's no incident here for admins to take action in response to, beyond what seems to be a complete mis-use of this board by RAF910. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't to the level that I see sanctions, but looking briefly at the essay and their actions at the WikiProject, it seems pretty obvious there is a POV in play here. I would remind Felsic2 that we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or shove our ideas against consensus. If that essay was put into meta space as it is currently worded, it wouldn't be long before it was pushed to WP:MFD as political advocacy. It does look like you are focusing purely on an anti-gun agenda, as I sample some diffs. There are plenty of over zealous pro-gun people as well, but that isn't on the table. People who swing from editor to advocate tend to have a short career here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a few cases where I've seen this issue come up (I don't really edit on military equipment or firearms). But when I have seen it, I've always been astonished by the arguments that are willing to trample so blatantly over voluminous and high quality sources. I think the objection, stated or unstated, is that if a weapon's use in shootings is included in the article on that weapon, it casts the weapon in a bad light, and/or promotes gun control legislation. Such an objection looks like pure WP:ADVOCACY. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone is coming in and their goal is to either add the weapon on all crime articles, or remove it from all crime articles regardless of consensus, that is advocacy in equal measure and violates policy. There are times when it is relevant and when it is not, which of course is a talk page issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: @Dennis Brown: - I don't want to violate any rules here. I appreciate the guidance. I looked at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It says:

...we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. ...you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.

The material I've sought to add to articles is all reported in mainstream media and books from reputable publishing houses. It is not original research. Just the opposite - it represents the majoritarian view. With rare exceptions, the only time individual firearms are mentioned in mainstream media or scholarly publications is in relation to a crime. By excluding that information, we're saying that firearms articles can only use sources like hobbyist magazines and manufacturer websites. Some editors associated with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms have been trying to forestall consensus seeking on article talk pages by inappropriately using a project guidance page to overrule the views of individual editors, and by refusing to seek consensus.

What is the best way to address pro-gun advocacy which subverts Misplaced Pages content policies to exclude what some perceive as negative information? Felsic2 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the entire entirely, and probably will still miss it if you get indef eventually because of it. We don't publish every fact just because there is a source for it. WP:RS is only one policy, like our policies on advocacy are not the only policy on neutrality. And most importantly, you seem to think that the written "rules" are what matters at Misplaced Pages. You would be wrong. All that matters is consensus. The written version is simply based on the consensus. What matters is practice and how it is enforced, not an individual's interpretation of the written policy. Misplaced Pages is unique in that. Trust me, if you only spend your time doing what you have done so far, you won't last long. If your focus is to counter pro-gun bias, you won't last long. If you manage to turn it around and instead focus on writing neutral articles, then you will do fine. Countering any perceived bias on a full time basis is advocacy. Think about that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot to mention that Felsic like to endlessly badger his fellow editors on the talk pages. Also, if you fail to respond to one of his comments or answer one his questions, he believes that "Silence equals consensus." and will then make whatever edits he sees fit.--RAF910 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus. I have always sought to achieve consensus and have offered compromises based on WP policy. Stating, as you have done, that compromise is impossible and that you intend to prevent consensus by objecting without explaining your reasons is tendentious. Felsic2 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay and not widely accepted. It would be foolhardy to rely exclusively on an obscure essay, which has no basis in enforcement. You can't just cherry pick parts of policies or essays to justify your actions here, you have to actually learn what real consensus is here, on a global scale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn the ropes here. It's confusing to know which policies, guidelines, and essays have actual authority here, or if none of them do and a vote to determine consensus is all that matters. It's also confusing to know what to do in response to apparent activism - its not allowed but if it's found no one should oppose it? In any case, I'll keep using talk pages to work towards consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Despite Felsic "Aw shucks mister, I'm just learning the ropes" proclamation and a promise to adhere to consensus, he is currently ignoring consensus and edit warring on the AR-15 variant page and continuing his Wikilawyering on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for the oddball article title. I've repeatedly raised the issue on the article talk page. No one has provided a source showing it's a common phrase to encompasses the material in the article. If you care about the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Firearms then participate there. Please don't cast asperesions or assume bad faith. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is now forum shopping on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council where he acknowledges that "Members of the project are averse to any changes" to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms page. Yet, he still pushing his agenda and still refuses to accept that he does not have consensus to make the changes he wants to make.--RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that Wikiproject Firearms is misusing a style advice page as if it was a content guideline. Yes, according to WP:ADVICEPAGE that is an example of WP:OWNERSHIP. And yes, the Wikiproject Council is an appropriate place to raise concerns about Wikiprojects. It'd be great if you were part of the solution. Felsic2 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you is to never revert more than once. Just make it a rule you stick to, before the community forces it on you. Then you will use the talk page and seek consensus sooner, before you upset people for edit warring. Many editors do this exact same thing to keep the peace and to make it clear they want to work with others. It is very rare that I will even revert twice, maybe once a year. Instead I post on the talk page, wait a week, and if no one replies, I assume I can revert again without issue as I have given a good faith effort to communicate. If in doubt, don't make the edit and use the talk page. Of course, if you use the talk page to advocate a particular bias, it is still a problem. Worry less about written rules and more about how people actually do things here. That is all the advice I can give you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is also incompetent on the firearms subject matter. His latest edits to the M16 rifle page indicate that he either still believes that the ArmLite AR-15, Colt AR-15, and the M16 rifle are the same guns or does not care. Despite being repeatedly told by multiple editors, for many months, on many different talk pages that they are different firearms. He also, now seems to believe that the M16 and M4 are completely different firearms. Even though both the M16 and M4 pages make it absolutely clear that the M4 is nothing more than a shorten version M16. As a result he removed a reference, which he clearly made no effort to read, because both the M16 and M4 were mentioned within. He also, seems to believe that AR-15 gas operated piston models are AR-18 variants, when they are completely different firearms designs made using different materials and completely different manufacture processes. He also removed a vast amount of referenced materiel from the Automatic rifle page. Because, he apparently does not understand that all Assault rifles are Automatic rifle despite being repeatedly informed of such. This editing style is highly disruptive and forces knowledgeable editors to continuously waste our time and efforts to correct his edits.--RAF910 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited at all since my last comment, which is a bit of warning, so I'm likely to wait and see what he does moving forward before taking action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Sparkie82

Sparkie82 is being/has been very disruptive. Just recently they came to my talk page and accused me of harassment. They put "ass" in their edit summary when they made this edit, but I didn't notice this until a few minutes ago . This kind of behavior is very unconstructive and it's not the first time this user has been disruptive and exhibited WP:BATTLE like behavior. Last month they edited one of my comments on a talk page. And although neither of us violated the WP:1RR, Sparkie82 reported me for edit warring which would have been perfectly fine if they didn't do exactly what they accused me of doing a few days after reporting me. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed the Sparkie at one point was removing disputed content having to do with the infobox on a daily basis as not to break WP:1RR. In his defense though there may have been a prior consensus in August. I had already asked for full protection which was granted for a day or so but this does not seem like it has worked. I urge editors to wait for the RfC on the talkpage to close (Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle), hopefully an admin will put this issue to rest by closing it out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Now Sparkie82 says they are going to ignore me and that they are done with me . There's currently an active RfC we are both involved in and ignoring me could disrupt the consensus building process. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's juvenile and not really conducive to a collaborative effort. Blackmane (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, and I'm afraid that if the admins don't do anything about it this behavior will just continue. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This user has been removing people from the lead infobox in United States presidential election, 2016, subverting consensus in this discussion. While I re-add them, this user accused me of disruptive behavior while asking me to undo my own edit as to avoid being blocked as per the revert rule. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-free soundtrack images by User:TrendSPLEND

User:TrendSPLEND has uploaded many non-free soundtrack images. One lot of those was deleted back in April 2016; see their talk page full of warnings. Non-free soundtrack images fail MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Despite that many newer images have been uploaded by them and I am pruning them again. Please take some admin action as deemed necessary. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you try to write a hand-written message to them about why this is inappropriate? Misplaced Pages policy pages are not known for being text that is readily understandable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They were called to discuss at my hand-written FfDs. I don't remember they discussing it. And now they are aware of this hand-written message of mine. That's enough efforts who creates such AfDs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Book spammer

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935 § Users adding references to Paolo Rampini die cast books

Spamming continues, with a name variant to evade the filter: 109.112.131.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 31.157.59.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Can someone help with Special:AbuseFilter/773 please? Needs to be ra(n)|(m)pini but with paolo either before or after. My RegEx-fu is not strong enough to do this confidently without breaking shit. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Perhaps the edit filter noticeboard can help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't think of it. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with JT Leroy page

JT LeRoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wikimedia, I've noticed vandalism of the page. The quality of the page has been sacrificed because of personal vendettas, and maintaining the scholarship of the page seems to require tedious maintenance. I have spoken to the individuals implicated and would very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to someone regarding this matter. Ideally, a brief in-person discussion in San Francisco would be the most efficient way to clear up and resolve the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:855C:2C00:9822:FACF:A50B:E20B (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for our older readers: is this some gangsta-stylee threat to take it outside?! _Muffled 18:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is going to meet you in person. If you could explain the specifics of the problem (and maybe avoid the florid prose), that would help. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think OP is asking to talk with someone at the WMF. Could someone explain to them how to contact the OTRS volunteer team instead? There's an email address for that but I don't remember where to find it. That's the right channel if you need to discuss a problem like this privately. If it doesn't need to be private, it's best to just say here what the issue is. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The OP should read Misplaced Pages:Volunteer Response Team and Misplaced Pages:Contact us. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, No this is not a "gangsta style threat," it's someone who is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policy and process... I'm not even sure how to reply to this thread. I just want to help figure out a solution to this issues I've seen on this page. Here's an example:

On October 14, NVGDAO13 added this quote (with citation):

She later commented, "I had survived sexual and physical abuse and found a way to turn it into art Having struggled with issues of gender fluidity when there was no language for it, I created a character both on and off the page who modeled this as yet to be named state of being."

Before the day was over, "76.21.32.54", stripped out that quote and the one that followed (also cited):

Writing for The New York Times in 2016, Albert noted, "I meet a lot of young people and they're shocked that it was an issue to even have an avatar. Because they've grown up where you have multiple fully formed avatars."

Today NVGDAO13 undid the deletion and explained,

Laura Albert created JT LeRoy -- eliminating her comments is vandalism.

I know there is some general media controversy over authors using pseudonyms, avatars, etc. I have a strong personal opinion that for anything published as fiction, the identity of the author isn't something the audience has a right to know or claim, and any avatar or pseudonym offered to represent the author is fair game as association with a fictional work. It's not a court of law, it's literature, entertainment, art. Anyways, my personal opinion aside, I think the editing war on this page is getting out of hand for NVGDA013 to handle, who is trying to maintain the page with credible sources- and it's especially unfair to Laura Albert. No matter whether you like or dislike Laura Albert, or agree with her- her quote in The New York Times is a quote in The New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.35.0 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Eliminating comments is vandalism? I'm not sure you quite understand how Misplaced Pages works. Also, IP-hopping doesn't help matters either; you might want to register an account. One thing you are correct about, however—the same users (NVG13DAO and and one more who hasn't been around in over a week) keep edit-warring even after being warned and blocked; not to mention after the article had been protected. Perhaps longer blocks and stronger protection are necessary? Erpert 22:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm- A brand-spanking-new IP account with exactly ONE edit and it's at ANI. I wonder whose sock you would be? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloha27 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

مصعب (talk · contribs) has moved Category:Palestinian terrorism to Category:Palestinian political violence, and likewise changed all usages in 163 articles and 8 subcategories. By the way, he actually used Category:Palestinian political violence. with a dot, but I moved that. I propose to revert this unilateral move as being highly POV and a non-discussed circumventing of WP:CFD. User:مصعب has argued that the category should be named just like its main article Palestinian political violence, but 1. It remains POV 2. It remains non-discussed and circumventing CFD 3. There is no such rule that we rename categories or articles just so that they should match. 4. WP:EUPHEMISM is clear that we should not whitewash terrorism and call it anything but that. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It just that[REDACTED] content should be maintained in the same manner that main article name should be combatible with the main category of it. This reflect unified naming crateria. There is no benifit from make the category name defferent from its main article. And before that i contribute in unifying categories like category:nitrogen cycle with their main articles and no one tell me that this is wrong exept now and i fell that there is a bias in this position. That's all. Regards--مصعب (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Misplaced Pages article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here.---مصعب (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No category should be moved without going via the speedy process or a full discussion, so the change should be reverted. I will do this shortly. Number 57 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

but the rule is very clear: From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Misplaced Pages article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here. And it is a conventional rule. Can you give reason for reverting without discussion? At least if i am wrong please explan the policy. And it is more benifecial to discuss the naming befor just moving the category another time without reason. If my move is wrong because there is no discussing then your moving is the same because there is no discussion--مصعب (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@مصعب: It was wrong because editors are not allowed to move categories without using the WP:CfD process above, and if editors do things like this without discussion, then it always reverts back to the status quo – no discussion is needed. By all means request a move via the speedy route if you feel it meets the criteria. Number 57 12:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that since the move is contested, the speedy rename process is not an option, only a full Cfd discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes -- IP 173.79.122.37‎

This particular IP has been consistently inserting entire movie plots as episodes into this article, despite multiple reversions (all of them on my part, so block me if you must, I apologize for not coming here sooner). I have warned him on his talk page to stop (forgive me again if there was a template I could have used for that purpose). Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 01:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are definitely way over 3RR. Best is to discuss the issue on the talk page. The plot summaries don't look excessively detailed to me--they're each a couple of paragraphs. Some of the text appears to have originated on Wikia in 2010 or earlier.example If that's where it came from, then it's CC-BY-SA so we can use it with attribution. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not what's happening though -- he's (or, he was) inserting plots from the various direct-to-DVD films (such as Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire) into the list as if they were actually episodes of this show. He seems to have stopped now though since I warned him on his talk page. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 12:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather than leaving those obnoxious and threatening templates, it's nicer (AGF etc.) to just explain that movies aren't episodes, so the movie summaries should go in the movie articles instead of the episode list. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I did explain that to him via edit summaries; mayhap I should have done so on his talk page as well. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Another idea is to just move the descriptions to the movie pages yourself and let them know. It also looked to me like some episode descriptions got reverted as well, but I didn't understand the issue at the time that I looked, so I might have misunderstood. I barely remember that show and didn't realize it had such a following. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Straight-to-DVD movies are not the same as episodes of a TV series, so if Black Yoshi is right, then the edits in question are very close to being unambiguous vandalism, to which 3RR doesn't apply. The only reason I say "very close" is because, given the subject matter, it seems likely that the IP is a child making vandalism-like edits in good faith (i.e., no vandalistic intent). Blocking someone for reverting a child making unconstructive edits that don't technically meet the criteria laid out on WP:VANDAL ("a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages") would go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. That said, using the IP's user talk page to explain, politely, why their edits are being reverted, would be preferable. I personally don't like the warning templates, since using them on experienced editors is an insult, and (the way they are worded) using them on new editors is not very welcoming, but Black Yoshi can't be blamed for doing something that I personally disapprove of but which almost everyone does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as anywhere near vandalism. It's likely to be solvable with some friendly discussion if the IP hasn't given up on us. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism, but the exact wording of 3RR assumes that a child making disruptive edits because they don't know any better is not a significant problem. It would definitely be better to engage in friendly discussion than to edit-war, but the same is true for persistent vandalism (technically in the latter case semi-protection is supposed to be sought). What I am saying is that when we have someone making disruptive edits because they apparently don't know any better, we should treat what is technically a 3RR-violation the same way we would if the edits were vandalism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

When I looked earlier there had been no attempt to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the editor's talk page. Black Yoshi mentioned some edit summaries but that apparently didn't work and maybe wasn't noticed. An even more collaborative approach (as mentioned earlier) would have been to just transfer the movie info to the appropriate articles, and leave a talk message thanking the person for the contributions while explaining that they had been moved. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right. That's just not what I was talking about. I was saying that there isn't really any reason to block the OP (despite their own saying "block me if you must"). They technically ran afoul of 3RR, but the vandalism exception to 3RR doesn't make sense unless we also apply it to cases like this one. As you said, the material was copy-pasted from another wiki, so while it is OK to re-add it to a separate article, it shouldn't be a requirement to know about Wikia copyright licensing to remove it. If it had been copy-pasted from a non-free source, it would have been a serious violation to remove from one article and add it somewhere else. So Black Yoshi's not having done that from the start is not a point against them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Creation of the same article

The editor Sparshisgod10 has now 3 times attempted to create the same page (SPARSH MALHOTRA, Sparsh malhotra, Sparshmalhotra) under different names. The user was notified about the speedy deletion requests on both of the first two times, but nonetheless tried a third time. All three times the article was deleted under WP:A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. Not sure if this behavior justifies a block of any length but the behavior definitely seems disruptive in my opinion. Thanks for looking into this, Gluons12 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC).

it justifies a block, and I've blocked for a month. Given the variations, there's no point salting the title, but if it's readded under yet another name we could add a suitable entry to the title blacklist. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Gluons12 14:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC).

Springee and Dennis Bratland (again)

This will be the third ANI thread involving these two in recent weeks (the first two: ). Both complaints had tl/dr issues and got archived with no action. The situation appears to have snowballed into some very disruptive edit warring at wikiproject automobiles - .

I was sympathetic to Dennis' side of this dispute in the previous ani threads - but at first glance I don't see how Dennis' removal and edit warring of Springee's talk page comments can be justified here. See also the multiple warnings and accusations of harassment on Springee's talk page that start with this diff and subsequent edits. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3RR doesn't prohibit removing blatant harassment. Anyone can see that these long posts are intended to draw a long reply, to which Springee adds his own long reply, in which he ignores the previous answers to his questions, and repeats the same questions as if he hadn't heard. He expects me to go on this merry go round indefinitely. Springee edits Misplaced Pages only to fight battles, nothing else. I know no other editors want to see another thread like that. It's badgering, and policy is to remove it. I did so as a favor to all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm done with this. I'm sorry that I would like Dennis to actually explain his POV and explain why he feels that the RfC on the automotive project page doesn't have a clear consensus etc. I regret restoring the comments he deleted of mine and, though I didn't notice it, I had no right to restore his comments to the talk page if he wished to delete his own comments. I would suggest implementing the remedy suggested in the original ANI, neither Dennis nor I are allowed to initiate complaints about the other anywhere other than ArbCom. I apologize to the editors who have to deal with this issue again. Springee (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:DBrown SPS and User:206.125.47.10

I am at a complete loss here. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex is the fifth time the IP placed a deletion notice on an article, one minute later DBrown SPS creates the deletion discussion page with a !vote opposing the deletion, then the IP completes the nomination. I am assuming there is some connection between the two editors, but I can't quite nail it down.

I asked DBrown SPS about it and received a non-explanation here.

The discussions involved are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Dex, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vinylz (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Javotti Media (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Heartbreak Kid (mixtape), Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex.

The IP is one of several that have been used to place fake block notices on DBrown SPS's talk page.

It seems clear to me that the IP is a problem, but I can't seem to figure out how DBrown SPS has been immediately on top of the deletion nominations. - SummerPhD 04:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for 72 hours. Either the IP is hounding DBrown SPS or they're the same person creating drama. If it's the latter, the hard block will hit DBrown SPS too, given how stable the IP has been over the months. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Range block request (67.44.209.0/24, 67.44.210.0/24, 2600:100B:B100::/40)

A couple of weeks ago, I requested an IPv4 range block for 67.44.208.0/22 and backed away from it when there wasn't a lot of activity from that range for a couple of days after I filed the report. I am now re-requesting, but limiting it to about half the addresses, particularly 67.44.209.0/24 and 67.44.210.0/24. Some editors have referred to the one(s) involved as the Western film vandal, as they have been targeting many Western films going back to the 1950s, or other nearby decades. Their modus operandi have been to falsify plots of these films and insert actors/actresses who are not in these films, but a lot of these actors/actresses are young and contemporary, and a few I am familiar with on Disney Channel. (In plenty of cases, the vandalism looks obvious as they append a section heading improperly, adding something in the form of "{the film} in {recent year}", and the heading is improperly rendered in the article, looking like "==Plot==" followed by the aforementioned.)

Here are some sample articles and their "graffiti":

• Blue Montana Skies
• Colorado
• Fort Yuma
• Southwest Passage
• The Battle at Apache Pass
• The Last Frontier

Their vandalism hasn't been confined to just Westerns. Even some Disney Channel Original Movies have taken hits (again, falsified additions to plots and actors/actresses not in the films):

• Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam
• Invisible Sister
• Zapped

Plus one independent film released in 2015, which has been targeted a lot:

• Summer Forever

The user(s) involved in the IPv4 range occasionally will hop to an IPv6 range, 2600:100B:B100::/40, and do the same kind of damage in these and other related articles. I will also request a range block here.

Sample Western films and diffs involving the IPv6 group:

• Apache Territory
• Colorado
• Rio Grande
• Saskatchewan
• The Battle at Apache Pass

... and from Disney Channel Original Movies:

• How to Build a Better Boy
• Invisible Sister
• Radio Rebel
• Zapped

A few of these articles have seen semi-protection (some are still protected) due to the different IPv4 and IPv6 addresses involved. Summer Forever saw protection in September, and the user(s) continued to vandalize after it became unprotected, leading to another semi-protection period which is still ongoing.

As far as collateral damage goes should you go with the range block: When I brought up one of the articles affected on another editor's talk page @ User talk:Geraldo Perez#Invisible Sister, he indicated that (particularly with the long range I gave with the IPv6) In checking the IPv6 it looks like the vast majority of edits in that /40 range in October were the described vandalism so a /40 block may not be too disruptive to other editors on that range. He also recommended I monitor the range each day, using links he provided to check contributions. (I do have the option turned on where I can check more than one address if a wildcard is given.)

In my previous request, I was informed that I should consult a checkuser for collateral damage issues, and if I still need to, please refer me to how I go about that. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Just saw the block log, and the IPv6 range is currently blocked:

• 02:58, 15 October 2016 NrDg (talk | contribs) blocked 2600:100b:b100::/40 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)

MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Both /24 ranges blocked two weeks. Vanjagenije blocked one of these ranges back in May for block evasion, and I'm wondering who that is. Katie 12:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France

Disruptive Infobox edits in the Battle of France article by User:KevinNinja reviving an old dispute. Please scrutinise. Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, which should be discussed and resolved on the talk-page. The contested edits do not seem very controversial to me, but both of you need to mind the 3RR-cliff. No admin-tools required, IMHO.Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I don't know. If someone is edit-warring to insert material that consensus had already established to leave out, as the OP implies, that is potentially an issue for ANI. That said, the lack of evidence provided that this is "reviving an old dispute" and the request for "scrutinization" makes me skeptical. @Keith-264: Can you provide details? Preferably in the form of diffs? On the face of it, KevinNinja's version looks like the better one (note that I'm not a scholar of French history -- I took one course in college and watched another on YouTube). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody currently edit-warring on that article is aware of WP:EW. It is, after all, only a month since Dennis Brown fully protected the article after another edit war (also involving Keith-264), stating that 'If it goes back to edit warring after a week, I will hand out week long blocks. Everyone involved is way too experienced here for this kind of silly stuff.'

There are some rather short memories there. _Muffled 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: I see all kinds of bickering on the TP, what I don't see is any consensus. The conflict has been brewing since last spring and bth sides have not reached (or moved towards) any form of compromise. Hence I still think it's an content dispute, with an edit-war as a result. Perfectly happy with the approach Dennis Brown announced. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not likely to protect again and will just block anyone warring. It isn't fair to other editors to keep locking it. KevinNinja needs to read WP:BRD. If someone removes material you add, it is up to you to take it to the talk page. The default is the status quo, so stop adding it back until something of a discussion can be had. I don't suggest anyone do anymore reverting until a discussion is had on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I came here sooner rather than later to avoid trouble, not cause it. At bottom the dispute is whether contents of the infobox should follow the guidance in Template:Infobox military conflict, which is unambiguous. The details are in the talk page ad nauseam. Despite the clarity of its contents I have compromised by leaving in the asinine "Decisive" German victory (it was anything but, according to the informal and impressionistic RS survey, which was about 15:6 for German victory) and only removing the extraneous bullet points. Other editors appeared to have been willing to settle for that until last night's edits. I asked for scrutiny because by posting here I have created a conflict of interest, something which I took to be obvious. Thank you for your comments Dennis but I am of the opinion now that an outsider should dictate the contents of the Result criterion. regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Then start an RFC on the talk page, that is the best way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I fear that it would be pointless, as some of the comments above demonstrate but thanks for the suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An RFC, if done properly, would attract outside opinions since it is advertised outside of that talk page. That is the point, to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dennis Brown: Re "The default is the status quo": Technically, the default is the shorter version with less information, since WP:BRD is an essay while WP:BURDEN is a policy. I must emphasize that in this case you are right, as the shorter version is also the status quo, but I feel the need to point this out every time someone says something that, on its face, implies that an unsourced claim needs to stay in, as long as someone wants it in, until there is talk page consensus to remove it, solely because it survived unsourced in the article for a certain amount of time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The existing version that has stood for a time is assumed to have WP:consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why you keep commenting on discussions you aren't involved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: No. Lots of articles have almost no community oversight and the "status quo" was the work of one editor who is ignorant of our content policies. As I said above, this is a general point, and does not appear to apply to Battle of France article. As for your last comment: Umm... why would you wonder about that? ANI is filled with non-admins who comment on a larger number of threads they are not involved with than I do. Many of them aren't even helpful or observant, and look like deliberate trolling. Indeed, in the past you have closed threads I was involved in apparently based on the opinions of such users. At least, unlike several others I could name, I look at the evidence and try to deliver an honest opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But that's a general explanation of why I feel free to comment on threads in which I am not involved. As for my specific motivations for getting especially involved in the past 2-3 weeks, it's a little complicated. I figured if I helped resolve a number of threads that appeared later than mine, someone would take notice and help me out with the Korean grammar-fascist who's been trolling me. This plan didn't wind up working out for me (the hread got archived a few days ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I defer to your greater experience but so far it has only multiplied the number of people taking sides. I noted on the BofF talk page that I was going to wait for 24 hours and will think over your suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in taking sides, and given what DB said above, I'm not really inclined to comment on this thread any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dennis Brown, my version is a revised one with suggestions made by editors in the past (ie what points should be kept as important), and my version is also an improved version of what has stood FOR YEARS in the past. Keith keeps undoing for no apparent reason, and although I want his feedback, I obtain none. So, please stop wasting my time with this Keith, thanks... (I'll also note that there is no reason for you to undo my stuff, since result sections in multiple other GAs use pointers)

So to summarise, please stop creating conflict out of nothing, especially when you provide no reason for undoing my peer approved edits. KevinNinja (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean Dennis? KevinNinja ignored your suggestion to read WP:BRD and replied with broken record. Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See my edit on BOF/Talk: "You're just waiting here to create some sort of conflict, aren't you? The issue was never about the pointers, it was about the inclusion of 'decisive' in the result section. And now that you've lost that argument on consensus (and common sense), I suppose you're trying to create an issue out of something that was never an issue in the past, probably in order to assert some sort of weird edit dominance you feel you have."

Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from.

  If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. Jbh 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read back a little further, you will invalidate your conclusion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is a specific thread or part of a thread which shows differently, which the later threads do not invalidate, please link to it and I will reconsider. Jbh 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You could look here or (as an example of WP:uncivil that I'm trying to avoid). The facts are that the RS and the infobox criteria are indisputable. The Battle of France was a German victory partly because it was but mostly because most of the RS consulted put it like that. Plenty of editors agree but you'll have to look back to at least Archive four to see it. My and Kevin's historical opinions are irrelevant as I frequently point out. I want the RS view in the infobox according to the Template:Infobox military conflict criterion for result. Quite why anyone made a fuss in the first place I don't know but it has obscured the issue and the editors who are in consensus about German victory and no bullet points. Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing there which changes my opinion. Right now consensus is against you. I suggest that you either drop it or start an RfC. The best option, in my opinion, would be drop it - if there are enough people who agree with you the change will be implemented anyway. If you think dropping it guarentees a "wrong version" that is a very strong indicator consensus is against you. Jbh 20:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Doing a little sampling, KevinNinja's version of does seem to be common if you go back in time, which would indicate the burden is on Keith-264. I would remind Keith-264 that WP:4RR refers to *any* reverts, not just the same revert, and you are at 3RR as I write this. None of this required an admin, just looking at public diffs. As a fellow editor, I would read policy as saying leave the three lines in (which is the current state) and have a discussion or RFC. Even if a consensus decides to leave it out next week, nothing is damaged by it being there for now, as it does have support simply by having been there a while. Now, please move the discussion to the talk page, we are really done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble but the talk page and RFC will be futile; either the Template:Infobox military conflict: Result matters or it doesn't. I suggest you go back a little further in your sampling. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dennis Brown here (if not his opinions near the top of the thread regarding the general applicability of BRD and "implied consensus", and the precedence of BRD over BURDEN), and have gone ahead and opened the RFC. I am neutral on the result, and will probably refrain from further comment on the page. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

False accusation of 'death threat' by User:Signedzzz

First of all, please read the discussions of User:Signedzzz and User:RioHondo about the obvious possible WP:CoI and WP:BIAS. Just recently, I have been accused by User:Signedzzz of the so-called 'death threat' on my post on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive, because I have followed all instructions from him regarding the use of tags. I have also viewed his revisions and how he delete some sourced contributions and replacing it with the negative ones, that may have violated WP:NPOV and WP:COI.

User:Signedzzz: Huh? Excuse me 'po', but I'm only 15 years old, contributing for WP:NPOV maintenance of Misplaced Pages, and I think you're an adult already, and you're accusing me "death threat". Seriously, are there no any excuses to remove those tags aside from accussing me of 'death threat'. So childish on your part. Nakakabastos. So scary, because my conscience can't endure that. Okay, back to "false accusations" (read first the WP:BULLYING, WP:NPA):

• First time that I have put those tags on Rodrigo Duterte article, because of your discussions with User:RioHondo on several disputes of content, with mentions of WP:CoI.
• Then, you removed it with a summary of "tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk".
• I've added those tags again and left you message in talk page to tag specific sections, but you have removed those tags, with a summary of 'death threat is no explanation', and removed also the talk page 'need of tags' section, with a summary of 'remove death threat'.

"PS: Just remember that all of our actions here in Wiki is recorded in page history and may be seen by anyone, members of the Wiki or not."

— User:PogingJuan, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags

So now, guys, is the quote above a "death threat"? No, It's just a friendly reminder. Like User:Hariboneagle927 said, "it is a reminder for users to be accountable for their edits", because we can be blocked by admins if they found out that our contributions have conflict of interest. It is true that all contributions here in Misplaced Pages may be seen by both Wiki and non-Wiki members as they can also edit or create an article. Also, I based the quote on the following quote by User:RioHondo:

"Your (User:Signedzzz) September 14 mass deletion of sourced contributions and replacement with biased entries, it's all recorded in the page history."

— User:RioHondo, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Death squads

Wait, for Signedzzz to have interpreted it 'to include Davao Death Squad', which is one of the topics of the discussion, is a foul. I have no any affiliation and will never have on those extrajudicial killers. have now explained my side. Now, this bullying made by User:Signedzzz is truly unjustifiable on the rules of Misplaced Pages. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in fact has a problematic behavior and is intent on turning the Rodrigo Duterte article into a WP:COATRACK. He has been engaging in edit wars with anyone who he sees are trying to add or defend "pro-Rodrigo Duterte" edits, in the article on Rodrigo Duterte. It is evident in the tone of several sections, particularly on Crime Rate, Extrajudicial killings, Economic performance, and even the section on his Personal life (really? A viagra comment to introduce his personal life?)

I first called him out after his attempts to delete whole sections of sourced positive content September 14 1,2,3,4. Since then he has been adding his POV sources, most recent of which is his edits on media killings by inserting out-of-nowhere claims saying the country is a dangerous place for journalists where hundreds have been killed since 1970s side-by-side with Duterte comments about media killings as if the media killings of the past are also attributable to him.5.

He also turned our section dispute (of where certain sections must be placed in the article) 9 into an accusation of removing them entirely. 6. In another disruptive edit, he left a note saying "Revert pro-Duterte changes" 7. Really? Anything thats favorable to the person in the BLP is not welcome in his own BLP? But he continues adding his anti-Duterte sources and no one removes them. About his accusation of death threat against the complainant, he was called out in the article's talk page by another user for making that accusation and was told not to delete the post as it was rude, but that ended in another edit war apparently.

The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles.--RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a laugh, albeit unintentionally. I was intending to ignore this, but I would just like to point out that I wrote little or none of the article sections linked above. If some admin could block the OP, or failing that explain to them the basics of when, why and how to tag articles, that would be helpful. Cheers zzz (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also I am out of reverts so could someone remove the offending talk page section right now please, thank you. zzz (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess no editors have heard of the dog-whistle concept (all the rage now in the Philippines, personified by the subject of the article ...) I was discussing this earlier and I was told "Yes it obviously is, and the fucking at Misplaced Pages won't be able to understand", so I'm not altogether shocked. It's identical to a death threat, it conveys no (other?) useful or valid information, but "you can't prove it" :( zzz (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Signedzzz, you're really going to have to explain how this was a death threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one, but one cannot prove it is one, as I just stated. I don't have any clue what you want explaining, since you didn't say. I really don't see how it helps to continue discussing it. zzz (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one? You better either retract the accusation or explain in detail real quick - I'm close to blocking you for being incompetent. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I had a full walk-through all typed up, since I want it removed, and it got lost in an edit conflict with Hijiri's simultaneous detailed explanation. Let me know if you are still having difficulty. zzz (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now, thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To the OP, please learn how to link to diffs and sections. It's very hard to follow your evidence when you don't know how to do this. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Links were prepared, User:Someguy1221 ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• (Non-administrator comment) The OP is too long, but I did make a sincere attempt to read it anyway. None of it makes much sense, and the English is terrible. I've only once before encountered a user who randomly started writing in another language when their point didn't seem to be coming across in English. I can't see any evidence of a bad-faith death threat accusation (or any death threat accusation for that matter). I "Ctrl+F" the words "death threat" (which the OP placed in quotation marks) on the linked talk page, and they do not appear there now. If they have been removed, then a diff should have been provided. Both PopingJuan and RioHondo may be showing signs of WP:CIR issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The death threat accusation is in an edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the words were used in an edit summary. I do think the wording PopingJuan used is problematic, and it is not difficult, in-context, to read it the way Signedzzz did, as clarified in their following edit summary. I think the way we should deal with these kind of "borderline death threats" should be similar to how we deal with borderline legal threats. clear statement by the user who posted the offending material tht they did not mean this as a threat should be issued, and if such a statement is forthcoming neither user should be blocked. Since it does not appear any statement was made before this ANI thread was opened, Signedzzz should not be sanctioned for attempting to remove what they, in good faith, interpreted as a threat, but since the opening of this ANI thread counts as a de facto statement that no threat was intended, Signedzzz should refrain from further mass deletions. The specific text about people off-wiki seeing the material about death squads should be removed, however, as it is very likely to be interpreted as a threat and the de facto retraction took place on ANI rather than immediately below. If any more edit-warring takes place after this is done, reverters should be blocked. I would also caution PopingJuan to be very careful about their wording in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The death threat accusation is just the most recent of his WP:BADFAITH behavior. As with most of the user's dealings with other users in the page, it started from an edit war on appropriately tagged concerns. 1,2,3. Apparently, the user does not see any issue with his edits despite the multiple concerns i brought up on the talk page. It's this pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring and treating the articles mentioned as a battleground that indicate the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. One only has to look at their page histories to see his WP:POINTY edits and how he's basically WP:OWNed them. I just stopped editing in those articles to avoid getting into trouble with someone who does not intend to collaborate and who has a declared conflict of interest. And I commented here only because I was tagged in the discussion. Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: It's not entirely clear what you mean by "conflict of interest" -- this is commonly used to describe users with a personal connction to the subject, who usually want to add positive and remove negative information, but Signedzzz appears to be doing the opposite. Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte? Because that's not a conflict of interest; it's an opinion. This edit definitely looks like coatracking a bunch of material from sources that don't appear to mention Duterte, but if you want to start an ANI thread about that do so -- don't hijack one that is already a poorly-formatted apology for what looked very much like a threat of off-wiki violence. Claiming that Signedzzz has assumed WP:BADFAITH is disruptive, since plenty of users would assume the same thing on reading the comment in question. It looked very much like a threat. If you have legitimate grievances, please summarize them, with diffs, in a userspace draft and then post it when it is ready. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RioHondo have explained about it on the above,

"The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles."

— User:RioHondo, this very noticeboard section

~Manila's PogingJuan 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For more information on the subjects tagged, Senator Leila de Lima is the staunchest critic of President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration, especially the declared 'war on drugs'.. 1 2

User:Hijiri88: I've removed Tagalog words and eng translations of it (originally italicized) are the replacements. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ROLLBACK request

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

User:46.19.86.145 (see , ) has been adding false dates of death to the infoboxes of boxing-relating subjects. Please rollback and block IP vandal, who has already been warned. Thanks. Quis separabit? 13:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits have been reverted. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment from Orchomen

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

I'm bringing this over from WP:AIAV in the event it's not handled over there. (Link to an old ID version in the event the report's removed.) So I'll just quote myself:

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user has been reported once before, but no action was taken. (For reference, Spencer was the one who previously handled the report.) Both IJBall and myself are sure this user is a sock puppet. Of who we don't know, but they've been WP:STALKING IJBall by editing articles he's created or majorly contributed to, and now they're doing the same thing to me. (I'm not as involved in this as IJBall is, I only got involved when IJBall came to me for help.) If you take a look at the articles in my sandbox, that's everything I'm watching (plus some other articles not listed there). After a short discussion last night here, it's pretty clear they're stalking me now and aren't just editing the articles because they happened to stumble upon them. If it were one or two, maybe, but it's quite a few and not just a coincidence. An indefinite block needs to be placed upon this user and an SPI likely needs to be performed as well. I'm growing tired of this, and I'm sure my friend IJBall is as well. More information from IJBall can be seen here. here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll also quote IJBall's response:

Speaking for myself, this editor absolutely has an unhealthy interest in my articles and articles I edit (well, definitely me, and possibly also Nyuszika7H). I can live without a block in this case as long as it's made clear that to Orchomen that their WP:WIKISTALKING of me has to end NOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This user's antics have gone on long enough and something needs to be done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

For context, here's the interaction report between Orchomen and myself, Orchomen and Amaury and Orchomen and Nyuszika7H. This is not just purely "coincidental". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Orchomen: Please comment on the interaction report. Why are you following around editors and reverting every edit they make? ~ Rob₁₃ 16:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not. Amaury reverted all my edits. All of which were constructive and aimed at making the articles clearer or more readable. For reasons unknown theyre screaming sock puppet. Which I'm not. I'm sure there are ways you guys can see that. All these articles especially the Disney ones have the same issues. Amaury just reverts my changes a priori. Orchomen (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You can WP:DENY it all you want. The facts are there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Orchomen: You aren't answering the Wikistalking charges. Please do so now. Are you going to stop contribution stalking each of us? That's all we want. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just hit them with an edit warring template after reverting one of Amaury's edits again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the other part of this – I know that Spencer and Floquenbeam thought that Orchomen's edits were actually improvements (personally, I think only about half of them are), but even if you think they are improvements, you still have to discuss them under WP:BRD, something which Orchomen is completely unwilling to do (" is better" was one of their edit summaries for their revert). Completely unwilling to discuss their changes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've hit them with another edit warring template after they reverted Amaury once again. The user is disruptive, edit warring, ignoring warnings, disregards BRD, etc. The list goes on. Personally, a block for their edit warring is in order. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe some would like to do the Discuss bit of BRD on the endless undoes of my constructive changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orchomen (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to throw your attention to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Discuss, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." Discussion should be started by you, not continue to edit war to get your way. You still refuse to do your part; you're calling other users to do it for you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't listen, do you? I seriously suggest that you stop reverting altogether. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. I am losing my patience to the point I am edit warring myself as they refuse to stop. Can an admin please block? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm just watching this from the sidelines, as articles this user is targeting are on my watchlist, too. This insanity from this user needs to stop.MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What madness? How are my edits disruptive? They're just being bulk reverted. You've got a crazy echo chamber going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orchomen (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've also reported you at WP:AN3. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And now they're block evading as 31.218.131.168. Nope. This user does not deserve a second chance. Not in the slightest. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

To further demonstrate why the user this needs an indefinite block, they have been evading their block using multiple IPs, causing some articles to be protected. The IPs are:

• 31.218.131.168 (Blocked)
• 2.48.71.139 (Blocked)
• 94.205.147.29 (Blocked)
• 91.239.124.123 (Blocked)
• 159.148.186.109 (Blocked)
• 31.218.131.182 (Blocked)

A range block may also be needed, but I'm not sure how it'd work with different IPs. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked the main account. As for the IPs, it will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, as no single range will be effective, however, reverting sockpuppets is an exception to 3RR rules....just be very careful that you are correct that an editor is a sockpuppet. Better to ask another opinion if you aren't sure and ask for semi-protection for that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Request admin to investigate edits of IP 109.152.89.129

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but could someone please check the edits of IP 109.152.89.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and also the edit summaries please. This looks to be somewhat familiar if I'm not mistaken: all unsourced edits, including some BLP's, with utterly bizarre edit summaries. Thank you. Robvanvee 16:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the edit summaries and articles edited, I'd say IP 109.158.85.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person. Robvanvee 16:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Alerted the second IP to this thread on the off chance they're not the same person. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If I didn't know any better, I'd say he has moved on to a new IP address...109.152.89.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Robvanvee 16:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

109.150.25.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and ‎109.153.186.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem to be the latest from the same editor. Robvanvee 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparent bias of administrator Sergecross73 at Street Fighter V

• Administrator 'Sergecross73' is constantly protecting the Street Fighter V page because IP addresses are trying to insert accurate and factual information with sources. It's obvious that this behavior is unacceptable and it's likely that he/she has some sort of financial involvement into editing this page. To validate my accusations, I have the following evidence:
• Any suggestion that is made in the talk page is rejected because Sergecross73 either thinks it is not reliable or he simply doesn't answer. Many users have suggested several edits (see talk page), without much result.

Sergecross73 often protects the page when there is negative (but accurate) information about Street Fighter V. This revert of edits he/she does, goes back until all the negative information is removed.

• Now and then he accepts an edit (negative reception) from the talk page. But when other users try to remove that accurate edit, SergeCross73 protects the page again AND he/she removes the valuable source he first accepted as reliable.
• He has a couple of long discussions with several users and IP addresses, where he once laughed with a person behind an unknown IP address, I quote "Capcom infiltrated the Admin Corps four years ago just so they could defend SF5 on Misplaced Pages.". This behavior is unacceptable for any administrator on Misplaced Pages.

Meanwhile, the Street Fighter V page remains unreliable, biased and inaccurate.

• I request a solution for the unprofessional behavior of the administrator as well as an apology to all the Misplaced Pages users that are trying to make legit edits. I also request a more factual and sourced article about Street Fighter V.

I suggest someone else should take a look at the page and decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:95B:975E:4643:82BE (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

To describe the real situation here:

• I stumbled across the Street Fighter 5 article at the beginning of 2016 when following an editor unrelated to all of this for troubling edits they were making.
• I noticed there were repeated instances of IP addresses making unconstructive edits - vandalism, sloppily written content, unsoureced content, commonly writing things with the most negative slant on the subject possible, etc.
• These troubling edits often lead to edit warring, which would lead to me protecting the page. This kept on happening, so the page kept on getting protected.
• As a courtesy, I set up a WP:EDITREQUEST type system, where content could be added if content/sources/placement were directly stated. The complaint of "no action taking place" was generally because the additions generally had many issues with them, where all three things were not present, or were poorly implemented. Here is a common instance of this. IPs editor warred over information, the page was protected, editors explained the numerous issues with the text, and then they just stopped responding, which is why nothing was ever implemented.
• My "laughing at them" is because the IPs would accuse me of being a Capcom employee (the company who makes Street Fighter 5) when I would protect the page from their additions. I laugh because their premise was ludicrous: That I joined Misplaced Pages 8 years ago, and became an admin 4 years ago, just so I could protect a page from their editing in 2016. (Note that I have no prior history of making contributions to Capcom or Street Fighter articles, so 4-8 years of work on the project would be a ridiculous amount of effort/foressight for a product that didn't exist a few years ago.)
• The complaint that "all negative info is removed is equally ridiculous. Read the reception section. Plenty of negativity present. The complaints of these IP hopper(s) are meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Also of note is this edit, where the IP claims to have 10,000 edits, something that wouldn't be plausible to track through an IP hopper who changes ever 5-10 edits. If you chose to believe this, then we likely have a sock/block evading editor. If you chose to reject the claim, then you're stuck with IPs playing game's and doling out personal attacks. Either way, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:SPN-86

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

Can someone just revoke TPA on User talk:SPN-86. Thanks. :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hut 8.5 18:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of closure summation

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

I am applying the following procedure: Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures.

Keeping in mind that
- review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself
and
- if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion,
I request the review of this closure summation WP:NOTADVOCATE: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment.

• Circumstances as I see them are described here: Discussion in Village pump (policy) on my talkpage
• I don't request full review of closure or reopening but only the review of the closure summation for this discussion: WP:NOTADVOCATE: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment.
• request to the closing user is here:
• I was requesting to replace "abandon WP:NPOV" with "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE"

Arguments:

1. suggesting in summation that I was proposing to "abandon WP:NPOV" is unfounded, is an advancement of an adversarial position in a closed discussion irrespective of its legitimacy and misleading
2. closing editor agrees that "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" is adequate summation (quote: in the context in which you're using it "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" and "abandon WP:NPOV" are synonymous ) I don't agree with the reasoning, but nonetheless, as I see it, there is an agreement that "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" is adequate.
3. current summation suggesting that I was proposing to "abandon WP:NPOV" feels offensive to me and, in my opinion, is ridiculing the closed discussion. This is the main reason why I have reluctantly decided to request a summation review.

Please note that I am following the procedure and I am not requesting to reopen closed discussion and re-argue. As I see it, there is a consensus between me and the closing editor that "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" is adequate, but the closing editor refused to change summation. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AN as the policy you cited at the beginning tells you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's my fault—in my response to this complaint I directed Asterix to ANI rather than AN as they said they wanted to "escalate" rather than just complain about the closure, so I assumed by "escalation" they wanted to complain about me rather than about the closure, in which case ANI would be the correct place. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close It's already here, so lets just be done with it. Read through, which is painful in parts, it seems clear that Iridescent's close was the right close. There is no error in the close. I'm shocked they put up the the OP for as long as they did, and in fact, some were calling for a topic ban of Asterixf2. Iridescent was probably doing you a favor, but by bringing it here to ANI, now your behavior is up for review as well as his. Probably not a wise move. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close probably best to stop digging. As mentioned above editors were already starting to call for a topic ban on FRINGE. This review request over wording makes me think they may have had the right idea. Jbh 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close and summary I read the entire discussion and completely agree with Iridescent's close. (What all the 'this is my first interaction with you' stuff has to do with anything is beyond me, when he posted to a widely-watched page like VPP.) Asterixf2, take our advice and let this go. Iridescent was absolutely correct. Katie 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse the close and summary Nothing I can add hasn't already been said above. Blackmane (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your consideration. I am going to respect the result in its current state. Please close the request if you wish. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Constant harassment by User:The_Banner

I made an edit to Sean Connery, delinking his nationality in accordance with WP:OVERLINKING due to Scottish being a major nationality. User:The_Banner reverted me with no explanation, and then proceeded to stalk my edit history and revert eight other edits of mine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), even though all of them followed the MOS. I informed him that his behavior constituted wikihounding and harassment, to which he responded, "Get over it." He has continued to stalk and harass me on my talk page, and is now trying to accuse me of personally attacking him, even though I never did so. I suspect he is doing this because he is aware of his own uncivil behavior, and is now trying to lie and paint himself as the victim in order to distract from his uncivil conduct. User:The_Banner has twice been blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment", with two different admins noting his "battleground mentality", and one admin noting his "absolute refusal to engage in discussion". It is clear that his behavior has not changed in the slightest. —Wash whites separately (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is true that i came across this overly aggressive user through this edit on Sean Connery. To my opinion that is no overlinking as User:Wash whites separately claims (For easy of use, I will shorten his name to WWS). So I reverted the edit. A short time later he again unlinked ] () this time with as comment major nationalities are not linked in opening sentence. As it constitutes no nationality nor overlinking, I reverted again. Again, reverted by WWS. So, I started a discussion on Talk:Sean Connery#Overlinking before reverting and pointing to the talkpage here. When pointed on the fact the "Scottish" is not a nationality, he just came up with another link to a guideline. Effectively, there was no discussion.

It is also true that I did look at a few other articles. Most of them did not bother me, but the use op "WP:PEACOCK" to my attention and after checking the edits, I reverted at F. R. Leavis, Lillian Hayman, Sadie Gray and J. J. Cale. In all cases WWS reverted those articles with a summary of reverted unhelpful wikihounding. I took issue about that and complaint on his talkpage. As a replay, he called my criticism harassment. Personal attack followed personal attack, while I tried to stay cool and calm. (see the talkpage)

At no time WWS tried to start a serious discussion but he continued in a very aggressive and bullying matter. I warned him multiple times about his behaviours, but to no avail. In the cases of F. R. Leavis and Lillian Hayman I opened a discussion on the talkpage. (The other two I did let go) And as you can see, it is now WWS who is going to my history to get extra info to hide his own aggressive behaviour. The Banner talk 21:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In a rather short time WWS accused me of wikihounding, harassment, being hilarious (), stalking (), playing innocent (), stalking and harassing (), lying and playing the victim (), more lying (), actively harassing and attacking (), lying (). Only about Margaret Sanger was a tiny bit of a normal discussion, although at that time he acted in a way that showed that he had no clue what he was doing, just policy-waving and accusing of censoring the article (). The section he added is completely irrelevant and highly contentious, By the time of this writing, the info is already removed twice. The Banner talk 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For a further example I have also seen Wash Whites Separately remove wikilinks for the same reason at Terry Wogan. I think the complainant needs to examine their own edits and the reasons stated for the reversion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not just Terry Wogan; WWS's last five hundred edits are almost exclusively the same edit (removal of linked nationality). And in no case ever with an edit-summary; I make no judgement as to whether this is an attempt to avoid cursory scrutiny for these edits, but policy is pretty plain on the need to use summaries. _Muffled 09:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries

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

I don't know anything about the content dispute on Windsor, Ontario, but the personal attacks by Baul Broe UTTP VGCP (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) in these three edit summaries are unacceptable (and continued after warning). agtx 23:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the SPA is trying to blank the report about them at ANEW and they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 23:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that pretty much destroys any credibility, so no need to look any deeper. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An administrator might want to revoke talk page access, according to most recent talk page edit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An admin wanted to, and justly so. Kleuske (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat & other nonsense

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

• Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gkable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have an article, Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), a very highly controversial case in Oz law. And we -[REDACTED] - have the litigant, Mr. Kable, making serial edits to the page, apparently seeking to make his views known through the article, or by link to his blogs detailing the wrongs of the legal system.

There is a current Conflict of Interest Noticeboard thread about the article and Mr. Kable here.

I had intended to come here to ask for advice on handling Mr. Kable, with a view to suggesting a topic-ban on editing the article, since despite being made well aware of COI issues he continued to seek to add links to his blog .

In reaction to my comments at the COI noticeboard , and my actions on the article and its talk page , he has posted three unambiguous legal threats: , &

I'm fairly sure Mr. Kable is not here to build an encyclopedia. I request that admins decide what actions, if any, should be taken at this point. I will post this and then immediately inform Mr. Kable on his talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification User:Tagishsimon, did you mean to include this diff instead of this diff in the legal threats (the first of your two examples) above? LaughingVulcan 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon corrected above apparently right before I clicked edit to ask the question. LaughingVulcan 00:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked per NLT. Katie 00:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Legal threats fulminating about "liable" have always occupied a special place in my heart. EEng 00:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks from JoetheMoe25

• JoetheMoe25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Racism in Israel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I don't believe I've ever encountered JoetheMoe25 before yesterday, when he added original research to the lead of Racism in Israel, violating WP:LEAD in the process. I reverted his edit, saying in my edit summary that I was assuming good faith. He undid my reversion with the edit summary "Your name gives away your bias." He also started a discussion at Talk:Racism in Israel, although it addressed neither WP:NOR nor WP:LEAD.

I left a message on JoetheMoe25's talk page, cautioning him against making personal attacks. His reply was to tell me:

"Do not question a judgement I made from observation. Your pathetic Black Power bitching will also get you nowhere fast. I've dealt with editors like you in the past and I am certainly not intimidated by your threats."

He also replied at Talk:Racism in Israel (where I had replied to his message, explaining my concerns about OR and LEAD):

"Malik Shabazz, I suggest you be a man and keep your child-like ranting to yourself. The American Constitution did not guarantee freedom from slavery until 1865 and legislation was passed to abolish the African slave trade in 1808. Not to be prejudice at all, but even your username hints at anti-Israel bias."

"After reading that message you sent to my user page, I now laugh at how much of a hypocrite you are. Apparently, you can't keep cool either. The text clearly states protection based on race, sex and religion. Though I can't prove this claim, maybe protection of religion was the reason why godless Moshe Dayan didn't tear down the Rock of the Dome when he captured it during the Six-Day War. The Black Power movement is lost. Grow up."

I have asked him again to stop, and he keeps digging a deeper hole.

Will somebody please explain to JoetheMoe25 that personal attacks are not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem adept at giving even better (or worse) than you get as shown here: What the fuck are you ranting about, JoetheShmoe? I'm talking about a Misplaced Pages policy called WP:No original research, which you violated by your addition of material sourced to a primary text. You also violated our WP:LEAD guideline. Would you care to address the substance of my message instead of making personal attacks? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)]] Motsebboh (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That came after three attacks from him. I still asked him to try to reply to my concerns about Misplaced Pages policy. Nowhere has he addressed them, or even explained why he reverted me in the first place. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, it's a good idea when when entering the halls of justice to do so with clean hands. Motsebboh (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sensing WP:COMPETENCE issues here. See the discussion they opened on my talk page. It's very odd. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not being called a liar but JoetheMoe. Possible NPA? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Now reported at WP:AN3#User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) after making four reverts in little more than two hours.
• The editor has prior warnings on his talk pages for personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Which Talk page, Malik? You probably already know this, but JoetheMoe25 = 75.72.35.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and has edited from this public library: 204.169.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and according to this Sockpuppet investigation, Joe is likely several other colorful characters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to User talk:JoetheMoe25, where he's got warnings about making personal attacks from March 2011, June 2014, and August 2016. And warnings about edit-warring from March 2011, October 2011, September 2014, November 2014 (blocked for 48 hours), August 2016 (blocked for 1 week), October 2016, and a 3RR violation within the past 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked for a week for the personal attacks. (I note that the "What the fuck are you ranting about..." response was suboptimal, but was under significant provocation). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

KAvin

I was trying to avoid having to make this thread, but the problems are continuing. I am involved in a content dispute with KAvin (talk · contribs). This dispute has frequently been reduced to personal attacks, which KAvin has been warned about. I've been accused of malice. I've been wikihounded, I've baselessly been accused of bias. Today, I am apparently a "Wiki Nazi". Would someone uninvolved please have a word about personal attacks? agtx 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@agtx Nothing I have stated concerning your editing behaviour is untrue. If you take offence at the way you are described, maybe stop vandalizing other folks edits.KAvin (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the edits primarily because unlike Agtx you provided no diffs but I doubt vandalism was involved. WP:vandalism has a specific meaning here on Misplaced Pages and calling something it when it isn't it's a good way to fail at ANI. BTW personal attacks aren't acceptable even if you claim they are true. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"bias" appears to be in reference to the situation mentioned in the "malice" diff, and if what is meant is bias against white supremacists and a refusal to use "Democrat" as an adjective, then there is nothing wrong with having this bias, even if it is not technically a personal attack to point out that such a bias exists. The "wikihounded" diff is also, indeed, problematic, but I would be less inclined to call it "hounding" as to link this page. Monitoring someone's talk page for a week or so after one's own posting there is not really "hounding", but pinging another user involved in an unrelated dispute and attacking Agtx is certainly rather dickish. (The double-sigs are also annoying, but that's neither here nor there.)

Now calling someone a "Nazi" because they have a perceived liberal bias and bias against white supremacists is ... just about the worst. Reminds me of what this dick did to me a coupla years back. In fact, it's almost exactly the same.

Indef block, I say.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Calling me invectives behind my back and kinking my name which sends me a notification:

1) reveals what kind of personality you are

)2) doesn't look anywhere near as"cool" as you imagine it looks to yourself

) 3) constitutes harassment

4)calls into question your entire politically motivated agenda for your striving so strenuously in the first place to have me and selected other longtime contributing editors who wouldn't toe your quite non neutral p.o.v.

)5) gives me yet another opportunity to reveal how impotent you actually are thinking you can really block anyone, although no doubt you will simply block this ip again, the equivalent of sticking your proverbial ostrich head in the sand so's you can pretend again that I am being excluded and have gone away because you can't see me anymore.208.54.36.147 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(@Agtx: Technical point, but if you were trying to remove the adjectival use of "Democrat" from an article, you shouldn't call it derogatory. Many progressives, non-Democrat Cenk Uygur and non-American Hijiri88 among them, agree with you, but devout Democrat Bob Chipman uses it a lot in a non-derogatory sense, so it seems to be a point of contention, or at least a derogatory term Democrats are trying to reclaim. You should say it is WP:SLANG instead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

And given that the user is arguing that "white supremacist" is derogatory and seems to hold a less-than-positive view of the modern Democratic Party (hence the use of "Democrat" as an adjective), it's not an AGF-violation to read into these edits the common right-wing historical revisionism that the GOP is now and always has been the party of tolerance and integration and it's the Democrats who are trying to hurt Blacks (because that was how it was in nineteenth century). This user is also an SPA. The more one reads into this, the uglier it gets. This isn't even like the Zaostao debacle a few weeks back where the fascist in question was pretending to be subtle about his racist intentions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This should hopefully be self-evident, but to be clear, I have not engaged in any vandalism. I did remove KAvin's attempt to insert themselves into a discussion on my talk page, which is not vandalism. agtx 04:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tttttttttfffffffffffffffff

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

Please revoke talk page access Tttttttttfffffffffffffffff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feinoha (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

APEC move

User:MidasHotel20 moved Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation. Move is inconsistent with apec.org and I can't see consensus for it. --Polmandc (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved back. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious AfD issue at Robert Niter

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

This article was sent to AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Niter (2nd nomination)) on 11 September. After a re-list, it was closed as Keep on 3 October by a non-admin User:Iiar, who had only edited a few times since April, and hasn't edited since that day. On the face of it, it does look like a Keep or at least No Consensus (6 Keeps / 4 Deletes), however ...

• User:Rniterjr (that'll be a COI issue) voted twice
• One Keep came from an IP that is clearly connected with the subject, if not the above editor
• Two Keeps came from new-ish editors, one with only nine edits, and the other who later added information to the article here written in exactly the same way as the editor above.
• That leaves one good faith Keep from BabbaQ.
• My suspicion is that all of the other five Keep votes spring from the same or related sources.

Even disregarding the suspicious voting, I have dug around the claims made by the Delete voters and other comments and agree with their view of the sources (not independent in the most part, and even the claimed "newspaper article" about him consists of a 2-sentence passing mention). Therefore I am tempted to overturn this close (as it was clearly out of course for a NAC and even if it was closed in good faith, no attempt was made to evaluate the comments) and re-close as Delete. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note: the closing user has reacted to a comment by another user on their talkpage and reverted their close. I propose to close it myself now. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards