Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mogomaniac

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

Mogomaniac (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPA and likely sock puppet Toto11zi

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

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

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

Information from xinhua web site news.xinhuanet.com

Information from usa.chinadaily.com.cn

Information from shanghaidaily.com

Information from www.globaltimes.cn

Information from epaper.southcn.com

Information from english.chinamil.com.cn

Information from www.chinaembassy.cz

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

Information from zm.chineseembassy.org

Information from english.cri.cn

Information from sputniknews.com

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

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

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

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

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

Okay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collagium, you lied, WP:PUS is an essay, it's not Misplaced Pages guidelines. Toto11zi (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible hacked account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sea Lions Not !

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=730904539#Sea_Lions

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

Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_dispute_in_.22electronic_harassment.22

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

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

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

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

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

You wont have to ban me I will volunteer to leave entirely because Misplaced Pages is not continuing with its policy "do not state opinions as facts". I have read the articles that you keep pointing me at and nothing changes the fact that the electronic harassment article is stating the psychiatric opinion as a fact, which is contradictory to how the reliable sources have described the issue. Only one has stated the psychiatric opinion as fact as far as I know and that was the New York Times which more recently wrote up the issue again correcting that error of balance. Misplaced Pages is a joke if ANI does not insist that the editors dominating that article come up with good reason to change the policy. Maybe there is in this instance but I do not see why. Also, the discussion at NPOV that has been closed was nearly all in support of my opinion and just more of the same garbage from the other side. Guy Macon was the only one making any effort to put a justification for the way the article is. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreasonable blocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rutabaga&diff=prev&oldid=724197171 was the edit that first caught my attention, that I reverted. I then reverted, maybe poorly, the specious edits that this editor made, which put me on Graham87's radar.

The other question to be addressed, is when is it ok to repeatedly delete a discussion off a talk page, just because you don't like the editor, as Graham did at Star Trek Beyond? This question I asked in Star Trek is by no means settled (i.e look at Talk:Mission:_Impossible_–_Rogue_Nation which has the same issue), but Graham87 deletes it out of hand as 'trolling'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute pure and simple, whether the blocks are appropriate becomes of less importance the more the IP keeps doing whatever it did to get blocked in the first place. Really, in all of wikipedia is there nothing else you want to edit other than whatever gets you blocked? If not, you'll end up with a permablock. Right or wrong you may be, but best to move on to something else that isn't going to get you a block. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Then I ask, an administrator can then "win" any content argument by repeatedly blocking those who disagree (as Graham87 is doing here)? Is the way we are supposed to be running wikipedia? I was trying to establish consensus about the article in question. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

IP, can you point to the first time Graham blocked you? I don't think you did anything deserving of a block aside from that edit war, but it's hard to follow your edit history when your IP changes about every 8 edits. I'm trying to figure out why he thinks you're a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems to originally stem from Blue cod, where the 2A02:C7D IP editor had reverted four times, though the odd thing is that Graham87 blocked the editor after the first edit, not the fourth. Can't see the logic for that one. Mind you, that means that the other three edits were after the block and were therefore block evasion, which may be something that Graham87 has been taking into account since. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I can't. I just looked as well. I know that I have probably annoyed him as well, as I have been quite frustrated that he basically follows my edits and immediately reverts them, and thus, I haven't always said things in the most collegial manner. It still doesn't explain his blocking, and nor his deletion of a talk page when requesting an unblock or discussion. Nor does it explain why he repeatedly deletes a perfectly valid conversation on an article talk page, which has yet to come to consensus. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I will not be answering questions on this again for a day or so. It's midnight local time here, and there's work in the morning! Thanks all for looking into this, regardless of outcome. I really have no problem with Graham, I really do have a problem with blocking without regard to allowing an appeal, and a HUGE problem with people deleting talk page discussions because they don't like the topic of discussion. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The interesting thing is, I also don't like when IP's come out and impose a certain variety of English or their interpretation of MOS, so when I saw :https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/203.79.119.108 had done that, I went ahead and reverted them (for what it's worth, they just did it again at Chard but someone else can revert that while this discussion is ongoing). Then, when Graham87 saw me do those reversions, he then reverted those edits. I did become personalised, as, I believed he was trolling me to keep the other edits in place (as he did at Star Trek Beyond with China as a movie of origin). I reverted, brought to the talk page, and asked (unless it was clear cut). Graham87 reverted, and immediately blocked me, because as an admin, he can do that. So, I did the same type of reversions he claims he loves to do, but I don't block the editor, and try to wipe all their comments from wikipedia. Yet still we can't have a consensus discussion on Star Trek Beyond as he keeps deleting the discussion there, which is a violation of Talk Page guidelines, but this doesn't bother anyone. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:BCE4:CF2:D7E9:6D88 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As Graham has admitted he has done something that probably should be left as long as he learns from the event that's fine and we can move to the meat of the question: is there any compelling reason to keep blocking an IP user that appears to be trying to improve Misplaced Pages? If so can we see links on problematic behavior? Tivanir2 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the admitted block-evader and IP-hopper still being allowed to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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

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

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

It's not about what happened "six months ago", its about showing an ongoing behavior that has not relented in spite of this time having passed. More recently, he admitted to applying subjective double-standards in his BLP editing, suggesting the rules apply to some people and not to others, when in fact the BLP rules are uniform and apply to every person of notability i.e has a page on Misplaced Pages. Beyond that, his manners are beyond the pale! My feeling is that the editor is bullying and actively hounding me, proven by the track records. He is consistently uncivil, such as in the examples here. His talk page shows that I am not the only one affected. The editor claims he is "treated like dirt by the administrators" when it is he himself who stands for the lion share of harassment. And if you want to talk about "issues" on the talk page, then look at the history of his deleted content and all the warnings he's been given (although he's tried to cover it up). Not a pretty sight at all. For the sake of peace, I would suggest a two-way interaction ban as per WP:IBAN, and I see no reason why User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would oppose such a ban, unless he is hell-bent on proceeding with the harassment and proving this fact to everyone. So User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is this the one thing we can agree on? You go your way, I go mine? A ban works just as well for you as for me.Holanthony (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I doubt that HW would agree with something like that. The whole "treated like dirt" spiel is getting old, and it is true that HW is really a total pain to deal with, lashing out before you said even hello; terrible manners. But comments like this, as unpleasant and uncollegial as they sound, aren't really blockable, and who knows, maybe HW is right, maybe you have made those mistakes before. I can't judge that, but either way, I don't think ANI is going to be much help given the reticence we seem to have these days with iBans. Sorry, I have little to offer, accept to keep your cool and let HW do the yelling; it'll make HW look bad, not you. BTW, please sign your name consistently here and on talk pages... Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Okay yes those edits are pointy but are they a block able offense? I'm gonna agree with Drmies they probably aren't. I'm also fairly sure most of us are tired of the seeing "treated like dirt" comment but hey its not against policy.I seriously doubt an iBan is going to be issued out for these remarks. Unfortunately WP:CIVIL is one of the most ignored policies on this project and I'd wager also one of the most under enforced policies. All I will and probably can suggest is to "be the bigger man" and keep a cool head while dealing with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It sucks but unfortunately it is what it is. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 22:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Being a "bigger man" is one thing, being a push-over is another. They guy clearly has me on his watchlist and has little better to do than to revert nearly every edit I (and others) make. I suggest looking at his "contribution history" he never ADDS any content, only REMOVES. The only exception to this, is when he adds a "nomination for deletion" for an article and that's only to for the purpose of removing more content. This guy does nothing for the community other than spreading negativity. If I request a ban, and the other party does not actively oppose one (and for what reason would he other than to continue bullying?), why shouldn't there be one? I see no reason not to grant an interaction ban, because I certainly don't want him anywhere near me, not now and not in the future! Worst part of all, the guy is impervious towards learning! Look here for instance! Holanthony (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Snark aside, that looks an awful lot like someone removing stuff that actually doesn't belong. Anmccaff (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

And this brings me to another point, the guy NEVER assumes good faith, which is what one is supposed to do. This goes for his deal with people by and large, which you can see on his history. Notwithstanding, this goes beyond the past two days at those three pages. I still request a two-way interaction ban!Holanthony (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you don't like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz why don't you just watch MSNBC instead of CNN? EEng 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

An interaction ban would do even better! Isn't there any way to get an admin to review this? Holanthony (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Sock puppetry and date vandalism

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

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

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

• I blocked for 72 hours for the disruption. I think it's wise to ping a CU like Bbb23 (who ran CU on this cat before). Drmies (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it came about, but someone let Bbb23 go away on holiday for a few days. I've closed the relevant SPI as the account is a confirmed sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Persistent OWN behavior despite multiple editors' warnings

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

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

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

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

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

• : "What exactly do you think you guys do for Misplaced Pages?"

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

• : "I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Misplaced Pages's amateurs!"

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

• : "I'm the only doing anything constructive on this article."

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

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

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

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

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

: "The best articles on Misplaced Pages tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors." And : "I'm the only doing anything constructive on this article." And comments to other editors like : "WarMachineWildThing, looking at his contrib history, is mainly interested in professional wrestling. How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

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

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

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

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

Threatening behavior by user CrashUnderride.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A75.175.65.141&type=revision&diff=731689659&oldid=731689040 This user falsely claimed that I was "harassing" another user. Actually, that other user had just harassed me, and I responded on his Talk page. Note: This is a recent offshoot of a more complex situation: I am being repeatedly victimized by people, based on editors who act as if they "own" a page, "Dreams From My Father". Fortunately, this matter can be dealt with separately, as this user (Crashunderride) was simply harassing me because I'd complained. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

• Yeah, I'm about to block you for wasting more of people's time (disruptive editing, personal attacks). I'm also going to semi-protect the article, in case you jump to yet another IP (see 216.161.88.111). Drmies (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • IP blocked. We're done here. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to adopt this complaint; it looks interesting. The complainant objected to "being repeatedly victimized by people", he then files a WP:ANI complaint, and just a few minutes later he is blocked for no obvious reason, which as I understand it will prevent him from continuing with the complaint. It sure sounds like the harassment he is complaining about. I've already found that user BU Rob13 harassed him and threatened to block him, at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:75.175.65.141&diff=prev&oldid=731677454 One of the comments that BU Rob13 made was "Stop edit warring to reintroduce BLP violations onto the talk page." However, I can't find the BLP violations he's talking about. A good place to start is to ask BU Rob13 what these "BLP violations" are, or why an edit on a Talk page would constitute a BLP violation. 174.25.59.49 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Woohoo Portland in the house! Yes, the BLP extends everywhere; I believe you were told this two IPs ago already. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Competence issues, tagteaming and hounding

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

• Maybeparaphrased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Update: They seem to have opened an SPI case against me and several others now. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lemongirl942. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I would also like to add that at WordSeventeen's sock puppet case, Zpeopleheart is acting inappropriately. Seemingly anyone who had disagreed with him, he tried to add to the ongoing SPI case, even though there is no real connections between the users. It just shows he is less than willing to collaborate and work with editors if they express a different opinion from his.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I fully support Lemongirl942's remarks. I have been following the edits of Zpeopleheart for some time and they are invariably part of a tag team hounding someone. If 1 member is banned then another pops up. (user:WordSeventeen, now banned, user:Jilllyjo sock of WordSeventeen, Fouette (above).) Unfortunately it is difficult to follow the ramifications of the history of these problematic editors. Oculi (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support the proposal up to the ban. I've interacted with both editors, and these interactions have been problematic, and similar to what the OP observed. I'm more concerned that both editors in question frequently move new articles into mainspace. With the issues that are outlined in this ANI, I'm concerned that these articles may be problematic as well. Please see this diff for example. One of the two editors (Zpeople) notifies the user about their article having been accepted, while the previous edit on this page is a warning about COI editing, which is a bit ironic. The other editor (Maybeparaphrased) frequently declines speedy deletion tags, such as in this example of an article previously deleted at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the article is democraciaAbierta, the main editor is user:FrancescBadia, and the article states "Francesc Badia i Dalmases is Editor/Director of democraciaAbierta". Subtle. Oculi (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• While the ANI is on-going, editor Zpeople removes a speedy deletion tag; pls see diff (already been restored). With zero learning curve, a community ban looks like the only option. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support - User:Maybeparaphrased had a good shot at not getting dragged down into this whole mess, but has clearly chosen to not learn from what happened to User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. Neither editor is a net positive to the site, so what needs to be done needs to be done. --Tarage (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment; I think it's worth mentioning that Maybeparaphrased narrowly escaped receiving a block only two weeks ago despite strong calls for a block of up to six months for tag-teaming and harrassment, . Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support community ban - might sort things out once and for all here. Hopefully they will find a better hobby after a ban is enforced. Zero 09:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Maybeparaphrased should have been blocked the previous time, as community consensus was for it. Considering that this user hasn't learned a thing after the previous ANI, an indef block is in order. This harassment will just continue unless Maybeparaphrased is blocked. Zpeople is clearly in communication with Fouette and MaybeParaphrased, and the user's behavior warrants a indef. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The sockpuppet report filed by User:Zpeopleheart is further evidence of what is mentioned above, as it is clearly retaliatory (and obviously unfounded). My interactions with User:Zpeopleheart have been limited so far, but what I've seen has left me unimpressed. I've had less contact with User:Maybeparaphrased, so I can't add any comments about that editor. freshacconci talk to me 12:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Looking at the evidence provided above, as well as the previous ANI discussions and the reports filed against other accounts -- I can assert the following:

1. Frequent and consistent disruptive behavior have occurred by these users, and to the point that their contributions can be seen as not being a net positive to the project.
2. The disruptive behavior has been discussed multiple times by the community, and to a significant extent.
3. The users involved have been sufficiently warned about the behavior, and they are aware that they are causing disruption that is ongoing.
4. Reasonable, fair, and appropriate actions have been previously imposed in order to prevent further disruption and correct the behavior, and to no avail.
5. The disruptive behavior will continue to occur if appropriate sanctions are not imposed by the community.
6. A community ban is the logical next step to prevent further disruption to the project, and stop the disruptive behavior.

I agree that enough is enough, and that (while I absolutely dislike ever having to show somebody the door) it's time to say goodbye and wish these users well in their future volunteer hobbies. ~Oshwah~ 14:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I had opposed any first time block that exceeded a month in that previous discussion with some hope that MBP would take the hint. But they've decided to go entirely the other way. Zpeopleheart's outrageous behaviour is beyond the pale. Thus, Support the ban for both of them. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Community ban - They clearly know what they are doing is wrong. They've been warned and now they've chased away a good editor. Support per Oshwah's analysis and for clear violations of WP:CIR, WP:HOUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASSMENT. We shouldn't allow these users to create a toxic environment. The fact that they are using WP:SPI as a battle ground for petty vengeance is one of the most concerning things in my opinion. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support a community ban for both. This is a clear example of wiki-hounding and harassment. There's no excuse for this kind of conduct, and this is not an editor that is a net positive for the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support based on the outrageous behavior listed above in conjunction with the frivolous SPI Zpeopleheart has opened here . Obviously, the SPI he filed is in retaliation for this report as well as the SPI filed with him as the suspected sock. I'm not one to go for the ultimate of a ban with users, but his behavior at SPI took it to a whole new level. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback/_dude. 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support a community ban for both. This is a clear example of wiki-hounding and harassment.They have already chased away one editor and now they are trying to bully another.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Snow support the CBAN, as per all the reasons made cogently and coherently above. Particularly, I am noting how the community's repeated assumptions of good faith have been repeatedly thrown back in our faces. This stops right now.

I also note that Zpeopleheart has been blocked twice for disrupive editing, the last time for six months, and that Maybeparaphrased only recently escaped a block of similar duration by the skin of. This tells me they are as aware of our procedures as frankly it is possible to be. _Muffled 17:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support I want to make it clear per my comment above that I support this ban, at least for User:Zpeopleheart. I agree with the points raised by others and I see his/er edits to be disruptive, they add nothing to the project, and his/her interaction with other editors is hostile and petty. I see that the spurious sockpuppet report against Lemongirl942 is now closed (as it should be) and it was clearly bad faith retaliation. freshacconci talk to me 17:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. In the past few days, Zpeopleheart has inappropriately put {{in use}} templates on at least 2 articles and left them up for extended periods of time (~2 days on Frank S. Welsh), here and diffs aren't available for the Welsh article b/c of an unrelated copyvio, causing other editors, myself included, to have to remove them on his behalf. I started following his edits a little more closely after I noticed that he'd placed a bad-faith warning on K.e.coffman's talkpage. Then out of the blue (to me), Maybeparaphrased inappropriately re-inserted an {{in use}} template with a bad faith and absurd edit summary about K.e. being "disruptive" and then reverted K.e.'s good edits and made 3 other minor and blatantly pointless edits, i.e., adding one wikilink, a comma, and to change the template from {{in use}} to {{under construction}}, preventing other editors from working on the article for several hours until Freshacconci finally removed the template today. —PermStrump(talk) 20:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of personal information

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

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

OS may be appropriate here. BTW DrChrissy if you think someone is giving out private information as is the case here, email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org to deal with it privately. Zero 14:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, I suspected there might be a method of doing it privately rather than drawing public attention to it. I will follow your advice, so this thread can be closed. DrChrissy 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's a good idea - do link to these diffs on here too just in case these need suppressing too. Zero 14:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I deliberately did not link to the single edit as I did not want to leave another trail of information. I have e-mailed the oversight team so it is in their hands now. Thanks for the advice. DrChrissy 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem has now been addressed by @Floquenbeam: - thanks. If there is any merit in having this thread suppressed, I would not object. DrChrissy 15:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No reason to suppress this thread, but (as Dr Chrissy acknowledges, but which bears repeating for anyone reading this) please report oversight/revdel requests privately; I suspect ANI is the most highly watched page on the project. Everything that I think needed revision deletion has been revdel'd; I don't think Oversight is needed. Also blocked Mad666paul. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this Floquenbeam. This thread can now be closed officially I reckon. Zero 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also you can always ask for oversight on WP:IRC in #Misplaced Pages-en-revdel --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As a remark, there is information provided in the editnotice for this page about how to contact oversighters privately. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Beth and others. I was unsure of how much of a problem this disclosure was which is why I posed it as a question here - I think next time (if there is one) I will go straight to oversight. It sounds like is the safest default in such cases. DrChrissy 16:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation at Salvador Dalí

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

It does appear to be a copyvio to me, I've gone ahead and removed the content again per policy and re-linked the source page in the edit summary and commented on Sapphorain's talk page. Given the edit summaries Sapphorain left, I think they just missed the link to all-art.org in the first edit summary that pointed out the copyvio. Provided they don't restore the copyvio content again, I'd say it's just a simple mistake and nothing to see here. Waggie (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Waggie. You're probably correct, but after four reversions and two different editors, I thought it was time to solicit further assistance, rather than edit warring. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Informationskampagne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disregarding the IP6 editor, and whether he is a sock, can we go back to Informationskampagne and his problematic edits, please? Debresser (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Vmzp85, WP:UNBROKEN and WP:CIVIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OWNership issues on BlackBerry-related articles.

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

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

Reply from Peter K Burian. The complainant, ViperSnake151 has reverted all of my edits to the BlackBerry Priv article on at least two (possibly three) occasions in order to delete content that I had added. See the Talk page at that article AND the July 2016 item on my Talk page.

He had provided no reason whatsoever for reverting the content I had added. I explained this in the Talk section:

QUOTE: My edits which updated this article were reverted by ViperSnake151. Why? Who knows? He failed to provide an Edit Summary as Misplaced Pages requires. Since he has not done so, I have reverted his edits. ....... WP:Edit summary Always provide an edit summary: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.

Yes, I did revert his edit (that deleted all of the content I had added) to get my content reinstated. He reverted my revisions again. Finally, I have just been making edits, adding fully cited content instead of reverting. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply 2 from Peter K Burian. The complainant, ViperSnake151 deleted 90% of the content I had added today to the BlackBerry DTEK50 article. See the Talk page at that article. I did not Revert him but simply added content that I believe is valuable.

More specifically: This article was little more than a stub this morning. I added fully-cited content; later in the day he deleted most of it. He did not Revert, he just deleted large sections of the content that I had added. I did not Revert his deletion of my content, not wishing to start a WP:WAR. Instead, I added back content that I felt was valuable to readers of this article. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of ViperSnake151 deleting content from the BlackBerry Priv article that I had added :

It started without an explanation or logical rationale 16:09, 27 July 2016‎ ViperSnake151 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,642 bytes) (-270)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Peter K Burian (talk) to last version by ViperSnake151)

My response after he deleted much of the content I had added: 18:55, 27 July 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,433 bytes) (+944)‎ . . (Please do NOT delete all of the text I have added to every BlackBerry article; let's not start a WP:WAR) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• You both need to calm down and stop commenting about one another so much. Looking over some of your discussions (and here), you both get so bogged down on accusations, bolding/italicizing, and carrying on, that it quickly becomes too overwhelming for anyone to intervene. That's probably why no one has bothered to comment in these first 12+ hours here at ANI either - this conversation is already a mess to read. Honestly, to me, this all looks like a content dispute that's getting muddled down with accusations, bad faith, and ramblings. If I were you, I'd propose a few of the disputed points at a WikiProject or WP:DRN, state your case, and let others jump in rather than just arguing circles again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Serge. I suppose I got upset because he was the one deleting my content without an explanation and then he posted a complaint that I am "getting into disputes". Peter K Burian (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He is trying to enforce ideas that are not usually used on technology articles. We've usually kept extraneous statistics about things like cameras out of article text and put them in the infobox sidebar; see LG G2 for an example. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Require Conflict Resolution Skills

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Knanaya#Requesting_an_Admin_for_Conflict_Resolution 117.213.23.76 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Help required: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Knanaya&diff=731827096&oldid=731826569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.23.76 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Trolling by DePiep

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

Bad faith accusation by Andy Dingley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible paid editing at Hillier Parker May and Rowden

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

(edit conflict) I'm also suspicious of this "Richard Ashworth" who posted to the talk page. The account he created (after editing via IP one time) seems to also be an SPA. It's also possible that one is a sock of the other, but there isn't enough evidence (in my opinion) for an SPI to be opened, much less for a CU to check into it. In the meantime, I've added the {{Connected contributor}} template to the talk page. It can be changed to be {{Connected contributor (paid)}} if need be. Since I've mentioned Richard here, I'm also gonna give him an ANI notice. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've also notified WP:UAA of the potential "implies shared use" username, "Philjonescomp". -- Gestrid (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but an article on a now-defunct real estate agency is small beer as these things go. The agency probably is notable in a historical context although the article certainly could stand to be cleaned up if anybody cares. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In my lights, the article should be shortened to its lead (three short sentences). I understand the detailed information is looking for a new home, but with all the self-sourcing, Misplaced Pages shouldn't be that home. Pinging user:Iridescent who removed the speedy template and User:DGG who prodded the article a few days ago. (PROD removed by Philjonescomp.) Bishonen | talk 07:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC).

Merge. It was sold to Coldwell Banker, so the material could be inserted there. I think there is need in these articles to clarify the various mergers and eacquisitions and changes of name. (but not the list of managing directors and the individual offices) DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Per my comment on the talkpage, I declined the speedy deletion request as "No indication of importance" clearly isn't the case (if anything, this suffers from altogether too many claims of importance), but on the understanding that it would either be reliably sourced throughout or stubbified. Stubbify it for the moment; if the firm was really this large, it will be possible for anyone who cares to do so to source it from the trade press if they do want to restore it to its full length. The whole "paid editing" thing is something of a sidetrack—piecing through the comments, it seems the two "paid editors" are former employees who have written this on behalf of the "Hillier Parker Old Boys & Girls Club" for former employees. This isn't forbidden (we have plenty of old soldiers writing about the army, for instance), and I struggle to see how anyone could have much of a conflict of interest regarding an firm which ceased to exist in 1998. Yes, "used to work for the company" is still technically a COI by Misplaced Pages's definition, but with no possible way anyone could benefit from this article (other than a theoretical warm glow from making their former employer sound impressive) this is such small fry I really wouldn't consider treating it as a ToU violation. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(adding) A merge to Coldwell Banker would be totally inappropriate. While the "CB" in CBRE Group (the group which absorbed Hillier Parker) does stand for "Coldwell Banker", CBRE was spun off into a wholly independent entity long before it took over Hillier Parker, and it has no connection to the present-day Coldwell Banker other than the name. The alternative would be to restructure the CBRE Group article to describe all the mergers and acquisitions that created it, but that would mean quite a bit of work. ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm being attacked again!

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

IP blocked for a month. Not indef only because I don't know when the IP will reset. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• The IP user basically violated the policies WP:NPA and WP:SOAPBOX over and over again. But if you see my talk page there's another IP user which made similar claims. Probably somebody would need to take more actions. Also, can I deleted the lame discussion from my talk page??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you can delete it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thanks, but there are two IPs: 177.142.86.178 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.224.54 (talk · contribs). Chronus (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm bad, but are we in the presence of a WP:TROLL??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Guy seems to think his purpose on Misplaced Pages is to defend Brazil's former military dictatorship and point out how everything bad in the country is communism's fault. Anyone who disagrees with him is a communist vandal. On that note, I have also blocked the other IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Yes, Leo Bonilla, if the posts haven't been answered, it's best you remove them with a clear edit summary on the lines of "never mind, solved now". They'll appreciate not having to look into it. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC).

@Someguy1221: As you can see above, the user return. Chronus (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah that person needs to find a different hobby. I found another sock (SuperTrump (talk · contribs)) and reported them on Commons as well for uploading images they claimed as their own. Tsk, tsk. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• It seems the user came back to my talk page. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He's blocked now too. Unfortunately he comes back every time on a new IP range, so all we can do is play whack-a-mole for the time being. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: I can't believe the user went to your talk page. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a software expert, but the IP can come back only using a different computer on different locations, changing the internet provider or borrowing a mobile phone, right? Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. If the IP address is dynamic, all the user has to do is reset his router or MODEM. --Elektrik Fanne 18:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh God!!!!! Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Block these users

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

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen! I'm Ardi from Indonesia, sorry to bother all of you for a while, can you block these users Adam Aflah (talk · contribs) and Armano Hakiim (talk · contribs)? Because they're possible sockpuppets of Adam aflah (talk · contribs) (which is a vandalism-only account). Sorry for my possibly bad English. Thanks. ArdiPras95 (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Normally, sockpuppets are reported to WP:SPI. Anyway, do you have any more evidence than just usernames? Such as examples of how the vandalism looks similar. Admins can't just go blocking accounts because they have a similar username to a blocked account. They have to have proof that they're related. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. ArdiPras95, you have provided no evidence and I have not found any. And please stop BLPPRODding articles that have sources. --NeilN 08:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User Sadpopsicle vandalism only account

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

Sadpopsicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing only consists of vandalizing articles and personal attacks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. Usually, WP:AIV is the place for these kinds of reports. --NeilN 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The user has also made death threats. How do I report this as an emergency? Linguist 111 08:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:EMERGENCY or this page's edit notice. NeilN 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've sent an email. Linguist 111 09:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User Md.Samiulali.37

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

Md.Samiulali.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recreated Pirgacha Govt. Primary School which was deleted after an AFD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pirgacha Govt. Primary School - I tagged for deletion G4, but user has deleted the speedy tag at least 6 times. Article creator User:Md.Samiulali.37 appears to be a duck-sockpuppet of User:Md Samiul Ali Pramanik who created the previous article, and was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mohammed Samiul Ali - All have similar names and only edit articles on schools in Lahiripara Union, Bangladesh. - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked and tagged, page deleted. Thank you, Arjayay. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC).

Unilateral repeated removal of images

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

Was doing general upkeep on Gender, Gender role, and Sex and gender distinction yesterday morning: minor c/e, sister project links, images and the like. Ryk72 (previously indeffed under Gamergate DS) came across the Sex and gender distinction article and was having none of it.

First they removed literally every image from the article. I reverted and attempted to address on their talk. And apparently they have returned this morning to again remove every image from the article, undoing six edits, and also removing {{Portal|LGBT|Transgender}}. Particularly relevant, they also removed an overlay of the Trans and Genderqueer pride flags...from a section entitled "Transgender and genderqueer" ...which...just makes no sense at all. (Note: my last revert on this article was an unexplained removal of text by an IP, not a revert of this user.) Images removed:

• 
• 
• 
• File:Sex and gender identification's poster in UPF Ciutadella campus.jpg
• 

They also apparently followed to Gender role, and removed the lead, image thrice, even after I pointed them through both edit summaries and on their talk, to the discussion on talk where we had decided to move the LGBT infobox down to a section, and replace with the generic lead image (first image in the gallery above), following the format of the article on Gender.

I've encouraged them on their talk to find improved images on commons, or in public domain/with the appropriate license, and to suggest or boldly include them in the article. But it doesn't seem like they're particularly want to do that, and would rather just remove everything, as they apparently did this morning on the first article. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please have a higher bar for ANI reports? This could be brought to the attention of your friendly neighborhood admin, instead of a big long report for all here to read, on something going on only a day. This is something that could be said about lots of ANI reports, but that this one comes equipped with images, even, makes the wasted effort particularly striking. EEng 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - There are clear factual errors in the post by Timothyjosephwood, above; particularly around the timings of my edits, but also about their nature. There is also a clear failure to WP:AGF. I note that I have not been sanctioned under Gamergate DS - the solitary block on my record was incorrectly made by a rogue, since desysopped admin, under sanction relating to the Senkaku Islands dispute. My edits to Sex and gender distinction (an article which to the best of my recollection I have edited before), were made 15 or so hours ago, and is prior to the discussion between Timothy & I on my Talk page; this request is clearly stale.
I note that "removed every image" is actually "removed two recently added images", which do not relate simply & directly to the article subject. I do not concur with Timothy that these additions which they made were clear improvements to the article, and reverted them on that basis. I also do not concur with Timothy's view that there is a clear Talk page consensus for the inclusion of the image which I reverted from Gender role; the discussion is clearly primarily about other changes to the article. If my edits to Sex and gender distinction removed to much, then I apologise, and am happy to discuss the inclusions on Talk, as I have done at Gender role; but the behaviour by Timothy in reverting to maintain a desired version is contrary to WP:BRD and is borderline WP:OWNnership. This is a simple case of an editor making bold changes to an article, which were reverted, and then edit warring to include those changes. I am not that editor. - Ryk72 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to this most recent edit, which removed four, in addition to your previous edit removing the lead image, for a total of five, which, by my math, is approximately "every single image in the article".

I have said nothing about, nor do I have any opinion on other edits you may have made to the article, except for the unexplained removal of {{Portal|LGBT|Transgender}}. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, this same edit was made eight hours after I posted on your talk. TimothyJosephWood 13:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The edits which I made to Sex and gender distinction and which are referred to above are WP:BRD reverts of WP:BOLD changes to the article made by Timothyjosephwood. Apropos the post on my Talk page, we don't get to force other editors to not object to BOLD changes and we don't get to avoid following WP:BRD by posting Talk page comments. There is not yet a discussion of these inclusions at Talk:Sex and gender distinction; let's have one, with other editors, and form a consensus. - Ryk72 14:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with EEng. The three articles linked in the OP have 251, 287, and 70 watchers, respectively, and I see no effort to address this on any of their talk pages. ANI is not for content disputes (how many times does that need to be said, even to editors with some experience?), and lousy editing judgment (if that's what this was) is not a behavioral issue and therefore not a matter for ANI. Use the content dispute resolution resources available to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's the consensus then so be it. I don't see it as a content dispute to repeatedly strip an entire article of images, and carry that mission on to other articles, warring to remove an image that had been there for three weeks, and was placed there after a talk discussion that lasted several days. I see that as flatly disruptive. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Step 1: Get consensus for your view. Step 2: If your opponent edits against that consensus, come to ANI with a DE complaint. You skipped Step 1, and you have no consensus. This is not a case of clear vandalism, which is the only exception I'm aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I do consider the blanket removal of obviously relevant images from an article as damn near if not outright vandalism. It is wanton removal of content, and "revert AGF revision" does not constitute a "non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content... provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary" especially when done repeatedly, apparently indiscriminately, and across articles.

I would not take such exception to an editor who has an issue with a particular image for a particular purpose. This is, in fact, why the current lead image on Gender role is there. Blanking an entire page of images is nonsense, but apparently I'm alone on that. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In some cases, the article talk consensus could be seen as a mere formality. Nevertheless, it's a necessary formality in my view. If you're so clearly in the right, the consensus should be easy and won't take long. I simply believe in process, working within the system, and letting the system work for you. It often takes longer that way, but there's no real urgency to fix the problem today. All edits are revertable and will still be revertable next week (albeit not necessarily "undo"able).
(Contrary to widespread misinterpretation, vandalism is pure intent to damage an article, and there is no evidence of that intent from an editor with 4600 edits and no vandalism blocks. No amount of bad judgment makes it vandalism.) ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User: ‎Md.Samiulali.38

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

Having blocked User: ‎Md.Samiulali.37 as a sockpuppet this morning (see section two places above), we have a "new" editor ‎Md.Samiulali.38, first edit was to recreate one of the same articles - please block again, - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Xboxmanwar on music articles

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

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

At the article Kodak Black:

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

On that same article, there has been talk page discussion here and here about not adding certain aliases to the infobox. Despite that, Xboxmanwar has added the aliases 7 times: , , , , , , .

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

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

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

Or bullies other editors in edit summaries:

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

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

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

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

Section blanking

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

Canvasing

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

Comments

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

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

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

References

1. On a side note there is something strange with the Xboxmanwar user account. It appears to be the partial remnant of a deleted/recycled account name from 2011 based on the first two talk page entries and the first contrib entry (all dated 2011). Can an admin check this out? Was there an old user with the same name in 2011 and what happened to the user's full contrib history?

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dominion of Melchizedek

A bunch of POV problems. A variety of adminhammers may prove useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

this comment by Bssmith117 to his own talk page admits to a clear conflict of interest and a declaration of their 'right' to edit the target article to say what they want it to say. --Elektrik Fanne 16:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: Your link leads to the page history, not a specific diff. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Doh! Try this one. --Elektrik Fanne 17:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley Statement is not accurate. I made no such "declaration of their "right" to say whatever I want to say". My statement and purpose for activity on the Dominion of Melchizedek Misplaced Pages page is to change the introduction of the lead on that page to reflect a more accurate description of the State and current Status of the Dominion of Melchizedek.

The current lead is entirely inaccurate for multiple reasons, the biggest reason being the statement cited, cannot be found anywhere in the Quatloos article used. Further, The sources used to "verify" and stand as "proof" of DoM's status in international law have no authority to make such claims. These sources include "Quatloos", the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Comptroller of the US. The authority to determine the political status and recognition of a State rest exclusively with the State Department of the United States and respective high offices of other Nation States.

The page for the Dominion of Melchizedek has been skewed, bias, and negative for many years. The introduction proposed by me is not POV, nor should it be considered Conflict of Interest. I asked Any on the Dominion of Melchizedek Talk page to explain which parts he considered Promotional Whitewash and Unsourced as he claimed and I have even updated the introduction with a link to verifying documents. I also asked him to verify and prove that the current Introduction is sourced properly.

I have also asked Bromley86 a notorious editor who always reverts any edit back to its original, to provide me with his credentials in International law and how States Recognize other Societies. This is not about COI, this is about proper understanding of International law, procedure, and up to date facts about the activities of the State. Not about hanging on to information that is over a decade old which is highly opinionated and one sided. Bssmith117 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, under the conflict of interest policy, you are not permitted to directly edit any article with which you have a close connection. Any perceived qualification that you may believe you have does not change that policy. You may only propose changes on the article talk page (with supporting references). If another editor believes your edits are valid, supported and improve the article, then they will carry out the edit on your behalf.

Also note that the article lede is meant to ba summary of the main body of the article. Your contribution most certainly is not, but the existing lede is a reasonable (if somewhat brief) summary of what is a remarkably well referenced article by most standards. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bssmith117: What Elektrik Fanne is saying is that the following statement you made on your talk page is "a declaration of 'right' to edit the target article to say what want it to say." You said on your talk page: "My team and I, regardless of what you consider a COI will continue to do what we can to see that this page is correct and reflect the RECOGNIZED State of the Dominion of Melchizedek." Basically, you seem to be saying that you have no regard for our policies and procedures. Plus, believe it or not, your credentials in this particular case make you less qualified to edit the article, as you seem to have a conflict of interest. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors are not required to have "credentials" to edit in any subject area. GAB 20:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the page "Lars von Trier"

The page of the Danish filmmaker and screenwriter Lars von Trier has undergone extensive edits in the past few days, and it appears that Augstn, one of the primary editors, is making counterproductive changes. Problems include reversions of grammatical corrections and instances of borderline-puffery. There has been discussion of it on my talk page. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He's violated WP:3RR. Reporting. Warning, as he is a new user that likely doesn't know about 3RR. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He also wasn't welcomed, so I gave him {{welcomelaws}}. Is it ok if this is closed? -- Gestrid (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed there has been a discussion, and I started this discussion because you were deleting and rewriting specific entries without explaining why. Once the talk started you expressed your opinion and so did I. Your opinion had nothing to do with grammatical corrections as you claim: you insist on wanting a specific film of the director to be mentioned on the lead and an award mention to move elsewhere. There is a consensus of 3 users (1 being myself, User:Kinema) and User:Bndktfanta - the only active users editing the page including you) that these opinions you express don't comply with the living persons wikipedia policy that require high-quality citation. You insist on either analyzing the subject based on your opinion, based on criteria that are irrelevant with what is written on the intro or by providing social media and low-quality cites (imdb and rotten tomatoes). 2 more users commented against your arguments on your talk page. Despite this clear consensus you insist on deleting and rewriting the entries, every day, without mentioning what and why you delete and rewrite nor making an argument capable to break the consensus. Augustn 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs)

There are 4 users, including myself, the past few days trying to correct a very messy wiki entry with extremely poor text, references and structure. Augstn is not the only one. We have corrected endless links and passages, You, AndrewOne have been fixating with 1 line on the lead for the past 5 days and all you have contributed is constantly changing it, even if most of us have disagreed with your POV. I don't understand the basis of your complain.