Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{atop|Looks like we are done here--] (]) 10:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)}}
On , {{userlinks|Calton}} posted a rhetorical question attack by stating "You know, lying about what I wrote. Is English your first language?" ] states to "Comment on '''content''', not on the '''contributor'''." ] (]) 03:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
On , {{userlinks|Calton}} posted a rhetorical question attack by stating "You know, lying about what I wrote. Is English your first language?" ] states to "Comment on '''content''', not on the '''contributor'''." ] (]) 03:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
:A complaint about {{U|Ruslik0}} by one of the related Alberta IPs was rejected at AN3 a couple of days ago, and I've semi-protected the article to force discussion after a slow edit-war on the part of the Alberta IPs to include promotionally-tinged material about very preliminary research at the University of Alberta, sourced only to the university, with edit summaries like "do not revert." They've finally gotten around to using the talkpage. This is the second forum they've approached. Having been challenged by three editors, a better strategy might be to reduce the bluster and show, using prominent sources independent of the university, that this is the breakthrough they're claiming. Bluster isn't a substitute for independent sourcing. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
:A complaint about {{U|Ruslik0}} by one of the related Alberta IPs was rejected at AN3 a couple of days ago, and I've semi-protected the article to force discussion after a slow edit-war on the part of the Alberta IPs to include promotionally-tinged material about very preliminary research at the University of Alberta, sourced only to the university, with edit summaries like "do not revert." They've finally gotten around to using the talkpage. This is the second forum they've approached. Having been challenged by three editors, a better strategy might be to reduce the bluster and show, using prominent sources independent of the university, that this is the breakthrough they're claiming. Bluster isn't a substitute for independent sourcing. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Line 150:
Line 150:
Well, SOMEBODY'S not happy --] | ] 23:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, SOMEBODY'S not happy --] | ] 23:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
*Blocked. ]] 00:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
*Blocked. ]] 00:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Charges of Nazism by an IP ==
== Charges of Nazism by an IP ==
Revision as of 10:01, 27 December 2018
Page for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Completely overhauls the stable revision on the Armenia page, changing the "establishment date" of Armenia from the 6th century BC to 2492 BC without edit summary/explanation. When Calthinus restored the original version, "Leo Freeman" restored his version, thus ignoring WP:BRD and WP:WAR. MIND YOU; Calthinus made a talk page section in September 2018 about the very same content, but "Leo Freeman" never bothered to participate.
Removed the Georgian transliteration on the Mushki page, using an edit summary "Nothing Georgian, they are connected much more with Armenians".
Replaced the Hebrew transliteration from the lede of a church in Jerusalem with an Armenian transliteration. No edit summary/explanation
Changed "Persian" to "Armenian", even though the Armenian in question served as a general in the Persian armies.
Added "Armenians in Bulgaria" to the article of a Bulgarian ruler. No edit summary/explanation.
Removes the Georgian transliteration of a town related to Georgian history, but keeping the Armenian one. No edit summary/explanation
Edit warring on Henrikh Mkhitaryan in order to add a link to "Armenians".-
Changed "seventh century BC" to "2nd millenium BC" without source and edit summary/explanation (i.e. making Armenians "more ancient").
Added "Armenian" to the Proto-Greek language article without edit summary/explanation.
Edit-warring on the Sabre Dance article in order to remove the Russian transliteration (a ballet composed by a Soviet-Armenian composer and conductor).-
Added "Armenian satrap" to the lede of a ruler of the Persian Empire. No edit summary/explanation
Added unsourced content to the Armenian language page. No edit summary/explanation.
I was not aware of the depth of how problematic this pattern was before -- I had only interacted with the ultranationalist edits on Armenia, i.e. attempts to date Armenia's history back to a "traditional" date with no sourcing at all before 2400 BC. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear LouisAragon, I can't understand why you are so obsessed with my route, that was you who wrote me you are not saying my edits are "incorrect", isn't it ? Even the fellow list, you have chosen and put here, is absolutely correct, based on historical facts and on the basis to develop Misplaced Pages. Just as an example taking even editing about Proto-Greek, assume, you know certainly it was proper. So concerning traditional date "2492 BC" in the article "Armenia", one more time, friends, it is traditional (!) date, legend, and it was written not as a fact but certainly, I quote from the article - "Traditional date 2492 BC" was / is it acceptable ? guess yes. And it was the basic view of that article for many years, before user Calthinus determined about its ultranationalist concept. You can see on the page "Japan" the traditional date - "660 BC", why it is not ultranationalist for you Calthinus ? Your way of thinking and ideology are ambidextrous. Because what you argue has nothing to do with nationalism, protocronism, that is encyclopedical issue, information. And I insist we must keep the traditional date as it was before, with the "Formation and independence" + of course, other data you deleted with it - Hayasa-Azzi (1500–1290 BC), Arme-Shupria (14th century–1190) and so on until the Orontid dynasty 6th century BC, not just (!) from the Orontid dynasty. The Armenian "Establishment history" is partial, uncompleted with your renovations and intentions Calthinus. Please, reconsider your approach to the issue. Leo Freeman (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Em, no, I produced sufficient and comprehensive scholarship, including Armenian scholarship, not only debunking the myth you are trying to restore in the infobox, but showing how it arose out of attempts by ethnonationalists to reframe global history. And I doubt LouisAragon will take this seriously either. --Calthinus (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone propose a topic ban of some sort? This seems like the sort of thing that would generate some consensus. Giving the admins something to act on, like enforcing a community-agreed-upon topic ban, would help. --Jayron3213:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month WP:AA2 topic ban (broadly construed)6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus region. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
LouisAragon this isn't broad enough. Given what you have demonstrated about his history, and especially his tendencies to attribute accomplishments in the histories of the Levant, Greece, Georgia, and Iran to Armenians, I propose broadening the ban to cover all topics in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus region. --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. Frankly, I'm not sure this will suffice; this user seems pretty single-minded (and largely WP:NOTHERE) with regard to the focus of their editing, so I'm doubtful this course of action will retain them as a useful editor in other areas; more likely is that they will sock or otherwise attempt to avoid or circumvent the block, or simply decide to leave the project entirely once they are thwarted in pushing a nationalist perspective in edits relating to the history of the region in questions. I would also note, there are some basic competency issues involved here--these issues were not been a focus of discussion above because the complaining editors decided to steer clear of it as ancillary issue, but as an un-involved party I will point out that, aside from having a sketchy understanding of policy and how to approach content in a neutral fashion, this editor also clearly has extremely limited facility with English. Reading their above comments, it is possible to divine the gist of their meaning, but they are clearly far too gung-ho and insistent given the limitations on their ability to communicate effectively here and engage with complex editorial issues in a language which they seem to be only semi-functional in. All of these factors taken together, I'm skeptical that a TBAN is going to resolve these issues in a fashion that retains an otherwise useful editor, but it is the standard approach in cases such as this, and I see no reason not to give the benefit for the doubt and start here. Snow08:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. The available evidence is overwhelming. I propose expanding the ban to cover all topics related to Armenia, Armenians and Armenian culture broadly construed, because in my experience geo limiting tends to be problematic in such cases. — kashmīrī20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor was blocked recently for persistent disruptive behavior, as a result of the previous post on this noticeboard regarding it. His very first edit after the block was more of the same - biting a novice editor with an "only warning". While his edit summaries may be slightly less uncivil, there has been scant improvement (e.g. ). He's accused me of "stalking" him because he's apparently under the impression that I have an obligation to remove pages from my watchlist if he edits them. Another snarky comment here, after a "citation needed" tag was placed on an edit he made that directly contradicted other information in the article - and he's still flaunting his claimed insider information in an attempt to "pull rank" and/or intimidate others against questioning him. He has accused Typ932, a well-reputed automotive editor, of disruptive editing in response to one of his edits being questioned where he removed a reliable source and inexplicably removed the citation template from another.
Carmaker1 has repeatedly (, , , ) added a designer's name (Jeff Teague) in front of a citation () in which that name does not appear, and has accused me of being disruptive for removing it when he can't possibly be unaware that it is blatantly misleading. He did eventually add a supporting citation in the article prose, along with leaving me a nasty response in my attempt to engage on his talk page, but still refuses to resolve the issue and doesn't seem to understand why it's misleading. For someone who is incessantly carrying on in edit summaries about how sloppy and careless and disruptive everyone else on Misplaced Pages is, he doesn't appear to hold himself to the same standard.
Carmaker1 also continues to defy project consensus in his mission to purge Misplaced Pages of the model-year automotive nomenclature system he seems to loathe (e.g. ).
Carmaker1 is either not here to build an encyclopedia and instead has some sort of axe to grind, or simply does not have the temperament to edit cooperatively and constructively. Being that it's the Christmas season I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's the latter, and perhaps a different subject area to focus on and develop positive editing habits with would be helpful. Since automotive articles seem to bring about a significant emotional reaction, possibly related to his claims of being in the industry, I'd suggest, at minimum, an indefinite topic ban from articles relating to motor vehicles, broadly construed, as well as an indefinite ban from posting a level-4im warning on the talk page of any other editor. --Sable232 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for a month for the Teague-related hoax. To quote myself at his talk page: Obviously anyone can misread a source or misremember where something came from, but when you're warned that you've added a hoax, and yet you edit-war to ensure that it remain, you've gone well beyond WP:AGF. No comment on anything else, because I've not looked into it. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Unless Carmaker1 is intentionally adding false information, I wouldn't call it a hoax. Adding poorly-sourced or unsourced names is very frustrating, but it's different than hoaxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, this user was causing the article to include a statement that a source said X, when it obviously didn't say X: that's a hoax, an attempt to deceive readers into believing that a source said something it didn't. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with what Carmaker1 did but he information is right and not a hoax ] (blog of a respected car news org), . | talk14:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Coming in here with no background at all, and just looking at this one case, I'd consider calling this a "hoax" is a personal attack with no justification; the user's anger in their unblock request, though misdirected, is a bit understandable. --jpgordon15:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This user added a claim that the cited source said something it did not. That compromises the integrity of the page, and when it's done repeatedly, it warrants sanctions more severe than almost anything else. Issues like personal attacks typically don't have any effect on the encyclopedia (and thus no effect on readers), but presenting falsehoods in articles deceives readers. If you don't realize that it's a problem to cite a source to say something it doesn't, go to college and try doing this in a paper, and then come back and tell me how your professor reacted when you got caught. Until then, don't defend this kind of fraudulent activity. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Blah blah blah; none of that says what he's doing is a hoax; unlike many forms of Misplaced Pages jargon (like WP:CONSENSUS), "hoax" on Misplaced Pages means exactly what it means in the rest of the world. I'm not defending fraudulent activity, I'm attacking fraudulent attacks. --jpgordon17:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it was a hoax, just incompetence regarding WP:INTEGRITY. Based on their persistent struggle with sourcing and their regular reliance on personal knowledge, I suggest a topic-ban from automobiles for 3-6 months; working on articles where they don't have direct personal knowledge may be the only way for them to appreciate Misplaced Pages's citation standards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree adding in a side of stubbornness. He added the info with the wrong link on December 10th here. Apparently he and Sable932 don't get along and Sable reverted (correctly). Carmaker1 then blindly reverted but also added the correct source later in a different section that does show who designed what here. Carmaker has been here way too much for the attitude but he definitely is not a hoaxer. If he can stop and understand why someone is doing what they are doing, they may have a much longer stay here. That is independent of whatever topic he is on. spryde | talk21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I doubt it was an intentional hoax - I suspect that after the first instance, Carmaker1 was trying to antagonize me personally rather than deliberately keep misleading information in the article. (As an aside, this is what Carmaker1's grudge against me appears to stem from.) Still, it's disruptive editing and damaging to the page's integrity nonetheless, and his excuse of having eventually added a supporting citation elsewhere in the article doesn't hold up when he intentionally left it misleadingly cited in the infobox.
Power~enwiki, I maintain that the topic ban should be indefinite, until Carmaker1 can demonstrate competent editing and an understanding of core Misplaced Pages policies, and be able to edit cooperatively and civilly and respect consensus. Past sanctions clearly have not worked, and I fear that a topic ban expiring in six months would only result in another discussion here in seven. I feel that several months (at minimum) of genuine improvement should be actively demonstrated before a topic ban should be lifted. --Sable232 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Have to agree with others that there doesn't seem to have been any hoax involved here. This was careless insertion of probably correct info, in a manner that suggested it was supported by an existing ref when it wasn't. Unfortunately it happens way too often on wikipedia, and it's highly problematic but clearly not hoaxing. As others have said, getting the words right do matter since we offend others unnecessarily not to mention confuse both other editors and the original editor when we get them wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for beleaguering the point, but for the sake of clarity, given that Carmaker1 is, as I've seen other perennially-disruptive editors do, trying to strike a conciliatory tone on his talk page (User talk:Carmaker1#WP:INTEGRITY and User talk:Carmaker1#Claims of Hoaxing) in response to being blocked:
Carmaker1 added information in front of a citation that didn't contain said information. I removed it, stating as much in my edit summary. He undid that removal, so I removed it yet again, clearly stating "there is no mention of Jeff Teague in the cited source". His response was "yes there is", which is a clear falsehood, as already established. While a correct source was eventually added in the prose, no attempt was made to fix the misleading one. Carmaker1's attempt on his talk page to claim that he didn't know this edit was misleading is a blatant lie, so perhaps EEng is right.
Carmaker1 trying to weasel his way out of sanctions (look at his contribution history and the previous AN/I discussions - this behavior goes back years) by feigning civility and claiming confusion now that the jig is up makes it appear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I think he is here to build an encyclopedia. He does a hell of a lot of good work but that is marred by the conflicts. I am just not sure if he can get the right temperament to do so. spryde | talk02:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see that before but I still wouldn't say there's any sign of hoaxing. First, I'd note that the ref had already been added before the 'yes there is' comment was made so it was true that at the time, there was a source which mentioned Jeff Teague.
Now I think anyone reading the 'yes there is' is going to conclude the 'yes there is' referred to the coachbuilt source especially since Jeff Teague wasn't even mentioned in the prose at the time. But since Carmaker1 had already added the source which did mention Jeff Teague, it's impossible to conclude from the evidence presented there was any deliberate attempt at falsehood and particularly there doesn't seem to have been any hoaxing. It seems easily possible that Carmaker1 was simply very careless and meant the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague. Possibly they confused themselves as to what ref was given in the infobox. Or more likely (based on what they've said on their talk page) were referring to the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague and not the source in the infobox and did so in a very confusing way.
Either way, misleading people into thinking something is in a source when it isn't, is highly problematic in general even when not done deliberately. Although in this case the actual effects are likely to be minimal since realisticly anyone checking to see who was right would check the source themselves and you were never going to change your mind based on Carmaker1 saying it was there when you knew it wasn't. I'd be much more concerned if Carmaker1 added the info and said in an edit summary something like 'As mentioned in cited source'. In that case, the claim may be enough to reassure people who'd AGF and take their statement at face value not realising the problem that had been created. In this case, since the statement was made in response to a dispute, as said there was never a risk of something like that happening.
Maybe more importantly, while it's still highly problematic when not done deliberately, it's reasonable to treat deliberate attempts to mislead different. If someone is deliberate misleading what is in a source, that person should be blocked quickly since to many extents[REDACTED] relies on people not lying about what's in the sources they provide. When people are people are simply careless, it's worth giving them some chance to learn why it's imperative they are careful what they do so people don't think a source say something it doesn't. (If they don't learn quickly, a block will still be forthcoming.) I haven't looked into the history a great deal, so can't comment on whether Carmaker1 has already well exceeded any allowance for learning not to accidentally mislead.
Regardless of Carmaker1's motives, his editing patterns are unproductive - not only this microcosm of it, but the long-standing patterns of angry and uncivil edit summaries, reliance on claims of insider information to justify unsourced or poorly sourced information, and defiance of consensus, all stemming from an apparent crusade to right great wrongs as evidenced in said edit summaries - and there should be a means of requiring him to change that behavior. Considering the two preceding AN/I discussions here, both regarding the same topic area, he still does not appear to fully grasp the concerns raised regarding lack of verifiability, disregard for consensus, original research, and incivility. On that note, see below. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Reference Carmaker1's most recent tirade on his talk page. He continues to make personal attacks against me with accusations of hounding/stalking, as if he expects that because he decided to make an enemy of me that I have an obligation to clear my watchlist of anything he might edit.
He continues to misrepresent his ongoing battle over automotive model years - as I noted in the previous AN/I discussion, WikiProject Automobiles came to a consensus regarding how these are handled. Carmaker1 doesn't like this consensus so he refuses to acknowledge it. The fact that he cannot respect one of the most basic Misplaced Pages policies demonstrates his inability or unwillingness to edit productively.
@Carmaker1: - I am not proposing that you be "booted" from editing automotive articles, I am proposing that you learn how to respect consensus, respect other policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, and refrain from attacking other editors on a routine basis. Since previous attempts to prompt such a change in behavior have clearly failed, what other options are there? I propose giving you another opportunity to do that; if you don't believe you can, then Misplaced Pages may not be the place for you.
As evidenced by the previous AN/I discussions and Carmaker1's contribution history and talk page, I am far from the first editor to be on the receiving end of his uncivil and uncooperative style. For the sake of the project as a whole, I'd like to be one of the last. --Sable232 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Formal topic ban proposal
Carmaker1 shall be banned indefinitely from editing articles related to motor vehicles, broadly construed. The ban may be revisited after no less than nine months of routine and consistent productive, cooperative, and civil editing in another topic area, and clear understanding of and respect for Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, have been demonstrated. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems like this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, considering today they attacked an innocent IP address in my area over good faith section removals. Affected pages are as follows:
Alan Walker (music producer) – The IP removed a controversy section that the user added yesterday. The IP was correct in doing so, as controversy sections are generally supposed to be avoided according to the WP:NPOV policy. The user claimed in their revert today that the IP was a vandal for reverting their edit.
Private military company – The IP removed the "in fiction" section for falling under WP:TRIVIA. "In fiction" is clearly just another fancy way of saying "in popular culture", which is what the guideline talks about. The user claims this is okay, but did not efficiently explain their reasoning.
Also, to counteract an argument they made at AIV against the IP, IP editors are not registered users. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit within policy and guidelines, registered or not. To claim deception here is most likely an act of bad faith and most likely a WP:NOTHERE case. 66.87.148.199 (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
"Having a different interpretation of policies or guidelines" (even if the interpretation is incorrect) is not the same thing as "not being here to write an encyclopedia". Why haven't you discussed this with the user before taking it to ANI? I do see some questionable edits from that account, but nothing that seems particularly egregious, and their talk page is a redlink - nobody has warned them or tried to engage in conversation with them. You haven't even notified them of this thread, as is required. --bonadeacontributionstalk08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Some odd behavior from this account (esp. claiming that an IP is actually a logged in user name--not technically possible with the MediaWiki software), but I agree with the above response. Bringing this to ANI without warning or even contacting the user was premature. -- Scott (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what happened here . It seems a very long time to be a edit conflict unless the editor made the edit then failed to save or something. I noticed that it included a report from the reported IP. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I sort of guessed that but I'm wondering how it happened. Was there an edit conflict a long time back and they didn't notice and when they came back and found out they resolved it by copying over the whole old page? Did they edit the page a long time ago but never saved and when they did they got an edit conflict and did the same, or even got a hidden edit conflict (these happen and sometimes lose stuff but I don't know if I've ever seen them lose so much old stuff, I think it's normally only just very recent edits). Were they viewing and old version e.g. if they'd been following the IP's contribs? Something else? Thinking about it, viewing and old revision may be the most likely since it's perhaps easiest to miss the warning editing an old revisions IMO. The one you linked to seems more understandable, possibly simply either an intentional reversion to an older revision without making it clear, or trying to add back old stuff who's removal they are disputing but in a ham-fisted way. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
A complaint about Ruslik0 by one of the related Alberta IPs was rejected at AN3 a couple of days ago, and I've semi-protected the article to force discussion after a slow edit-war on the part of the Alberta IPs to include promotionally-tinged material about very preliminary research at the University of Alberta, sourced only to the university, with edit summaries like "do not revert." They've finally gotten around to using the talkpage. This is the second forum they've approached. Having been challenged by three editors, a better strategy might be to reduce the bluster and show, using prominent sources independent of the university, that this is the breakthrough they're claiming. Bluster isn't a substitute for independent sourcing. Acroterion(talk)03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The IPs are clearly POV-pushing, and are probably people somehow affiliated with the University of Alberta. My thoughts from the IP's willful misunderstanding of Calton wouldn't have been Is English your first language?, but it's certainly not a comment that Calton should be sanctioned for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Charges of Nazism by an IP
I've got an editor who's determined to keep comparing me and/or the editors of Daniel (biblical figure) in general to the Nazis.
Here's the first diff (it's at the end of the long comment): .
Here's the first diff of me explaining to the user that WP:CIVIL doesn't allow that kind of thing:
Here's the second diff of the user invoking Godwin's law, doubling down on the rhetoric quite a bit:
Here's me warning the user a second time: .
Here's the user doing it again, directly using the word "Nazi" and, even worse, capitalizing the whole word: .
Here's me warning the user a third time:
And … here's some more. It doesn't mention Nazis directly, but continues in the same vein as previous comments, alluding to various persecutors of Jews . Alephb (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This latest cryptic and potentially menacing comment is probably worth considering, though I can't quite make out what the user is up to with this one: .Alephb (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks like an IP on a mission, I reverted the last set of changes with a request to use the talk page politely. These sort of things tend to blow over ....-----Snowded07:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Alephb, "dare to be a Daniel", the user have a point in the midst of that tract on systematic bias. Giving them a pass on this outburst would be a very generous (seasonal, and non-Nazi) thing to do and some refinements may emerge as a consequence. cygnis insignis07:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, the IP says in one of their edit summaries: "Non-Jews cannot decide for the Jews what Daniel is in Judaism." . This is very similar to what they posted on Talk:Gab (social network):
Individuals Outside the Platform Do Not Decide Who the Platform is For
Either remove any defamatory references suggesting that the platform is for "white supremacists", or place similar descriptions on Facebook, Twitter and Google stating that those platforms have been described as being for "far-left neo-liberals and democratic party operatives who infringe on the U.S. Constitution, discriminate against the majority based on gender and race, and violate the rights of the people to freedom of speech in order to push an extreme liberal political agenda and silence all of their opponents from any side of the political spectrum". If you need a reference for who says Twitter, Facebook, and Google exist to serve far-left interests, you can reference my quote on this page, but there are many, many others, the President of the United States being the most prominent. If you object to those descriptions and statements being placed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google's Misplaced Pages page, then I highly suggest you remove the following statement from Gab's Misplaced Pages page: "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." Allowing all groups to exercise their freedom of speech does not ever equate to existing "for" one particular group that just happens to be one of the more controversial groups that is allowed to have and speak their views. Someone could say that Facebook is a platform for "the committee to make America 100% transgender", but obviously that would not be an appropriate, fair, or even lawful description for their Misplaced Pages page, would it?
Off hand, I'd say that this editor is more interested in polemically pushing their personal POVs than they are in calm discussion to determine "refinements". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps not, that is up to them and I have no expectations. I see a potentially divisive and noisy situation and recognise that refinements to content can often emerge, despite anyone pushing one POV or editing to make a point (which is worse, especially in regard to freeze peach), improvements via NPOV properly applied ought to make that content less susceptible to drive-by criticism. On other the other hand, indulging those actions is liable to cause blowback, but a block and perhaps this thread may energise any co-ordinated disruption. This is interesting, as you point out, and others may have developed effective counters; I am venturing in without a simple solution to what may be master-level trolling. Or maybe it is one of our cousins who is woefully misguided and only has a superficial point to prosecute, this is the mood I was in when the thread popped, disrupt the disruptors. cygnis insignis09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Lack of Professional Courtesy on the part of some Admin's and Editors
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is nothing actionable here. We would need names and an incident. Please don’t impede the function of this page which is to get administrator help with specific incidents. Please try the help desk or Tearoom instead. Jehochman05:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I wish to voice a concern about a number of Admin’s and Senior editors. This applies to the behavior of more than one and I will not ping as I can’t remember all. There seems to be , for lack of a better phrase’ a Superman complex about many. Instead of providing helpful comments, especially when the new editor is acting in good faith and is not a troll or vandal. Comments like “behaving badly” are made when a senior editor tells some one that a phrase, sentence, paragraph is unacceptable, and the editor so critiqued reasonable asks “why?” in what way. It is impossible to intuit meaning from some ones statement, and telepathy is fantasy.
In like manner, when an article is rejected it is not helpful to state merely that it “Doesn’t meet WP standards”. What standards are theytalkingabout. WP has Five Pillars of standards. Which of the Five Pillars apply? And how about a discussion and answering the question. I have asked questions why on at least two occasions and my questions go unanswered? The only reason a question like that goes unanswered is that there was no answer, and the critique or rejection was not justifiableOldperson (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In regards to "professional courtesy", (almost) all admins and editors are volunteers. They're not being paid and edit Misplaced Pages in their free time, but by the same token they have no qualifications and no real vetting. It's policy on Misplaced Pages not to bite the newcomers and I'm sorry that some editors have violated this in your experience. Indeed there is a lot we can do to make Misplaced Pages a better place for everyone. I'm not sure how exactly we can help you without links to some drafts or other pages where you have unanswered questions. — Bilorv(c)(talk)20:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
And with all due respect to WP:BITE, there are some newcomers who are actually "newcomers", another group which tries to contribute with grossly sub-standard or POV edits, and others who quickly suck up all the WP:AGF in the room because they think that "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that we don't have any rules or policies, so they don't have to listen when they're told that they're doing things wrong. I'm not excusing discourtesy to actual newbies simply doing their best to improve the encyclopedia, but it does have to be recognized that not all newcomers are created equal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Paid editors are paid. I'm afraid AGF applies whether you like it or not. I know I started with grossly sub-standard edits. And so I'd rather treat every newbie as if they are a good-faith contributor like I was, rather than a WP:NOTHERE case. Even if I'm only right 10% of the time. — Bilorv(c)(talk)23:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree, don't most of us start out with sub-standard edits? Might a POV pushing newbie just not know about NPOV? Of course we don't AGF when someone demonstrates clear intent to mess up the encyclopedia by adding vulgarities, porn, threats, or someones' personal info, but substandard or biased edits by a new user just mean that they need guidance.
As for the original complaint, while editor conduct is not actionable if the editors are not identified, I do find it odd that some welcome to wrikipedia templates say "your edits have violated policy" or something like that, without stating what policy was violated, but this is an issue for the templates' talk pages, not ANI. P.S I do agree with your complaint about certain senior editors, but it would be a personal attack for me to name anyone without enough evidence of wrongdoing to request sanctions against them. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
{ping}Hawkeye7}}Except that they are just that. I got a chuckle out of that image. It evoked a recognition as regards certain tendency's amongst people who are engaged in an actiity for a long time. For instance dealing with vandals and trolls, kind of has a way of stilting one's attitude in a certain direction, and not a nice one. The same with cops. They spend all of their time dealing with criminals and soon in their eye everyone (but they) are criminals, dishonest, breaking a law. There is of course truth in that, everyone, and I mean everyone lies, and those that say they don't are the biggest liars. It is a genetic defense mechanism, without we might not survive, emotionally, financially or even physically. So people who have been at this business, even as volunteers, for a long time, begin to see themselves as above the rabble, even boardidng on omnescience and a superman or woman complex. It happens to the very best. It behooves all of us to keep grounded and assume good faith, save for the real vandals and trolls, which apparently abound. At least answer the question with a decent answer. Shorthand impells one to direct to this or that WP policy, but even those will often require some explanation. I say Tomahto, you say tomaeto. Beauty is in the eye.. and all of that. My main gripe at the moment is that I wrote an article about a notable person. There is plenty of evidence in the article as to how notable. He was the Deputy Governor/Deputy Treasurer of the Virginia Company, his younger brother even has his own Article
@Bilorv:Thank you for correcting my mistypes. Mistypes seem to me thing, (I do have a excuse, more than one, but I try hard. Thanks for your clear consise explanations. Those are issues that I can correct.Although I do admit I am at a loss at how to paraphrase the Fortnightly quote without losing it's meaning. But my draft was stopped, No chance for cleaning up or resubmission. Just stopped with a link to ask for advice. No way to fix it and resubmit. The quotes are fixable but K.e.coffman says that"The Topic is Contrary to the Policy of WP" and that is absurd. The topic is a person who is clearly notable. What gives? Does this mean that writing articles about people who are notable is contrary to the purpose of WP, and the stop sign should be removedOldperson (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User fabricating statistics etc., no communication after many warnings - please block.
Dude Master 2 (talk·contribs) continues to add unsourced and in some cases obviously fabricated statistics and false/POV information, and refuses to communicate in any way, including never using edit summaries. There have been multiple "final warnings" and a recent ANI report, all of which they ignored, or removed from their talk page without comment. Latest edit today Special:Diff/875092851/prev, arbitrary and unexplained change to population number. See the previous ANI report for more examples. Asking for a block for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
LaundryPizza03, thanks, yes I started that thread recently, and linked to it above. It got archived before anything happened, because the user didn't respond or make any new edits. Now they've returned and continued to make more problematic edits, disregarding the warnings and the previous ANI report, and still no communication whatsoever. So I'm now asking for a block, if only to get their attention. Does that make sense? --IamNotU (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
User is continuing to edit and fabricate statistics, and hasn't reacted to additional warnings or notices of this thread. Today Special:Diff/875337222/prev they added a citation that gives a number of 65 million people, but in the article they write 72 million. If it was an isolated incident it could be a typo, but it's part of a clear pattern of unsourced altering and "fudging" numbers to suit their POV. Not all their edits are bad, but most are, and the main thing is that they don't communicate at all. --IamNotU (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This comment seems to be deeply insulting. I checked what does svinosobaki means: in Russian (or Ukrainian), it means literally "swine-hounds" (or "pig-dogs"). I think this aggressive IP should be blocked and all its comments removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
They made one objectionable edit on that page? Unless there are more blocking is overkill. WP:DENY. First we try “don’t fight with them” and hope they don’t fight with us. Blocking can stimulate a troll. They seem to have made a few edits and quit six hours ago. If they come back with more of the same they could be blocked. Jehochman05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "objectionable" is an adequate word in that case. The IP (i) insulted other users, (ii) made a broad claim about a whole nation, (iii) accused other users of working for KGB. Usually, that is quite sufficient for a permanent ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The issue is how to minimize disruption. I strongly recommend ignoring them. If they continue to disrupt the conversation we can try to slow them down with blocks and semi-protection, but often this just energized the troll and leads to more trouble than ignoring them. Jehochman05:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I opened up a move request at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) on December 22 and in my move request I listed a valid rational backed by guidelines, policy and reliable sources why I thought a series of articles should be moved. Leaky caldron was the first to oppose the move and in their original oppose reason they brought my edit history into the move request.. This was taken negitvly by other editors and after another editor supported the move Leaky caldron again brought my edit history into the discussion in relation to the articles that are being proposed for the move while also claiming I created some sort of mess.
After I arrived home and read the comments I honestly was honestly in shock about why my edit history was even being brought up in this. In my reply to the issue at hand I voiced my thoughts about this that I thought by bringing up my edit history in this move request was essentially Leaky caldron saying they don't like the proposal and it implies some sort of ownership. I asked Leaky caldron to keep my edit history out of the discussion and keep it on topic the editor subsequently struck 1 of the 2 comments about my edit history but left the other alone. After Leaky caldron thought I was attacking them about my comment where I said " implies some sort of ownership on your part" I tried to clarify my comment that I wasn't personally attacking Leaky caldron.
Leaky caldron then asked me to examine WP:OWN and WP:OAS and their contributions to Big Brother articles which I did. Honestly I found no ownership issues and I think the editor does great work. However after reading WP:OWN and WP:OAS my mind didn't change I still thought the editor's comments about my edit history was more in line with ownership-like behavior and not stewardship-like behavior. I also didn't appreciate being threatened with either striking out my comments about ownership or being taken to WP:ANI by Leaky caldron. So I replied to Leaky caldron that I wouldn't strike my comments but I was open to discussion on our personal talk pages or they could take the matter to ANI because I feel that I haven't done anything wrong.
Instead Leaky caldron went behind my back without any further discussion and modified my comments by removing mentions of ownership with {{rpa}}. This was the last straw for me and the reason I am bringing the matter here to ANI because I feel this is a personal attack on my charachter here at Misplaced Pages. Never before have I ever encountered an editor that behaves like this in a discussion and quite frankly I find their behavior inappropriate. To me when un-involved editors see my comments with "(Personal attack removed)" they will get the wrong idea about me and my character. If un-involved editors review my conduct and find I have done something wrong and explain it to me calmly I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and apologizing. However I will not tolerate with being blamed for things, being threatned into doing thing and having my comments modified when there is no reason to do so (or when the correct process was not followed). Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?06:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
A repeated reference to ownership (by me) was removed in line with policies WP:OWN and WP:RPA. The complainer has spent a year, apparently, devising a renaming strategy. I registered an oppose which may have upset the complainer in the terms in which it was stated (subsequently amended by me prior to this ANI). Obviously RN is a community decision and it will go whichever way it goes. I am not vested in this set of articles, I correct regular vandalism, that is all, unlike the complainer, who has produced TL;DR to another editor who is opposed to the RN. I believed that that repeated suggestion of ownership against me by Alucard was against policy. They now appear to accept that it was a false assertion. So the removal using (Personal attack removed) seemed the correct approach rather than escalation here. Happy Holiday Season. Leaky Caldron07:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Continued disruptiveness by 68.193.153.95 / REDXSCORPION (2nd try)
After 1 and 1/2 months this guy is back and reverts everything again back to the state of 17th Oct without any discussion; undoing all the fixes and additions in the meantime. But now they also made an account, which they randomly decide to use. Same shtick, same tone in their commit messages, same misunderstood "freedom of speech" / "i like my version more" justification.
I'm asking you to block the IP and account from editing this specific article.
Just read the cited 1st ANI, the IP's contribs (messages), especially the insane rants, and their and especially my talk page.
I already posted this here before, but it was just archived without getting any answer..
@Shirt58: I put them a notice there now. I thought it's just superfluous, as I already did that for the IP back then, and it's clearly the same person. -- IonPike (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Sweatisoftheessence making personal attacks
Closing as blocked for 3 days by Scott, Any future attacks should be reported here (or undo the thread closure), Thanks, –Davey201017:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Accused by admin of being a sockpuppet
Hi everybody. I'm sorry this is so long but I'm about to name four admin here, so I feel I should be detailed. This is kind of a stupid little thing I'm posting about–removing one sentence–but it's a big deal to me and I hope you can understand why I'm posting.
I saw an arbcom case posted recently; a socking allegation was made; I thought it would be better if an uninvolved editor requested the SPI rather than one of the involved editors; so, I posted to SPI.
Bbb23 closed it and in his closing commend said: I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master.diff
I thought this was a derogatory comment/personal attack so I did some research and then I posted to Bbb's talk page with quotes from policies and such and asked for the sentence to be deleted. diff
Bbb's reply: You have all the earmarks of a sock.diff
I read WP:RPA ("Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.") and WP:CIVIL ("Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.") so I replaced the sentence with the {RPA} tag diff and told Bbb I had done so diff.
Then these responses from other admin were posted to Bbb's talk page:
Levivich, why can't you just disclose your alternate accounts rather than indulge in these posturings? - Winged Blades of Godric diff
It appears to me that you've had prior experience on Misplaced Pages, based on the fact that your first edit was five weeks ago, showing significant proficiency with Misplaced Pages jargon, editing procedures and policies, up tp and including the NPA/sock business, which would be known to habitués of ANI. You were nominating things for deletion and participating in discussions four days in. There, that's grounds for suspicion, so I see no personal attack. I strongly advise you to stop digging the hole deeper, and please disclose your previous accounts. - Acroterion diff
I posted a response in which I totally lost my cool, for which I'm sorry. diff
The responses:
I reviewed and made up my own mind based on your comments, editing history and conduct, prompted by your demands on this talkpage and at SPI. Stop making the hole deeper. - Acroterion diff
Saying that you are more suspicious than the subject of the SPI is not a personal attack. You were just given reasons why there is suspicion, so it is not baseless any more than your accusations in the SPI were baseless. You really should drop it now. - GB fan diff
I posted another response in which I totally lost my cool, which I also regret and apologize for. diff
---
I am not a sockpuppet. I am not a returning editor. I've been reading WP for like 15 years but I've never edited WP under any other account or IP. This is my only account.
Sometimes a brand new account is accused of being a sockpuppet account, simply because it is apparently experienced with the ways of Misplaced Pages, and leaps straight into areas of the project that the accusers think to be obscure, or shows proficiency with Misplaced Pages's mechanisms and processes. In years gone by, when Misplaced Pages was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it is now 2018.
Misplaced Pages has been around long enough for people to have read it and learned about it, without creating an account, for years, now. Its policies, guidelines, and processes are extensively documented on Misplaced Pages itself...Furthermore, these policies and guidelines are linked to from the {welcome} template that is often the first thing placed on new users' talk pages. It shouldn't be surprising therefore that someone with a modicum of intelligence manages to learn about how Misplaced Pages works, and what to do, before, or immediately after, creating an account.
It shouldn't be surprising either that someone knows of, for example, the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Misplaced Pages's deletion discussions have never been secret, and they have sometimes been observed by journalists...It is far from impossible for someone to learn of the internal workings of the project before creating an account....Don't automatically cry "sockpuppet!" when a brand-new account simply and solely shows proficiency.
Contrary to what Acroterion said above, I never made any demands, only requests. I didn't know I was supposed to wait some period of time before participating in an AfD discussion (the newbie docs encourage you to jump right in and participate in discussions). I've only filed the one SPI. I also filed one revdel and posted evidence to an arbcom case recently.
I guess this statistic matters so: my mainspace edits are 55.3%, userspace 16.9% (drafting), article talk 10.4%, WP 7.3%, User talk 5.6%, Misplaced Pages talk 3.2%. xtools Levivich edits Over 70% of my edits are main and user space and 3.2% is WP talk. I don't know if that's good or not for a newbie but I feel like, hey, I'm really doing mostly articles and only a little of things like AfD.
I think these admin's comments are derogatory statements about me and that they are a personal attack. Sockpuppetry is like a capital offense at WP, it can get you banned, so accusing me of that is accusing me of serious wrongdoing.
I really don't feel like the admin have good basis for their accusations. I can't believe Arcoterion wrote that because I showed "significant proficiency with Misplaced Pages jargon, editing procedures and policies," participated at AfD and posted 1 SPI, that "that's grounds for suspicion."
Competency is required is a policy, and I spent a LOT of time this last month reading all the policies and documents and trying to be careful and do things right. I dipped my toe in AfD. I posted a revdel one time because I thought the closure was a bad one. I posted to arbcom because I really another newbie like me got wrongly banned. I posted to SPI the one time because I thought I was helping. I don't understand what I did wrong?
(This is why I lost my cool in my last two posts on Bbb's talk page. I put a lot of time into reading all the manuals and trying to do things the right way and now I'm being called a sockpuppet–by admin!–for it. Still I shouldn't have responded until I had calmed down a lot.)
It also bothers me that the admin who accuse me of being a sockpuppet aren't opening an SPI on me, so I feel like I can't get out from under this cloud.
If they don't have good basis, then isn't accusing me of sockpuppetry is a personal attack? Because:
WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence...Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
WP:ADMINCOND: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities...Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."
WP:Casting aspersions: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."
This is particularly scary for me because it's coming from four admin. If it were just some editors saying stuff about me on a talk page, it's like whatever. But one of the admin said it in a closing comment, which is an official admin action. That's high profile and like giving it the Misplaced Pages Stamp of Official Truth: Levivich is a suspicious sockpuppet!
So I'm asking for the community's input and help. Two questions:
1. How do I prove I'm not a sock puppet without giving up anonymity?
2. Can someone please remove the personal attack from the SPI archive?
The Levivich account was created on 12 November 2018. Can anyone find an essay explaining that the only new users who complain about a suggestion they are a sock are in fact socks? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You accuse 5 accounts and 20 IPs of sockpuppetry on flimsy evidence after 6 weeks of editing, and you're upset that someone called you "suspicious"? I think the Germans have a word for this... -- Scott (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a bit flip. I see now that there's a case for you being an eager new user and in over your head. As has been pointed out elsewhere, you aren't being accused of sockpuppetry. Being "suspicious" (a reasonable observation based on your SPI case) is not a blockable offense. This can all be forgotten if you drop it--indeed, already would have been had you just let Bbb23's comment slide.
In the future, I'd recommend not wading into the dispute resolution process for disputes where you aren't involved. It doesn't directly contribute to the encyclopedia, it requires knowledge of a large number of bureaucratic processes, and it's just not fun. You can expect to be accused of much worse things than this, on far less evidence. If you can do it well, it's one of the more reliable routes to becoming an admin someday, if that's something that interests you--but you are going to need much thicker skin. -- Scott (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Getting advanced reference formatting right in the second edit to Misplaced Pages demonstrates prior knowledge of Misplaced Pages's markup language. Reading "manuals" however carefully doesn't give you the level of expertise demonstrated by that edit (for comparison, this is my attempt at formatting citations after reading the explanatory material given on-wiki). AGFing, this looks like a clean start account or a long term IP contributor if not a sock. — fr10:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
A very quick look at the IPs that were accused in the SPI shows that they include
From my comment at Bbb23's talkpage: "It appears to me that you've had prior experience on Misplaced Pages, based on the fact that your first edit was five weeks ago, showing significant proficiency with Misplaced Pages jargon, editing procedures and policies, up to and including the NPA/sock business, which would be known to habitués of ANI. You were nominating things for deletion and participating in discussions four days in." It's not a PA if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, correct or not. You were participating in arbitration proceedings concerning Giant Snowman within weeks of starting out. Everything you've done since then, including this complaint, simply cements the impression that there's something not quite right here. If you're innocent, go edit, quit wasting our time making demands (yes, you've been making demands) and sloppy SPIs that make us wonder what you're up to, and everything will be fine. If you're not, then it's likely that there will eventually be a clear-cut problem that reasserts itself. Right now, the problem is that you're making voluminous accusations in all directions, most of which are the result of a single, rather mild observation by Bbb23. Acroterion(talk)12:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
As multiple people have said, there is a suspicion that Levivich is a returning user based on their initial editing. That is all that was said in the SPI, it is not a personal attack to make an observation based on the available evidence. The only thing that needs to happen here is for Levivich to go and edit the encyclopedia. ~ GB fan13:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to stand up here for the essays Levivich cites about not assuming all newbies are clueless. I recall one new editor who was blocked after wading into an article—or maybe the talk page of an article, it was a while ago—on a matter of international conflict and got summarily blocked for excessive competence. I believe it was a topic on which the editor has expertise, and if I haven't confused two different happy endings, they became an admin a few years later. I started off myself by almost immediately creating an article using MS Word and a copy of the wiki-code and its output for another page, which I used as a template for the formatting stuff including infobox and named refs, and for house conventions like subheadings. It would have looked extremely precocious if Word hadn't included smart quotes. I had no prior knowledge of Wikimedia markup language; in fact the main impetus for my starting editing here was to learn it; but I'm told it's widely used and many people know it from in-house wikis at their workplaces. In any case the edit summary for this edit, cited above as astonishing, reveals that it involved going back to bits of two previous versions; i.e., it's stated to have been done at least in part via cut and paste. (Good edit summary, by the way!) Notoriously naïve though I am, I see no reason to abandon the assumption of good faith here yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I can make a valid case that Levivich is a naive editor who learns quickly, who has jumped into the deep end of the pool, not realizing how deep it really is, and who, having made a poorly conceived SPI, is not well placed to offer complaints that they're being unfairly persecuted or to demand satisfaction. Perhaps from this Levivich will have learned that shrill denunciations are a poor response to a passing and reasonable observation by the admin that checked the SPI. Levivich isn't in any form of actual trouble. Acroterion(talk)15:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
If you want to explain your situation privately, you can send an email to the functionary mailing list. By the way, if the cops stop you, anyone who's ever seen a YouTube video knows that you answer their questions politely and try not to antagonize them. If a checkuser starts accusing you of being suspicious, I'd just let it go. Why argue about it? If you're not blocked, the checkuser obviously doesn't have enough evidence to do anything about it. This one time, a cop pulled up next to me and said, "Hey!" I look over and see that she's actually quite attractive. I'm still kind of cautious and say, "Yeah?" And she asks me if I want a ride. I think to myself, "I've never seen a YouTube video that says what to do in this situation." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
SPI filing: This is what I saw: User 1 was blocked after a couple of ANI reports six months ago. A couple days later, User 2–an account created a year prior that hadn't edited in a year–begins editing in the same article, making the same changes, as User 1. A few days after that, the User 3 account is created, but stays "dormant" for six months. Then, User 3 starts edting–again in the same article, making the same POV edits–and on its 18th edit filed an arbcom case against an editor who was one of the editors who was reverting User 1 and filed an ANI against User 1. The accused editor accused User 1 and User 3 of being same. I thought it would be better if the SPI was opened by someone uninvolved. I thought I was helping; that's why I filed the SPI. The other usernames and IPs I listed were other apparent SPA accounts who had edited the same article for the same NPOV reason, in between the time periods of User 2 and User 3 above. I thought this timeline was "enough" for someone to check the IPs. I didn't realize that was not enough evidence to start an SPI. I am obviously never going to file another SPI again. I'm not sure why it makes me suspicious that I did that; I really thought (and still think) that I was helping another editor who was "wrongly accused" at ArbCom by an SPA. @Black Kite: No, I don't see the problem with the SPI. Can you explain it to me? (Not a facetious question, I honestly literally don't see why the timeline above is not an indication of sockpuppetry. Nor do I see why my contribs are an indication of sockpuppetry. In one case, multiple accounts are making just a few edits all in the same place. In my case, it's one account, making 1,000 edits in a month in various different places. I am honestly totally befuddled.)
Wikimarkup is an easier form of HTML. I made web pages back in the '90s and early 2000s and that's where I learned HTML. It's not hard to pick up wikimarkup.
MOS cites are "perfect" because they're made by ProveIt or VisualEditor or one of the other tools that makes cites for you. I learned the short footnote citation format from an editor who showed me an example at an article. Generally speaking, due to my RL profession, I've been writing, researching, and citing for my entire adult life. Citations aren't new to me. (MOS citations are, but there's an app for that.)
To sum up above, you're telling me that Misplaced Pages is a place where, if you read the documents, look at other people's examples, and do a good job, you will be accused of being a sockpuppet?
@Acroterion: please provide a diff where, other than the one SPI filing, I was "making voluminous accusations." Please provide a diff where, before I was falsely accused by 4 admin of being a sockpuppet, I made a "shrill denunciation." You keep accusing me of doing things I haven't done; I think you should provide diffs to back it up.
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for point me to the functionaries mailing list. I don't have a private situation to explain to them, though. My situation can be explained publicly: I have read WP for about 15 years but have never edited before. This is my only account.
@Serial Number 54129: How do we change that? I'm trying here. It's why I'm making a big deal out of this.
Can anyone CU my IP address to confirm that I've never made an IP edit before? If I knew what my IP addresses were for the last 15 years, I'd list them so they can be CU'd too.
It's flat out not true that my work on WP looks like that of a seasoned veteran. It's not that good; I think the case is being vastly overstated. Look at my sandboxes (I learned to make multiple sandboxes from another editor's user page) to see what it looks like when I'm drafting and practicing: User:Levivich/sandbox I'm no Hemingway here.
As to the comment that Levivich should just go edit the encyclopedia, yeah, right. I am not going to volunteer my time under a cloud; I'm not going to volunteer my time "under suspicion;" I'm definitely not going to do that when I've done nothing wrong; and absolutely not if the suspicion is based on me doing too good of a job.
All of you folks thinking I'm a sockpuppet, I ask that you take a moment and really consider what if you're wrong, what if I'm telling the truth? Do you really think a newbie is going to keep playing here when everyone is accusing him of wrongdoing because he's supposedly too good at this? Can any of you understand why this is so amazingly upsetting for me?
If this is a place where, in order to continue volunteering here, I either have to (1) intentionally make mistakes so no one thinks I'm a sock, or (2) put up with like a dozen admin publicly accusing me of serious wrongdoing, then .... well... who would want to be part of that? Levivich (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You're not under a cloud, unless it's one of your own making, since you seem to be determined to answer mild criticism with a barrage of kilobytes of text, demanding justice and rejecting reasonable suggestions that, having proclaimed your innocence to the heavens, you might go back to editing the encyclopedia. For evidence you're demanding of the voluminous filings and denunciations, look at the head of this section, the section immediately above and Bbb23's talkpage. Really, this kind of ANI time-sink is far more concerning than the SPI or Bbb23's comment. The parable of The Mote and the Beam comes to mind: we're not here to win contests of will, we're here to write an encyclopedia. Acroterion(talk)17:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Before I was accused of being a sockpuppet, what was it that I did wrong that constitutes a "beam in my eye"? That's why I'm asking you to post diffs. So far, I'm told that I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet because my citations are well formatted, I participated in AfD in my first week here, and posted one SPI in my second month... Are those really "beams"? If it's something else, please post the diff of what I did wrong. Yes, I'm making a big deal out of it, after the criticism, which I do not see as "mild," but extremely serious, since I'm being accused of a bannable offense, a "capital crime" as it were. Part of my point in bring this up here is to try and convince you that casual accusations of sockpuppetry are not mild–to me, and I think to other new editors, they are very serious, serious enough that I would stop participating over this. I am under a cloud, and it's one that you put over me! Levivich (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
At the end of the day you need to understand that you should file SPIs very carefully and don't take trivial remarks too seriously. You are not even blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi88iisc (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Since you're now going over the top with nonsense about "capital crimes," I'm guessing that acceptance of help is not something you're willing to consider. You are judged here by your conduct, not by what others say about you. Please keep that in mind. Acroterion(talk)18:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@FR30799386: If you look at the diff of mine that you posted and compare my version , you can see the first paragraph is a straight cut-and-paste of a previous version and the rest of the article is a straight cut-and-paste of an earlier version , just as someone mentioned above. That wasn't my work at all. Does this change your opinion at all? (Also, looking back at it now, I realize I inadvertently left out a picture when I copied-and-pasted, which I've put back)
@Black Kite: I don't know how you traced those IPs, but I thought tracing IPs was something I was not supposed to do, especially in light of the recent to-do about off-wiki contact. I thought I was supposed to post the IPs and let others check and see if they're open proxies, or geographically similar or whatever.
@Scott Burley: Thank you for the strikeout, it means a lot to me that you keep an open mind. Thank you also for the advice, "I'd recommend not wading into the dispute resolution process for disputes where you aren't involved," which I want you to know is advice I will follow from here on out. I actually thought the opposite, that it's better for an uninvolved editor to file an SPI than an involved one, but obviously I was wrong. I don't think I would ever want to be an admin or anything like that. I do have thick skin, and I wouldn't complain if this was just an editor, or even an admin, making some comment on a talk page somewhere. I also don't mind the other admin who said I'm a sockpuppet who gave me their reasons why. At least if everyone can read their reasoning, they can judge for themselves if the accusation is legitimate, so it lessens any harm to my reputation or my need to "defend" myself. This is different with Bbb. Bbb is a checkuser and an admin, who called me suspicious in performing an "official" duty (closing the SPI). Everyone will assume that Bbb has some technical information about me that suggests I'm a sock. Bbb also has not stated any reasons for their statement (although I think they have to by the policy about admin accountability). You don't have to answer this, but let me ask you something: you said your own first reaction was "flip": is it because on one side you saw Bbb, and on the other side, a nobody (me)? If so, that's what I'm talking about. I can't see letting it slide that a checkuser admin is calling me a sockpuppet and won't say why. That's "yikes" to me; serious enough to make this stink. Bbb could have just said, "This was an inappropriate SPI." or something along those lines, without casting aspersions about me.
I know now that I was wrong to file the SPI, but I still don't know why I was wrong, and I would appreciate somebody filling in the gaps between the SPI I filed and a "good" SPI. (In an alternate reality, Bbb would have just educated me a bit on what was lacking in my SPI instead of calling me suspicious and a sock puppet.) I'm looking at Misplaced Pages:Signs of sock puppetry#Possible signs and it seems like my SPI met the following criteria, which is why I filed it: Precocious edit history, Excessive support for one's cause, Repeating the same disapproved activity, Editing identical articles, Edit warring, Connection to the article (all these are with reference to The Exodus), days on and off (none of the accounts seemed to edit on the same days, it was one after the other in serial), Accounts with occasional usage, Accounts used only briefly (almost all are SPAs, except the alleged master), Lack of establishment into the community (applicable to all account I listed but the master), Single-purpose accounts (almost all the IP/users I listed were SPAs). Under Misplaced Pages:Signs of sock puppetry#Triggers of a sock puppet investigation: Use of a single-purpose account, Engaging in an edit war, Account block (the master account was blocked). I thought this SPI met those criteria, so it should be filed.
Bringing it back to the point: I appreciate everybody's responses and taking the time to talk to me. I just want to remind any closer that the specific thing I am asking for (what makes this ANI post "actionable") is for "I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master." to be removed from the SPI archive. I'm will answer any questions but otherwise I'll shut up now. Thanks again for the community input, thanks in advance if anyone grants my request, and Merry Christmas to everyone who celebrates it. Levivich (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Xmas to you too, and FYI you can check on IPs by clicking the WHOIS or GEOlocate links on their talkpages. Now sometimes that's not completely accurate, and you've got to check for proxies, but you can often ensure that certain IPs aren't the same person, as it was in this case. Thanks, Black Kite (talk)23:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone take a look into Mountain157 actions. The user has been repeatedly tried to push his own POV on various pages. For instance, at Human right violation in Balochistan page he deleted credible cited content and tried to push his own POV: ], ], ]
Again at list of notable people from Karachi, he added Ayman Al Zawahiri name. The page is meant for people from Karachi. Ayman is not from Karachi. ]
Again here at al Qaeda in the subcontinent page, he made the following edits. He claims he provided sources for it but he did not do anything like that. ]
If you try to argue with him, he will claim that you are 'state sponsored or something like that'. So could someone please take a look into this case? Anonymous17771 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Anonymous17771: As the instructions on this page state you are required to notify Mountain157 by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk page. I have done this for you on this occasion. Nthep (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like someone to take a look into Anonymous17771 actions. This user has been targeting my edits that I have made with factual cited information. He is claiming that I am pushing POV on pages, but he is the one who is aggressively reverting cited information. I have only added content to Misplaced Pages but not removed any as he is claiming. When it comes to the "List of people from Karachi" edit that I did it was based on multiple sources such as:
]
]
]
]
All the people listed on the List of people from Karachi" are not necessarily originally from Karachi. They are currently residing there but were born elsewhere. So it is not clear why Anonymous17771 has a problem only with this one person that was included with citations.
For the one in which he claimed that I did not give sources for "Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent"; if a terrorist group is based and operating freely in a country with no repercussions, that has to be considered as implicit support by that country. And there are multiple sources that can support the contention that AQIS is operating out of Pakistan. One of them is given below.
Then lastly for the article titled "Frontier Corps" he deleted the sentence I had added and the sources given with no proper reasoning given.
For the edits that I make he is going and with a bias editing any information and sources that I give by saying claiming its "POV editing" or "Unconstructive editing". So can someone please take a look into this case?-Mountain157(talk) 4:36 24 December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that any of the sides will create talk pages here, seeing the behavior of the page history so far. That is the problem. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Bloodofox seems to be doing a good job attempting to uphold Misplaced Pages policies against a slew of tendentious editors. A noticeboard can't handle this kind of dispute very well. I will review the behavior of the disputants and past attempts at resolution to see if this is ripe for arbitration, or not. Jehochman17:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pretty much over the last few hours a constant barrage of assumptions of bad faith, dismissing based upon accusations of ideological bias and accusations of coordinating. AS well as a refusal to stop.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
I have asked them to stop ].
Note there is in fact a lot more of this. over at ], I just got bored listing it all, and frankly that is the problem. This is getting boring and tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
To note, I'm also rather bored by Slatersteven's behavior here, along with that of his friend @Fyunck(click): (here's a fun diff). While the site allows proponents of this stuff—anti-global warming "alarmists", Young Earth creationists—to edit, anti-heretic coordination (lots of fun stiff like this) while ignoring guidelines like WP:PROVEIT and espousing anti-science stuff gets old pretty quickly (eg. ), and of course when all other options run out, they'll drag you out here in hope of a reprimand to get what they want. Anything to avoid finding reliable sources, I guess.
I could also flood you folks with plenty of diffs of attempts to get out of WP:RS and stuff like Slater badgering me with an incorrect revert warning while turning a blind eye to his pal's itchy trigger finger (classic), but do note that now that attempts at keeping cryptozoology from being listed as a pseudoscience on the site have failed, the goal here seems to simply get links to Dave's biblical cryptid emporium on Misplaced Pages or whatever wherever possible, so please do take a look at the threads associated with the diffs, as these articles definitely need more eyes.
Maybe one of these guys knows who has been sending me anonymous threats through the site about me editing the cryptozoology articles. Care to share, guys? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I take it that was such a blatant display of anti-consensus revert-warring on Fyunck's part that you decided to step in. Personally, were I for some reason taking your position, I'd be doing more of that. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No I do not know who is sending you anonymous threats (nor am I even aware it was happening or what their nature is). If you are being sent anonymous threats you need to contact an Admin, or launch ANI over it. But I resent the implication of your comment, it is a prefect example of your aspersion tactics.Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
As I've mentioned these threats a few times now, you were in fact aware of it. Only now are you acknowledging that. I've notified admins. I'm not keeping quiet about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I saw a notice on my talk page, but not sure what is required of me here, or what would help the situation. Am I fed up with editor Bloodofox's reverts and article ownership, yes. BF seems to think that if it is not science-related it has no place on wikipedia. BF seems to ignore mythology articles with mythology sources, fantasy Tolkien beast articles with sources from non-science Tolkien books (such as articles on Balrogs, Orcs, Hobbits, Ents, Noldor, etc.), Ghost articles with sources from ghost books. These fantasy articles exist all over wikipedia, but this particular article at List of cryptids seems to be particularly hated by this editor. I'm not sure why. It's not like it's being inserted into a scientific article or being portrayed as anything except a pseudoscience. I guess I look at it as fun and as long as readers are aware of that I see no harm. And this is just a list... a simple list of fantasy cryptid creatures. Did I warn editor Bloodofox on his talk page (without reporting the incident to administrators) about 5 reverts in one day at List of Cryptids, yes. Has he just made a backhand accusation about me threatening him offline (or knowing someone who did), yes. That does not mean I would have brought him to Ani as I have begun to look at it as "This is par for the course for Bloodofox", it's just Bloodofox being Bloodofox these days. I know I have to keep the article on a watchlist in case he tries to delete things as they have done in the past or in case he writes fabrications about me on article talk pages. I just wish he'd find something else to work on at Misplaced Pages as cryptozoology-related things do not seem to be a topic where BFox works and plays well with others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
As one of the most prolific editors on the topic of folklore and its popular genre myth on the site, I appreciate the humor this response has brought me, unintentional or otherwise. Yes, please, do tell us more about how we source our myth and folklore articles on the site! None of those filthy academics on our folklore articles, no siree. @Katolophyromai:, you're going to enjoy this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Not the wisest path for you to take here, but since I've seen you play this game before and this is a fine place to highlight it, why not.
Of course, that particular article definitely needs some work—it's not GA quality by any means, which is presumably why you chose it for your feature above—but you'll still find a handful of quality secondary sources on there, like Gartenberg's solid 1949 article for the The Journal of American Folklore. Still, our Paul Bunyan definitely needs work and is currently nowhere near the quality of other highly visible folklore articles like Dragon at the moment (read 'em and weep: Dragon#References). You might also have a look-see at other GA-quality articles in this realm, like valkyrie; eg. Valkyrie#Citations.
Understanding the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is crucial here, and of course we slice out poor quality sources on these pages just like anywhere else we see it (it's that whole WP:RS thing again and those pesky academics who think they just know so much, damn them!). And so I'm a little confused: Are you asking me to clean that one up? Is this a cry for help? If so, I'm afraid I'm currently booked, but go for it! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Here's what should happen: topic ban both fyunck(click) and bloodofox from list of cryptids. Very narrow topic ban. No blocks, no subject-based topic ban; just that one list and presto! much pain disappears! The former has been working to include everything and anything without much regard for sourcing for years; the latter has been waging war on this page for years, with a persistent battleground approach and a tendency to wikilawyer. It's draining, and why I unwatched a few months back. Mainly, bloodofox is dreadful to argue with once he has categorized you as a wikipolicy-hating fringe POV pusher who's probably part of Big Cryptozoology -- paraphrasing there, but when he accused me of being part of some ridiculous "cryptozoology bloc" he became the only experienced editor I've ever asked not to post on my talk page, to the best of my recollection. I would very much like to see bloodofox's time that was spent fixated on this page spent instead on the folklore articles he does a lot of great work to. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: What are you talking about? I have always said we must include sourcing on every item on the list. I recommended an extra column several times so we could source these things properly. I even started a draft of it before Bloodofox basically told me it was useless and I had to ask him to stop hammering on me on my own talk page. You say I'm "working to include everything and anything without much regard for sourcing"... can you tell me how many of these creatures I've added to the list? I don't know if I've added any and I've deleted several when people try to add new ones where I couldn't find sources for cryptid. My stance has always been the same... if it can be sourced as a cryptid it belongs on the list as long as it's sourced as such. That's pretty much it. Another item I'd like to ask. Long ago when I removed a few entries on a completely different topic, just because there was no sourcing (it was not a BLP) I was told by an administrator not to do that. If it was inflammatory items sure. I was asked if I looked for sources myself to make sure since sometimes it was simply careless sourcing rather than an item that should really be removed. I was told that this would be the nicer way to do things. Are you saying I was told wrong way back then? Did bloodofox look at all to make sure he wasn't deleting things that were easily sourced? Or did he just blanket remove anything unsourced KNOWING that there were editors on the talk page who basically said no to his arbitrary time limit? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I’ll be glad to respond to the above mention with diffs when I’m not on phone here. In the mean time, I recommend taking the above summary with a little salt, as he’s relentlessly backed Fyunck and Slater every step of the way, including pushing for the inclusion of fringe sources over reliable sources, making reverts at convenient times over WP:PROVEIT for the the duo, and explicitly stating that he’s placing votes simply because he’s seen my name through the entire process. The user appears to have developed an axe to grind.
That said, I’ll volunteer a self-article ban for a year if that means deleting all unsourced content, and self-imposed one year article bans for Rhodo, Slater, and Fyunck, as I agree with Rhodo that my time is spent best elsewhere and the remaining editors can no doubt hash it out from there. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I have no memory of that, but if it suits you to think that I made my comment based on our "history" together, and not because you're exhibiting pretty much pure battleground behavior right here on this thread, so be it -- whatever gets you through the night, as John Lennon sang. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) extra indent for clarity. I'm going to reply to this one misleading, well-poisoning response. However, as I find engaging with bloodofox very draining and unpleasant, I'm going to try to limit myself to this one response rather than be drawn into a more protracted back-and-forth. It would be better left to fresh eyes to determine what should happen, anyway.
" relentlessly backed..." someone I just said should be topic banned...
" reverts at convenient times for the duo?" -- this sort of insinuation that I (or others) are part of some conspiracy or coordinated effort to thwart him pervades bloodofox's rhetoric about this.
"explicitly stating that he’s placing votes simply because he’s seen my name through the entire process" -- There was one time that someone else brought up an issue about cryptozoology. This was around the time that I came to appreciate the depth of bloodofox's battleground approach to this page. It seemed like yet another thread on the same subject. When I commented on it, I started by saying it was another instance of bloodofox vs. list of cryptids. I misread who started the thread. I realized my mistake a few minutes later, reverted myself, and posted a revised comment, which I would have posted anyway, of course, had I read it correctly. In this faux pas bloodofox has found a useful well-poisoning tool, making it seem like (a) I made that mistake more than once, and/or (b) that I only care about the content because it's bloodofox, rather than the reverse.
According to the stats tool, I have a net of -34k on that page (as in, removing a bunch -- the very thing that bloodofox fights for), but bloodofox focuses on the one key thing on which we have repeatedly disagreed. That one thing is also the thing about which he charges that, effectively " spits on WP:RS and loves FRINGE sources". It's not about basic WP:V. That's uncontroversial. Saying it's just about wanting sources is misleading. When I've reverted him and restored unsourced information it was not for that reason but because of a bigger picture problem with his removal. For example, a couplereverts when he edit warred over blanking the page last year (two of many attempts to kill the page).
The main point of contention is this: whether WP:RS says that no cryptozoology source can be used to verify a subject's inclusion in the list. We even had an RfC recently. The closer said rather explicitly that just isn't the case -- they're not prohibited from fulfilling that verification role, even though obviously better sources are better. We can use our WP:RS guidelines to determine which cryptozoology sources are better than others. It's not all or nothing. Obviously most cryptozoology sources are lousy for most things. In this list article, however, the issue isn't whether to use them to make a scientific claim or even a statement of fact beyond "x is a cryptid". It's simply that part of the inclusion criteria for this list article is, self-evidently, that a source verifies the entry is regarded as a cryptid. Cryptid is part of the vocabulary of cryptozoology, hence a lot of the sources which say "this is a cryptid" are about cryptozoology. I have argued that there exist sources about cryptozoology that can be reliable for this sort of verification (a book about it published by a publisher that has editorial oversight, for example, but not someone's blog -- the sort of thing fyunck wants to include). So I'm one of the cryptozoologist pov-pushers, clearly. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
So, about what Rhodo calls a "faux pas" above: While he takes the time there to complain how miserable it was to talk to me—a shame, I don't mind talking—he didn't take the time to provide a diff, but here it is. The anger is real, folks. Rhodo also fails to note that the source he's pushing is specifically a book by cryptozoologist and cryptozoology apologetic George Eberhart, which is just as reliable Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Emporium or whatever, because Eberhart does not appear to be some kind of authority in the subculture. And despite the addendum's commentary and as others highlight, the list wasn't build around Eberhart's criteria, and that's because nobody seems to use it but Eberhart. Eberhart might not believe every other "cryptid" is a space alien or a demon or a ghost or whatever, but many others do, as he himself disapprovingly notes. Eberhart, Uncle Jim, it's all pseudoscience with zero support in academia, and happens to all be closely tied to well-funded and aggressive Young Earth creationist groups (academic discussion on this topic here).
Speaking of, you'll hear Rhodo talk about a 'cryptozoology bloc', as if it's something I've imagined and as if I haven't had to deal with groups of cryptozoologists here. And, in fact, as if I haven't witnessed their attempts to organize off Misplaced Pages to influence our coverage here (I'll hold back on providing a bunch of forums I've been tipped off to so I don't somehow out anyone who isn't using their user name here, but here's what seems to be a safe enough example, complete with a fun comment by the author on how "The[REDACTED] wars will be resolved in due time". (By the way, blog author, if you're reading this—you probably are—I am not somehow affiliated with Darren Naish and I welcome you to keep leaving "highly critical" reviews of his books on Amazon if you so desire.)
And that brings me to: rage at bloodofox! A lot of the rage you're seeing from these quarters aimed at yours truly stems in fact not from this list. Rather, much of this hate ultimately draws from the fact that Misplaced Pages now lists cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, a direct result of article long hours of clean up by myself and other editors. See, in the past, the site hosted thousands of articles that imagined cryptozoology to be some kind of field of zoology (as Loxton and Prothero note, this is a typical habit of the cryptozoology subculture). Old Misplaced Pages "cryptid" articles in turn fed into a lot of the uncritical, often older listicle-quality media articles you'll see Slater add to the list of cryptids. Having your pet pseudoscience listed on Misplaced Pages for what it is just ain't great SEO for the subculture.
At the end of the day, what some here are presenting as complicated is extremely simple—It's exactly what we've encountered with every other pseudoscience on the site: Attempts to get around WP:RS wherever possible, especially WP:FRINGE (especially-especially WP:FRIND). Proponents know that cryptozoologists don't agree on what a "cryptid" is, they know cryptozoology stuff doesn't meet WP:RS because it's by no stretch reliable even for describing what is or is not a "cryptid", and they know reliable sources are out there for anything notable (which I've often provided). But they simply don't like what they say about the pseudoscience. Again, this stuff doesn't yield the excellent SEO the subculture used to enjoy from Misplaced Pages.
Fyunck's behavior deserves some scrutiny here. Bloodofox removed unsourced content which is generally appropriate, especially given recent consensus. Fyunck reinserted the unsourced entries with the edit summary "Wow...". This is blatant disregard for our sourcing policies, and no effort was made to justify the reintroduction of any of these items. I've already found a few that cannot be described as cryptids. –dlthewave☎04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
You know I didn't open this discussion, I was kindly pinged to come here. Editors have been trying to add sourcing to the article and it has been happening. I added 3 sources earlier today from among those Bloodofox deleted. And I'm not the one with 5 reverts a day. But heck, I could care less about cryptozoology as long as it's a topic treated fairly. If you're putting me in the same boat as Bloodofox I have no problem being topic banned from all crytozoology articles as long as the same happens to Bloodofox. I also have no problem doing it voluntarily as long as it's reciprocated on the other end. I think seeing his conduct towards others was the main reason I stuck around to help out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with Rhododenrites' characterization that: Mainly, bloodofox is dreadful to argue with once he has categorized you as a wikipolicy-hating fringe POV pusher who's probably part of Big Cryptozoology. Having done great work on folklore articles, the editor some time ago decided that a) cryptozoology is folklore and nothing but folklore, b) it is Bad Folklore if not covered in the Ulterior Academic Journal of Erudite Mythopoeia and in that case must be removed entirely from Misplaced Pages, and c) their previous work has given them the authority to bludgeon every cryptozoology topic with outright ownership and generously made-up interpretations of often inapplicable sourcing guidelines. - Sorry, I'm still a bit raw here; I've unwatched most CZ articles because I couldn't deal with that anymore. The constant insistence that CZ sources may not even be used to demonstrate that a topic falls into the subject area, and pretending that there is any kind of consensus in that regard (there isn't), finally did me in. See the more detailed account given above by Rhododendrites.
At the same time, the unsourced addition of crypto stuff is a complete pain, and so is the attempt to validate factual CZ claims with breathless sighting accounts, navel-gazing blogs, and the entire shebang of dodgy sources that flourishes in that ecosystem. Those need to be patrolled and headed off because they actively damage our credibility. What is not desirable is the status quo of that necessary vigilance coming packaged, on part of one highly active editor, with a barely restrained zeal to see the entire subject area razed and salted, saving the bits that have been treated in a monograph on the comparative iconology of the Ishtar gate.
Instead of topic bans, I think it would be much preferable to once and for all establish clear guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable sourcing for a given type of claim about a cryptozoology topic. Previous attempts to start an RfC in that regard were rebuffed because "that's all covered already". Well, it clearly isn't. Let's get that RfC going, and then we can all get behind a unified approach to cleaning up cryptozoology articles on WP and keeping them clean. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure that will work, we had an RFC which (In effect) said (after some clarification) that we could use a certain sources, and Bloodfox has refused to accept the clarification, and rather used his interpretation of the RFC closure.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Slater, the RfC made no such establishment, as the users commenting made clear (a thread that in fact did not include comments from yours truly). The "certain" source you're referring to is specifically a book by cryptozoologist George Eberhart.
Elimidae, while I strongly disagree with your assessment, I agree that a proper RfC on sourcing on this article would in fact potentially go a long way at this point. With our without me, this stuff will simply continue to rear its head in some form or another unless we get this policy and guideline disagreement hashed out. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Rhododendrites solution may be the best, whilst I am not wholly sure the Fyunck is as big an issue as bloodofox his reinstating of Cryptid was an issue that may indicate they may not be able to see this subject in a neutral way. As to adding back non sourced content, so-me of it was sourced when it was removed, and it was such a huge removal it is unnecessarily hard to find which one should have been removed vs the ones that are borderline. As I said on the talk page remove one at a time, some may well be cryptids (and indeed I did find a couple of sources that used the term Cryptid.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Endorse Rhododendrites comments. Bloodofox has been on what could be easily described as a crusade for a long time against anything cryptid-related (I would topic ban both from the topic 'cryptids' broadly) feel free to search the archives at the fringe noticeboard. While there are undoubtedly issues with the area, Bloodofox has given the impression they wont be happy until anything cryptid related is gone. That may not be the case, but its certainly the impression they left me, and their methodology in dealing with the various articles? 'bludgeoning' is too soft a word. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that Rhodo and Slater have been closely involved in all this for quite some time, exactly what would such a "topic ban" include? You do realize this stuff is all over Misplaced Pages's coverage entities from the folklore record, correct? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Endorse Rhododendrites suggestion as well. I agree with the topic ban suggestion, especially for Bloodofox. The scenario at FTN seems difficult to followup. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No clear connection to this thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is all getting a bit weired ], made weirder by the fact Bloodfox had in fact logged out between 15:54 and 16:11. This casues me some little concern.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Because a different IP made an edit between his last two edits here]]], which was an alteration of a post he made. This was then undone and he loged in an redid the alteration. Moreover the edit to Fyunck's talk page by the IP (a different IP) is a cut and paste of one bloodfox made. Now this means either someone is masquerading as bloodfox, or bloodfox is socking (as he denies explicitly the IP was him). Either way this is clearly linked to this topic ], as it discuses the list. Someone is playing silly bugger.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Slater, if you think I'm sockpuppeting, take it to the Checkusers. You know the drill. I'm obviously not—the IPs don't even match—and I don't see how you can make that accusation from the diffs.
That said, I was indeed somehow logged out, which is particularly odd because I was obviously attempting to respond to discussion here. It seems this was some kind of site issue or something, but could someone please delete the diff with my IP? I would prefer not to get more threats mentioning wherever I might be that day. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but this anon IP looks to be the same one who did this before to my talk page back in January and February of 2018. The many sockpuppets of User:Bjoergenbestever. So it might be unrelated to this topic, maybe a coincidence and more tennis-related. Just an FYI, but it's the exact same MO. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Though Bloodofox can be snarky, they are one of our more diligent editors for keeping cryptid-related articles compliant with policy. I think any topic ban on the subject would be a net-negative for the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:17:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Close this circus this is an content dispute plain and simple. Regulars from the Fringe Noticeboard are doing what we often do - and demanding rigorous application of WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:RS. There are other editors who put a lot of effort into building this list and, while their passion is commendable, it's a terrible list based, in part, on the fact that "cryptid" is such a poorly defined term that it's next to impossible to create a reliable list of things that fall within the category. Are they animals? Plants? Organisms? Entities? There's no clear boundaries to the category. I mean, one of the entries was for an extinct subspecies of a well-known apex predator. These sorts of conflicts often lead to flaring tempers and Bloodofox is not always the most diplomatic editor. But when you've been through the WP:FRINGE dance on enough of these tedious articles, it's easy to become a bit... short. Suggest we just close this up for the distraction it is and work on making this list a little bit less awful by rigorous application of WP:RS and a willingness to cut the cruft. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
If you would like to argue that bloodofox's behavior has been fine or that the quality of his content work gives him a pass on behavior, that's one thing, but this is definitely not a content dispute. Getting into the definition of a cryptid and the validity of that term is making it about the content dispute. I've dealt with all manner of creation scientist, conspiracy theorist, climate change denier, etc. to know the frustration of dealing with that sort. Bloodofox isn't just "fighting the good fight" such that a wave to WP:FRINGE is sufficient to shut down this thread. It's a single goofy list I've proposed a tban on, not cryptozoology wholesale (someone else can propose that if they want, but this is the only place I've observed such problems). Would you really claim that bloodofox is not approaching this list with a textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Rhododendrites \\ 04:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Not a content issue but behavioural complaints, as should be clear from all the comments above. If this were to be closed based on the always-snappy, generally-facile, frequently-wrong "content issue" grounds, we would go straight back to the current enjoyable status quo. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Colossal Octopus is watching youComment. While trying to build my own educated opinion about this controversy, I have encountered the following sentence Unfortunately for Montfort, the British knew what had happened to the ships, resulting in a disgraceful revelation for Montfort in the Pierre Denys de Montfort article. Don't say that this is a simple content controversy, because this shamefully sounds as "British people were allowed to know, but other people not". Such an island-centered formulation should not stay in an inclusive encyclopedia, as could be backed by part of the usual letter soup. Pldx1 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: Unarchived as unresolved with proposed resolutions. Seems like additional opinions would be useful, but otherwise some sort of closure would be appreciated. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for. As a Christmas present for the new Committee I might turn this thread into a request for arbitration. Yes, there’s a content dispute, but the usual set of disruptive behaviors seems to thwart proper resolution. The answer is to apply strict sourcing to weed out any dubious content. This should be done thoughtfully with effort to find sources before whacking content that’s unsourced. Do we all want to proceed that way, or should I move it to arbitration? The length of this thread already demonstrates that this venue isn’t your solution. You can go back to the articles talk pages and play nice, or we can go to wikicourt. Thoughts? Bishzilla? Jehochman05:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Leaving aside the peculiarly blustering and officious tone of this interjection (?), if you feel that arbitration is the way to go, knock yourself out. I doubt that's going to meet with much love from the arbs though; we are nowhere near exhausting less drastic measures. - If no further comments appear, I would also appreciate a more formal admin closure. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I logged onto Misplaced Pages on Christmas day to find a disgruntled new editor directing me to "go die!!!" along with lessor derogatory remarks. Could someone deal with this, to stop these things in their tracks and hopefully give a wake up call, that this is a horribly uncivil thing to state. Ignorance can be a defense, likely the only one, but surely there is a line not to be crossed?
I do not want to interact with this editor (other than giving ANI notice) and possibly be baited into some battle. I think this unprovoked attack is egregious and should not be taken lightly as it has given me a very terrible start of a day. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked them for 72 hours initially, and when editors return from a day or two away, hopefully they can decide whether that's sufficient or they wish to extend the block for a longer period. Nick (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frequent disruption by DBigXray
This is an absolute mess. I don't understand how anyone expects an administrator to read it. In the previous ANI, on November 24, 2018, an administrator warned DBigXray. A reasonable presentation of evidence would have focused only on new misconduct. Instead, even the filer, who didn't start off too badly, has mixed in allegations of misconduct that predate the warning. Other editors have gone hog-wild in a scattershot approach of crap that goes back to at least July (I looked at some of the diffs but certainly not all). Then there's the language used. We don't want to look at hyperbole like bludgeoning (that's a favorite). We just want neutrally presented evidence. Why doesn't everyone go do something constructive and enjoy the last week of 2018? If an editor believes that DBigXray has violated the warning of November 24, then they can bring a concise, neutrally-presented report of new conduct supporting their view. In the meantime: Happy Holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DBigXray has been tireless with his unrepentant disruptive editing and harassment. There are a plethora of instances of him engaging in blatant misconduct lately, most of which I will enumerate below.
On 9 November, he was reprimanded by Amakuru for tagging good faith editors as COI editors without any evidence and/or report at the relevant noticeboard; however he not only disregarded the warning but also badgered him, and continued mindlessly tagging editors, as evidenced by his edits on article's talk page.
The intensity and frequency of such allegations have only increased in this month as evidenced by diffs below.
2 December 2018; alleged that "!voters at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here (Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2018 November)" were part of the "PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev" and/or "members of the Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev". He repeated same allegations later on.
He has been told enough times there to stop throwing these allegations but he continues.
Shows his failure to get over the outcome by bludgeoning on the talk page of the closing admin.
Starts a DRV and claims that everybody who commented against his creation is either a meat puppet or a sock puppet.
Editors asked DBigXray to either strike the accusations or take them somewhere else, but DBigXray only doubles down with false accusations of socking, even going as far as to claim that DRV "has not been spared by the puppet masters" despite there was no participation by blocked editors.
DBigXray has been engaging in this nationalistic POV pushing over "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" since the day he joined Misplaced Pages, and even then he was exhausting patience of others who told him that he should change his ways and respect consensus.
There have also been elements of anti-Islamic POV pushing by Dbigxray, for example, he made an edit riddled with anti-Islamic WP:OR on Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, that "These islamic militants needed another venue for carrying out their holy war (Jihad)."
Back in July, Dbigxray alleged Elephanthunter of being "a case WP:COI" on a DRN concerning a content dispute at Khalistan movement, and upon being asked to substantiate his false allegations, he refused and did not retract the false allegations.
Edit warred to remove about 19,000 bytes content by citing "Expanding article". (August 2018)
Adds his WP:OR, removes content by falsely describing it as "WP:SPS", "WP:FRINGE". (August 2018)
Removes content sourced to reliable academic sources by claiming it as "rm opinions presented as fact)", "rm opinions added as fact". (December 2018)
I restored these edits and detailed my explanations on talk.
After I investigated his months old content removal on talk page, EdJohnston would notify him of the discussion.
He still claims that there was no issue with his edits and his removal of content was totally justified.
Makes 5 back-to-back reverts on Rafale deal controversy in less than 49 hours, while the dispute is ongoing on the talk page, in order to bully others into submission. Not to mention the use of downright misleading and/or deceptive edit summaries in his reverts for mass deleting large chunk of content from the article (citing refbombing and accusing others of ownership): , The 5th revert came after a warning. Add to this, the obvious stonewalling on talk page as evidenced here.
TLDR; DBigXray edit wars to push his nationalist POV against consensus. He rejects reliable sources as "opinion", engages in original research and claims his opponents to be socks, meat puppets or COI editors.
It was hardly 30 days ago when the ANI report, resulted in a formal warning, but DBigXray is frequently disrupting Misplaced Pages and showing lack of improvement. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. DBigXray's behavior involves misleading edit summaries, edit warring, and failure to assume good faith. I've had run-ins with this editor while he was rewriting the articles for Khalistan movement and Operation Blue Star.
In both instances, DBigXray rewrote the articles from an Indian nationalist stance while active nonviolent protests were happening in India (on the anniversary of Operation Blue Star). He relabeled nonviolent separatists as militant extremists . He removed enormous chunks of historical context for the movement, and steamrolled opposition (cited in the above examples as and ).
Attempts to reconcile our disagreements were futile. DBigXray collapsed our 3PO's comment when it did not go in his favor (accusing the 3PO of being a sockpuppet), He continued edits related to our dispute during our discussion on DRN, , and started to debate me directly at DRN, against the wishes of our DRN moderator. His latest comments concerning that subject continue to be completely unapologetic.
So yes, while DBigXray makes some good contributions, his topic bias makes him incredibly disruptive and hostile, especially regarding India-Pakistan relations. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Opinion I was really hoping not see another one of those here, but oh well.. I've had my encounter with this user last month regarding copyright violation here Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 1#Copyvio and move discussion dispute Talk:Emirati passport#Requested move 11 November 2018 and for that I have been publicly harassed and bludgeoned on my talk page here User talk:Wikiemirati#Blatant misrepresentation of the Policy. I have already discussed how I have been harassed in the last ANI discussion here in which he has called my opinion "content of BS", called me a liar, a POV pusher, among other things etc.. which resulted in an official one time only warning. I don't wish to bring the past up, but I don't wish anyone else to be harassed either. I do acknowledge that his user has an extensive list of constructive edits in Misplaced Pages, however, that does not give him the right to be name calling others. I am hoping he has learned from his mistakes and has not harassed others since. In effort not to be a meat puppet and gang on this user, I will leave this here and leave the discussion. I wish him no ill will and I really wished that no one else would go through the same thing and no future ANI discussions open regarding him. He is an editor with numerous edit counts and probably more experienced that I am and I bear him no ill will even though he has called me numerous names. I hope more experienced neutral users and administrators judge on this issue. I have not personally witnessed any new name calling behavior from him again nor have I been involved in any of the disputes mentioned in this ANI apart from the ones I mentioned. I just wanted to share my thoughts as someone who had a previous encounter. Ping me for any questions, I will be happy to answer any. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Response by DBigXray
I will copy the diffs and reply on it inline for ease of reading.
On 9 November, he was reprimanded by Amakuru for tagging good faith editors as COI editors without any evidence and/or report at the relevant noticeboard;GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I had replied to Amakuru then as well, along with my justification. Which is as follows.
The Editor's edit history is out there for everyone else to see. Opposite to what Amkuru was suggesting, my template has nothing to do with opposing view. I would have added the template no matter which side the user had voted on. I am not sure how familiar you are with this topic (Jaggi Vasudev) but please note, out of 56 edits by this user, 51 Live edits (including the DYK) were made on JV topic. And some of them, I find borderline promotional. Also his deleted article Insight: The DNA of Success which I couldn't see, was deleted as possible WP:G11 promo content, based on the note here User_talk:Bsnigam#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Insight:_The_DNA_of_Success was also on JV (check Google Insight%3A+The+DNA+of+Success). I guess, both of us are just seeing the things differently here. So we can agree to disagree.
Why you are so rigid about accusing that editor of COI only because he made "51 Live edits" to the subject? It is also possible that the user is largely interested in that subject and he has not yet decided whether to contribute some more or not. Your actions constitute harassment becausr you are accusing editors of COI without any proper evidences. Qualitist (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I don't have much time on my hands right now, so I will write a brief comment. I was noticing this talk page discussion at Talk:Khalistan movement this morning, where Wiki.0hlic and GenuineArt, who hardly have any record of participation on that page, raised a long series of questions about DBigXray's edits done over last several months. DBigXray has patiently explained his rationale behind each edit, which were quite satisfactory, as far as I could see. Then these two editors were joined by two others, Orientls and शिव साहिल, who also don't have much of a record of participation on that page, in an obvious effort to gang up and intimidate DBigXray. I don't see any "nationalistic POV" on either side, but just plain personal vendetta directed at DBigXray, probably overflowing from whatever happened at the Jaggi Vasudev page.
DBigXray and I frequently collaborate, most recently at the Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts page, which is just about to get put up for DYK. Yes, it is quite a shocking subject, one that might be regarded as being "nationalistic" (whatever that means), but the subject matter is quite solid and backed up by a dozen high-quality scholarly sources.
The Pakistan administered Kashmir page was created a bit prematurely before finding genuine new content. As it stood, it represented a WP:CFORK, as noted by the nominator of its AfD. But at least one of these four editors showed up at the AfD, calling it a WP:POVFORK, but never explained what "POV" it supposedly represented. I am confident that, with enough work, genuine new content will be gathered in due course and the page will be recreated. There is no "POV" about it, either "nationalistic" or otherwise.
Orientls, शिव साहिल made no participation in the page move. If you really want to defend the indefensible actions DBigXray you would at least need to stop falsifying the histories of other editors since DBigXray has shown enough times that he is here for righting great wrongs and he can't contribute without harassing other editors. People will comment here on the basis of the outcome of the AfD than what a single participant believed contrary to the outcome. Qualitist (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
GenuineArt made no participation in the "page move" either. Yet, here he is calling it a POVFORK. The ganging up against DBigXray is quite clear.
If he has harassed you or anybody else, please feel free to bring it up. But all this talk of "nationalistic POV" is claptrap. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I will copy the diffs and reply on it inline for ease of reading.
On 9 November, he was reprimanded by Amakuru for tagging good faith editors as COI editors without any evidence and/or report at the relevant noticeboard; GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The Editor's edit history is out there for everyone else to see. Opposite to what Amkuru was suggesting, my template has nothing to do with opposing view. I would have added the template no matter which side the user had voted on. I am not sure how familiar you are with this topic (Jaggi Vasudev) but please note, out of 56 edits by this user, 51 Live edits (including the DYK) were made on JV topic. And some of them, I find borderline promotional. Also his deleted article Insight: The DNA of Success which I couldn't see, was deleted as possible WP:G11 promo content, based on the note here User_talk:Bsnigam#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Insight:_The_DNA_of_Success was also on JV (check Google Insight%3A+The+DNA+of+Success). I guess, both of us are just seeing the things differently here. So we can agree to disagree. DBigXrayᗙ 4:30 am, 10 November 2018, Saturday (1 month, 16 days ago)
however he not only disregarded the warning but also badgered him, and continued mindlessly tagging editors, as evidenced by his edits on article's talk page.GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
As one can see in this diff of my comments I had also added the reason for the tags on the comment of these 3 editors.
In my comment at MRV I had not taken any names and by the phrase "PR machinery" and "fan club" I was referring to the 3 editors who I had tagged in the RM discussion. In my comment at MRV I had also noted that I was annoyed by the reverts of the other set of 3 editors who were taking turns, to hat and hide an MRV comment, that disagreed with their own opinion. After getting reverted a second time by this set of editors at MRV, I made this comment as a note to the closing editor to not discount the hatted comment, and also made a thread at the MRV talk page to bring this disruptive hatting to the notice of other MRV participants to revert it. After a while another editor Erik, expressed his concern at this biased hatting calling it totally wrong and the hatting was removed by another editor here, Strangely, this time no tag-teamer reverted him to hat it again or protested against unhatting. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
As I explained above I had given my reasons to believe that "The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts,". Another editor at the MRV discussion had expressed concern at the passionate comments by an MRV participant, who did not disclose it in his first comment but later on admitted on the same thread that he was "influenced" by the teaching of Jaggi Vasudev. I take this admission further vindication of my comment above. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK talks about both article on the "same subject". There is "no other article" for the same subject (geographical entity). It is quite obvious from the maps itself (see above) that the geographic entities of Pakistan administered Kashmir are not the same as either Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan.
If there was an existing Pakistan administered Kashmir and then someone created another article at "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" then one could have argued that its a POV FORK, but with only 1 existing article for the subject you cannot claim WP:FORK, let alone WP:POVFORK
Long term consensus about this topic was to keep this article at location Pakistan-administered Kashmir where it existed from 2004 , till 2012 when the article was unilaterally merged into separate articles without a wider consensus at AfD.
Regarding the point of "nothing new" in the article, I had noted that this geographic entity is federally administered by Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan. The United Nations and the international media refer to this entire region as Pakistan administered Kashmir, so this article can discuss the history, administration and geography of this geographic entity.
Calling my AfD participation as bludgeoning is your personal opinion to which I do not agree with. I don't agree that my discussions in an AfD debate among the AfD participants amounts to bludgeoning. Bludgeoning is an extreme case of disruptive interaction at AfD and I don't consider my comments were close to bludgeoning. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review states that If you believe a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.
I believe that the AfD should have been closed as Keep or No consensus so obviously Following the Deletion policy I will have to discuss it with the closing admin, So I started a thread at the closing admin's talk page and made my case and explained my point in detail, I don't see anything wrong here. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, per Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review after discussing with the closing admin, I proceeded with my case to the WP:DRV, So I don't see why starting a DRV to further discuss my case is problematic here. At DRV An editor had then commented that sock puppetry claim was unfounded So I responded with the evidence that I had collected that had made me to suspect the sock/meat puppetry. Later on 2 of the AfD participants were blocked as Socks which proved my suspicion.--DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Editors asked DBigXray to either strike the accusations or take them somewhere else, but DBigXray only doubles down with false accusations of socking, even going as far as to claim that DRV "has not been spared by the puppet masters" despite there was no participation by blocked editors. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
At the DRV Cunard had first raised the point about the possibility of nationalistic editors participating in the AfD based on his own observation from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Sockpuppets, and the "India-Pakistan" logs at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log. To which I added my own observation and evidence. And interestingly 2 of the AfD participants have already been blocked as Socks So I see myself as suspecting an obvious problem and sharing my viewpoint along with the evidence that I collect. Do I believe the AfD was disrupted? Yes I still strongly believe that the AfD was disrupted, and the 2 blocked socks are vindication of my belief on sock disruption of the said AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
DBigXray has been engaging in this nationalistic POV pushing over "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" since the day he joined Misplaced Pages, and even then he was exhausting patience of others who told him that he should change his ways and respect consensus.GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
These diffs are 7 year old content disputes on controversial topics related to India Pakistan dredged up to make up a malicious case. I had raised my concern and GenuineArts is calling my "civil objections", as "POV pushing". The editor with whom I was having content disputes was later INDEFfed. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts has already been reviewed by 5 different editors as seen on the discussion on its Talkpage. Also it must be noted that the DYK has been already been successfully reviewed, approved and moved to Prep 6
Back in July, Dbigxray alleged Elephanthunter of being "a case WP:COI" on a DRN concerning a content dispute at Khalistan movement, and upon being asked to substantiate his false allegations, he refused and did not retract the false allegations.
Edit warred to remove about 19,000 bytes content by citing "Expanding article". (August 2018)
Adds his WP:OR, removes content by falsely describing it as "WP:SPS", "WP:FRINGE". (August 2018)
Removes content sourced to reliable academic sources by claiming it as "rm opinions presented as fact)", "rm opinions added as fact". (December 2018)
I restored these edits and detailed my explanations on talk.
After I investigated his months old content removal on talk page, EdJohnston would notify him of the discussion.
These are more content disputes, dredged up from several months, all these has already been responded to yesterday on the article talk page and the article talk archives. If someone wants to continue the content dispute related discussion, please join me with a "comment on the content" and I will happy to discuss more on the content disputes. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Makes 5 back-to-back reverts on Rafale deal controversy in less than 49 hours, while the dispute is ongoing on the talk page, in order to bully others into submission. Not to mention the use of downright misleading and/or deceptive edit summaries in his reverts for mass deleting large chunk of content from the article (citing refbombing and accusing others of ownership): , The 5th revert came after a warning. Add to this, the obvious stonewalling on talk page as evidenced here. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Again These are more content disputes, Rafale deal controversy as the name suggests is a controversial article, and discussion on Talk:Rafale deal controversy to resolve the content dispute is ongoing. I started improving the article on 23 December, immediately after my first revert I joined the talk page discussion, and to resolve the issues if any. That is 2 reverts. Thereafter an IP from Pakistan and a new editor who restored the WP:REFBOMBs, and were reverted. I have given specific edit summaries explaining each of my edits while fixing the factual errors and folks are welcome to compare and decide if my edits on that Article were useful or disruptive. If someone wants to join or continue the content dispute related discussion, ANI is not the right place for that, they can join me with a "comment on the content" and I will be happy to discuss more on the content disputes at the respective talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
About User:Wikiemirati, we had our last interaction on 14 Nov where we decided not to interact with each other, and I have avoided any kind of interaction with this user since then, but I cannot say that he has avoided me, since every time an ANI thread has come up against me User:Wikiemirati has participated posting about our past disputes.
To conclude my response on the above allegations, I don't remember if I ever had disputes with GenuineArt before, I am actually surprised to see his comment here, that appears to me, to be made with malicious intentions to get me sanctioned. I am not sure, but based on the recent multiple threads that had been started against me at ANI by a particular set of editors, I see that as a part of a concerted effort by some editors with whom I am having ongoing content disputes on articles. All these attacks against me have begun since 29 October when I participated in the WP:RMdiscussion at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and voted oppose against the proposal. I am a page mover and I regularly participate at WP:RMT amd WP:RM discussions, I had never edited the page Jaggi Vasudev before my participation at its RM discussion. The content dispute with some of "these editors" are still ongoing at Talk:Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India_since_2014#Jayant_Sinha_Garlands_Lynching_Convicts, Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Hindu_Supremacist, Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Need_suggestion_for_perpetrators_field_in_the_infobox and I believe this thread at ANI is third attempt in the "ongoing series at ANI", by participants of these content disputes, to bypass these content disputes, by getting me sanctioned.
(I also note that Qualitist (talk · contribs) who made an account on 2018-10-18, has participated in all these ANI threads against me, including AfD mentioned above and , proving that he is following me around. ) --DBigXrayᗙ23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
You still dont seem to be accepting that you are being disruptive with your with your deliberate bludgeoning , walls of texts and lack of acknowledgement of your problematic actions.
You are engaging in clear cut edit warring when you are making 5 reverts in 2 days against multiple editors.
Which "2 blocked socks" you are talking about? Farooqahmadbhat has been blocked for using a sock than being a sock himself. You are already aware of these facts yet you continue to falsify histories of editors for either making your point or harassing them. In these linked discussions I am seeing that editors have pointed out that you lack understanding of WP:RS ] which I have also done for more than a month now. You prefer ignoring input of others and instead prefer arguing that how your unreliable sources are reliable or how reliable sources are unreliable according to these linked discussions show.
Can you explain if there is any benefit in having you here when you have so many general issues? No one has that much time to keep tolerating your endless bludgeoning and IDHT behavior. Qualitist (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Seeing that DBigXray even denies accepting his most obvious trait (WP:BLUD) by claiming that "I don't agree that my discussions in an AfD debate among the AfD participants amounts to bludgeoning", while also agreeing that "bludgeoning is an extreme case of disruptive interaction", then I think a WP:CIR block is the only reasonable option. His participation, whether here or outside has been a textbook of bludgeoning. Poor understanding of policies and harassment of other editors is highly evident. Also read Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Black Kite and his aspersions where he escaped a block for his battleground mentality. Rzvas (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Complaints with EurovisionNim
For the past 4 months I been going back and forth with user EurovisionNim. The problem I have with him is how he constantly try to copy everything I do. Things like, how I photograph, how I speak, what words I use.
I doubt that it breaking any official policies broken but it just isn't creative, it not real skills, it just mimicking somebody else. Other photographers which focus on cars have there own distinct style yet still valuable to be use in the articles. Nim just seem to piggyback on the biggest fish he could find for his own gain. This is fine if you are starting out because since I done it until I found my own way on how to photograph things. Nim was here far longer then me and had plenty of time to find his own creative field that isn't just cars but never has. He also have a tendency of bragging of things like "I been here longer then you" or "I started this trend before you" and go on about that he expect his pictures to appear in different media and etc like it a game of which of our photos appear in the most.
Evidence to support this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=871445766&oldid=871445518 (When I recropped a photo I took of a Tesla Model X, since that edit, Nim done a wave of “less tighter crop” versions of existing images to try and make his use of image more justifiable, any other photo he took or updated before the 1st of December had little to no relation to cropping..)
Other things is that he like to taunt (bit blunt, but it the closest word I could describe it) with comments like these, knowing that I might respond to them:
It got to this point that me and EurovisionNim will continue with petty exchange with each other and from suggestion with another user, this is suppose to be the right place to go. This is the base evidence and problems, I can try and dig up additional one if needed. --Vauxford (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Vauxford. It seems that an editor is learning and is emulating the work of another editor (you) because they admire your work. Do I have it right? That doesn't violate any policies and guidelines that I am aware of. This is a collaborative project based on freely licensed content after all. If the issue is "petty exchanges", then the solution is easy. Don't engage in petty exchanges. CullenLet's discuss it05:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Bang on the money Cullen328. I like learning. Vauxford, please note I do not revert/replace for no reason. I only do that because I know my (or someone elses) image is better quality. Its like no problem, I have every right to be WP:BOLD. You seem to be taking me for a ride, as opposed to helping me. I can picture on whatever car I wish. I was told by Mr.choppers "...if a shot of a Holden Commodore parked in London is of high quality then that could be the best one to use. EurovisionNim used to annoy me to no end, but when a photo is better than mine then there is no point arguing..." Exactly, this is what I mean't. You need to understand clearly that I do not revert editings without cause. i do not mind being reverted, but I do mind if the reverter is the creator of the files, such as in the case of Vauxford as explained in , . I discussed the issue with Vauxford but he stubbornly refused. I think my proposed suggestion, is that going forward, whenever I make a replacement of Vauxford's examples, another editor can revert it, so it prevent bias. I am more than happy for this proposal. In addition, he expects for us to "let him know before I make a revert" which I think its completely ridiculous. This is not his personal website, hes not the king of Misplaced Pages. I have been doing the same thing for the last 3 years and haven't had much complaints so I don't see how I should make any changes, except maybe going easy. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits)06:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Going easy is always a good approach and ambitious photographers are commonly unable to be neutral when comparing their own work to photos taken by another editor. Aggressive pushing of one's own work into an article is disruptive, and photographers should always defer to the opinions of uninvolved editors. CullenLet's discuss it06:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Given the number of editors who insist that everyone else must do things their way, it's startling yet somewhat refreshing to see someone insisting that someone else must not do things their way. EEng06:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It boggles me that you are so obsessed with the Audi Q7 article and it images. Stop with the rhetorical answers. My personal problem with you isn't the only problem I'm talking about, you being disruptive in other things such as taking the BRD page far too literally and almost every day you keep making these discussions where we have to pick which image is better and what not and you ping everyone that might've agreed with you on something unrelated in the past. You seem so determined to change images almost every week for your own gain and this is the problem I'm trying to point out. You said that you trying to be a better editor but to me and others you just became more annoying and tiresome to work with and what worst is that you simply can't grasp the concept of that. --Vauxford (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)'
WP:BRD is technically an official policy. It is linked to WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:BOLD. I also have a problem with you too. Thats why I set out a compromise on Talk:Audi_Q7#Audi_Q7_great_example, which I would like you to see please. It is essential that we follow up on discussions and also have a fair share of images. You, on the other hand, have been trying to randomly replace perfectly good quality images with some of your ones. It doesn't matter, I relied on WP:CARPIX for a long time and this guideline has been told to me many times. Why do you need to be so difficult? Is it because you think your images are better than the guidelines? I am thinking of not continuing anymore. This, along with some of the concepts seem to be difficult. I think you aren't taking higher quality images enough, all you care about is your images, which in fair respects I understand, but if someone were to replace your image, don't you want to go into a consensus? I don't care much about the images, but my example is pretty decent. Why do you think your image is the better one. The majority have decided for the Australian image. If a third neutral opinion is given, then I won't make any further edits. You seem to treat Misplaced Pages like your own website. I suggested you focus on the big sellers in the UK, such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche etc. or cars not sold in Australia, such as Vauxhall, SEAT, Dacia etc. It appears either you want to only have your images, or you just are trying to bog me down. Besides I've set a compromise and to end this dispute, I suggest you take it. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits)10:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
But it the fact that you do this almost every day, JUST because it a official policies, doesn't mean you have to shove it in our face on a daily basis, you take every thing and what people say so literally, using a metaphor, what if someone told you in order to get better photograph you would have to "kill two birds with one stone", what the betting you would actually kill two birds in belief that it would improve your photos? That how your mind seem to take in things. That Audi Q7 discussion doesn't matter at this point, don't try and sway the point I'm trying to get across to you and the admins. --Vauxford (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The point being is I did the exact same thing with OSX. However he didn't complain, but you seem to be the only one who cares about your images and only will allow reverts when a user lets you know. I told you the compromise, which would solve our issues. Its essential that policies are given to users because the fact remains your edit summaries when you revert, you don't even do or you think your image is "fine" when in fact it is not. The point of CARPIX is that it was told to me , and therefore it would be suggested by the community to utilise this guideline. If you followed that guideline and photographed exactly to the guideline, and if I replaced yours, and you reverted it, then I'd have no problems as you'd be 'following the books.' Again, you were the one when you first started to consult me, so I suggested I give you a list, but now you seem to take this liberty to picture every car on the road. Whilst its not a problem, you just replace images randomly. His edit summaries are completely bogus, suhc as "previous is fine" or something like that, which indicates he may have a problem with the quality of images on the site. I'm not sure if I'll be needed on Misplaced Pages as theres no point of me contributing if I cannot post high quality shots to replace the existing low quality example. Vauxford, its only the Audi image, why are you making this a big deal, I want to compromise and half the use of yours and mine as per this discussion. I will of course leave the foreign Wikipedias for your Q7 and I'll handle the English, Wikidata and Simple Misplaced Pages. That means its easier and to prevent further discussion. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits)10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but, "You take the foreign language wikis and I'll handle English Misplaced Pages" is not really a compromise. It's more like "get off my lawn." — The Hand That Feeds You:16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I think thats the main problem with Vauxford, he wants me to focus on non-UK cars, so I believe hes the one thats being disruptive. You cannot stop anyone from picturing anything. It seems extremely inconvienent, and unfair because the same cars that exist on the Australian market can be sold in the UK. Vauxford, doesn't matter if a Holden Commodore in London or a Vauxhall Astra appear in Australia, whoever pictures the better one can be used. Its plain simple. I have a strong stickler for higher quality images. Vauxford has accused me of not able to make my own decisions. This is the type of annoyance that I see from Vauxford thinking he'd have the right to replace all his images. In addition, users are expected to let Vauxford know if they are to revert his images, without him seeing for himself. He believes all photographers should have their own styles. When i began in 2014, I was only using an iPad to take car photos and a crummy camera, but OSX helped me improve my photos. He also believes that his images are more superior to mine and accuses mine of being a "carbon copy" . I don't see why he should be focusing on the Asian vehicles and let me focus on the cars not sold in the UK. Its Misplaced Pages, not a dictatorship, and you are expected to comply with guidelines and policies prescribed. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits)08:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think most of these edits could be considered good faith for a novice editor. Although the edit warring and refusing to learn the rules is an issue if it persists. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
AGF and all that, but when any random edit you spot-check over the last couple years can be read as pro-Nazi it's hard to avoid certain conclusions. See this on Panzer Division Kempf (removing an admittedly unsourced claim about said division committing atrocities) and this on Operation Barbarossa (removing sourced claim about Nazi Germany's war aims against the Soviet Union). Mackensen(talk)16:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Calton: he's replacing "Nazi" with "national socialist", which combined with his removal of Jewish related text is probably just his attempt to remove what he sees as a derogatory term. Anyway, he's not here to improve the encyclopedia and the removal of Jewish related texts show his agenda, so I'm blocking indefinitely. He can appeal and agree to stay away from such topics and I'd probably unblock him. Doug Wellertalk07:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
he's replacing "Nazi" with "national socialist"
Really? No kidding. I totally missed that since I am a bot who only counts words and doesn't understand sarcasm. --Calton | Talk07:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
2601:143:4200:700 range
I guess this is the reincarnation of the 2601:191:8402:5F89::/64 range blocked for three months according to the request: User:2601:191:8402:5f89:252d:bf9e:6a07:fc26.
Edit warring:
Winged Blades of Godric is personally attacking by putting afd on the pages that i created without any research and adding afd tag rapidly. You can find our discussion here after that he started to tag afd on the pages that i created and as i suspect he will tag more. My humble request is to block and revoked his NPR as he is missusing his power. Regards, Azkord (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Revoking NPR and blocking simultaneously will be a bit difficult for a single admin. Can you put that chronologically (block, then revoke or revoke, then block? ) Cheers! ∯WBG15:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I request him to follow the article not to be personal as you can clearly find here . He is changing his afd reason again and again when i use to add more references of National medias. Editors like WBG should be punished. Azkord (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything wrong here - Those that WBG nominated are all upcoming films where the sources are next to nothing, He's also nominated with indepth policy-based reasons, Whilst I can appreciate it's frustrating to create things only for them to be deleted we delete based on many factors one of them being notability (or lack of), As I said I'm not seeing anything remotely wrong here. –Davey201016:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
GB Fan it looks like that after told me that than he started for afd. I know anyone can tag afd but that was not appropriate. If he hasn't done anything close the case here. Regards, Azkord (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Azkord, I am not following what you are saying. What was not appropriate? I don't know that he hasn't done anything, the only thing you seem to be concerned about is that he nominated articles that you created for deletion. Is there anything else that you are concerned about? ~ GB fan18:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed the AfD and find that Winged Blades of Godric is exercising remarkable restraint. Azkord, not all subjects are notable, and biographies of marginally notable living people pose particular problems for us. UninvitedCompany23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I was not concerned about nominating the article only. He asserts Nepalese article to Indian delete discussions which was totally wrong. I asked him don't do like that than he started being personal and started to put afd. I have provided the link above take a look. Azkord (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The closest thing I can find to anything personal directed at Azkord from WBG is the comment "Go, write some quality-articles", which is a bit snippy, but which I can totally empathize with, given Azkord's apparent inability to understand notability requirements, and their propensity for taking everything WBG says as an ethnic/nationalistic slur, which they come nowhere close to being.This entire complaint is a non-starter, and Azkord, specifically, should stop their WP:OWNERSHIP of the article and allow the AfD to run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Frequent disputes with Galatz
I'm tempted to block all of you, but I have a little post-Christmas cheer left in me. Still, if you folks continue in the same vein, some admin with more understanding of the wonderful world of wrestling will start issuing blocks. The battleground mentality is astonishing. One separate word to Galatz. I've combined the separate ANI thread you started with this one. Don't fork a discussion like that here. It's hard enough reading one. And I don't believe you when you say it wasn't retaliatory.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Galatz has frequently reverted edits done by and bullied other users on List of WWE personnel and other wrestling pages in regards to 205 Live. This is despite the existence of WP:RS and seems to be a case of WP:Own. The user has also personally attacked me, calling me and my edits "stupid" on my talk page. Evidence of personal attack here: - User:Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I asked for a WP:RS yet still none of been provided. A user provided a number of blogs that all have been proven to fail that criteria. You made sweeping changes across over 30 pages made by someone on Christmas Eve, without allowing time for anyone to chime in or trying to get a wider range of opinions as required by WP:CONSENSUS. This has been discussed many times and always concluded with they are part of Raw still. I also notice you have failed to mention that I am not the only one who disagreed with this as you make it appear, see here as an example of another user reverting you .
No I did not call you or your edits stupid, I called the fact that something specifically billed as a Raw brand exclusive, could be dual-branded stupid; see , , , , , , . Can you find one source to back up your claim that those were dual-branded? If not it is WP:OR.
You might want to read WP:PRIMARY, but that is not the point. WWE's official annual report, states on page 8 (14 of the PDF) NXT has now evolved into our third brand after Raw and SmackDown. You mean to tell me that a tweet probably posted by an intern has better information than the annual report which is edited and reviewed by all the top executives?
The point is there is an established consensus and you changed over 30+ pages without following procedures to attempt to change that. And even if it is changed, when is it changed as of? As of 3 months ago when this was discussed, consensus was it was still a sub-division of Raw, but yet you have changed things that happened 2 years ago. Notice any flaws in that logic? Or the Annual Report dated 8 months ago also clearly stated they had 3 brands, but yet you changed older information than that.
Does 205 Live do their own tours or do they tour with Raw?
This is precisely why you should not rush to make these changes like you did. These are things are should be discussed before you make sweeping changes, so they can be addressed before, not after. It is also why you should have responded to my comments on the talk page references above or on your talk page, rather than going to ANI. - Galatz גאליץ16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The facts very clearly changed since then. It was announced previously but launched over the summer. And yes it does tour by itself. It has done multiple shows all over UK. - Galatz גאליץ18:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Opinion Wow, it's been a while since we've been here, and while not a fan of rushing to ANI, I agree with the OP. For months now, involved editors have been requesting that this reorganization happen. Galatz has disagreed with them all, and in my opinion is bordering on WP:OWNing the article. While WWE may be a primary source, that source has been the primary means of determining the way the roster is listed here. I'm not inclined to see Galatz blocked, but some sort of warning should be issued, this particular issue should be settled on the talk page, and from last check it seems like the consensus is "A lot" to one in favor of the reorganization, with what seem to be good sources. Again, my opinion, my small weigh in here. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kjscotte34: What is border line WP:OWN about asking for support for a stance taken? Per WP:ONUS that is the proper thing to do. And per WP:CONSENSUS, having 3 people agree on one pages talk page, on Christmas day when most people are not online, is not proper procedure for making changes to 30+ pages. They need to go to WP:PW and bring it to the attention of more than the 3 people who comments on that page. A page which many people in the project have said they do not follow because of various reasons when it was discussed before. - Galatz גאליץ18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Pro wrestling again. Color me shocked. But after repeated ANI reports like this I'm beginning to wonder how much of this sink on community time should be put down to the stupidity intrinsic to the subject and how much to one or two particular editors. EEng18:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
While EEng is being a bit of a troll, Galatz, you are the one digging your own grave here kind sir. When 5 editors are telling you to leave something alone, and you keep messing with it, it gets to the point of enough being enough, which is why you are here. The 5 don't have to convince you of anything, you need to convince the 5 why your POV should take precedence. That's kinda how things work around here. Vjmlhds(talk)22:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I have twice brought Vjmlhds to ANI about their editing practices, which have had them blocked 10 times prior. In both instances they swore they would stop making those edits and . In addition since that was brought up this user has even stated on my talk page that they were wrong in those edits . Yet once again today this user is making the same edits again , even after being reminded to not making changes while a discussion is ongoing on the topic here and here , they still are making the changes . I believe it is clear that this user cannot be trusted and administrative action is needed. - Galatz גאליץ22:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This was clearly done for revenge because Galatz had an ANI issued against him...I'm not the one going against the consensus of 5 editors, dude. All I did was put things back according to the wishes of the clear consensus. You're coming across as very petty here, sir...not a good look. Vjmlhds(talk)
Come on Galatz. You're better than this. Cleary revenge for your ANI (which I issued against you for your predatory behavior and unlawful editing). - Mt.FijiBoiz22:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No I brought this here because you went against your word about not reverting. I am not worried about that above, I have not done anything wrong. Firstly this is not a !vote, so the quantity over quality of the stances are being ignored by you. In addition the issue has been on 1 talk page, it has not been brought to the wikiproject or anywhere else to gain a broader range of opinions, as WP:CONSENSUS requires and I have mentioned multiple times. In addition it was posted over Christmas 2 days ago, when most people are not online. That certainly does not allow time for a consensus to be reached. This change affects hundreds of articles and you and 2 other people decided among yourselves that a consensus was reached, without any effort to gain a true one. It is clear I am not alone on this as I am not the only person who reverted these changes/edits, the other people just do not know the conversation is happening, because you failed to notify anyone. - Galatz גאליץ23:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mt.FijiBoiz: That makes absolutely no sense, if it was revenge I would have brought you here. I have had the same issue here twice before with the same user, so to think it is revenge is just silly. I stated 4 months ago this user should not have been taken at their word, and I am here defending that, it has nothing to do with you bringing me here, because that was just ridiculous and baseless. - Galatz גאליץ23:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Galatz Please...you are so full of crap, your eyes are brown. And this "I failed to notify anyone" business...what is that?..do I have to be like Moses and stand on top of Mt. Sinai with stone tablets and make a proclamation every time I make an edit. Own up to it...you are throwing a temper tantrum because a 5-1 consensus is going against you, and you decided that if you were going to Hell, you're gonna try to take me with you. Ain't gonna work, because others can see through your shenanigans. Vjmlhds(talk)23:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Believe whatever you want but read WP:CONSENSUS and tell me how that was followed. For example, the wikiproject has discussed multiple times and always concluded it is not a brand, but yet in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you believe that one pages talk page over rides that. That is not how it works. You want to change it, go and get opinions from people who follow more than just that one page, and give it more than 2 holiday days for people to chime in. That is how things work around here. - Galatz גאליץ23:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Galatz You're persistent...I'll give you that, but what do you say to the 4 other editors (Fiji, Ian, Oknazevad, IP 32) who are telling you to back off (5 if you count Kjscotte34, who gave you what for above). If you want to go down with the ship, that's on you...just remember, all going down with the ship is is a fancy way to say you're gonna drown. Vjmlhds(talk)23:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I notice you didn't respond to one point I made. There is a process for gaining a consensus and that has not occurred. I have seen people say before they do not follow that page for one reason or another. Are you saying they do not get a say in this sweeping change? If you opened it up to everyone, and after a week the consensus went against me, than I do not care. But you did not follow the process, that is why it is an issue. I have participated in dozens of move or other discussions that didn't go my way, but once the process has gone through the proper channels I go with the consensus regardless of my opinion. But the consensus process has been ignored here, that is the issue. - Galatz גאליץ23:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
First, cute EEng, but I'd have used a steel cage match myself. On to Galatz, I didn't respond to your points, because you have no points. When you issue your own ANI like 10 minutes after someone else issues one on you, how can anyone take anything you say at face value when you are making such an obvious "revenge porn" ANI? Your credibility here is like ZERO. It's like you burned your own house down, but then you point to your neighbor who has a fireplace. Vjmlhds(talk)23:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this going to be one of those threads where users involved in what ultimately boils down to a content dispute behave worse and worse and the "winner" is whoever goads the other person into saying something that gets them chastised more or even blocked? Because regardless of whatever the hell's going on, that's what happens when both parties are dead set on responding to every single point before anyone else has replied. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson Regarding the content dispute, myself and 4 other editors have come to a consensus on an issue, and Galatz just doesn't know when to stop "fighting the good fight". Also, just a few minutes after an editor (not me) issues Galatz an ANI, Galatz issues one on me. This was clearly just done out of spite/revenge. I'm not looking for a fight or any back and forth, but I do have the right to defend myself after basically being "revenge porned" Vjmlhds(talk)23:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite being alerted of this discussion by another contributor, Kennyalley has continued to spam wikidata infoboxes across many articles and have accused me of being deceptive here, before removing the discussion altogether. I'm not sure what should be done, which is why I have brought it here. IWI (chat) 00:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
An attack by an LTA. I semi'ed the article for a few days. If it resumes, the protection should be extended. Otherwise, it appear that all accounts are blocked and/or globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a weird edit war going on at Inti Creates. I can't really figure out what is going on: is this a real edit dispute, or some kind of trolling or performance art? Can anyone help with this? -- The Anome (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@NinjaRobotPirate: Regardless of whether it's a credible or empty threat, a death threat is a death threat, and you shouldn't just scoff it off as nothing more than a sick joke at your expense. Bringing this to WP:EMERGENCY's attention would at least give you the last laugh in a civil way. ;) Blake Gripling (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And, to the editors above, you would probably get along well with my family, who have been urging me for years to take things more seriously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This Reddit discussion appears to indicate that the "Josh Blaylock will be appearing in Spider-Man: Far from Home" is not even a rumour but rather something that has appeared on several Misplaced Pages articles for a combined total of probably several days.
I would discuss it with the editor and ask them to please provide sources, but given that they don't appear to have done anything else on the project, it looks very much like they're only here to push a hoax. Might as well block.
Done. You're right. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
_3.0_TDI_quattro_wagon_(2018-11-02).jpg){kind=link}
