Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Possible hoax on Syed Soleman Shah

Editors are adding different languages and calendars to the article, completely inappropriate. LivTheAlpaca (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A speedy deletion may be needed here, not sure what makes this person WP:NOTABLE. IWI (chat) 23:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve tried to remove some of the nonsense but Innocentbadshah (talk · contribs) is now edit warring. IWI (chat) 23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If a book written in foreign language and can not be translated yet to English and also not available online,,, so how should be cote that where we need it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources are questionable; I think this page may be a hoax. Could I have some input from more experienced editors? IWI (chat) 00:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) It's fine to use non-English sources, although English sources are preferred if they exist. This isn't nonsense, ImprovedWikiImprovment; it is the ancestors of the article subject. Whether it's worth mentioning in the article is a content dispute, and should be discussed at the article's talk page, not edit-warred over... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 00:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've struck part of the above comment as it sounded like IWI needed to go to the talk page, which they already had. Sorry, ImprovedWikiImprovment. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 06:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I also had a conversation about it on their talk page. A haven’t reverted again so just by looking at the article you’ll see the major issue with it. And I’m nearly certain that it’s either a hoax or not notable. IWI (chat) 09:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's not in English in the article other than citations. I also don't agree that being in Hijri calendar is a good reason to remove a date; instead it would be better to add the CE equivalent: "Other era systems may be appropriate in an article. In such cases, dates should be followed by a conversion to Dionysian (or vice versa) and the first instance should be linked" (MOS:ERA). In terms of being a hoax, maybe so, but at least the books linked are real (I haven't been able to check their contents, though). By the way, what is the agreement mentioned here? Also, why on earth is this inappropriate?! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The removal of the speedy deletion tag was an obvious thing to do; the user placed it there out of rage. The "rage agreement" was on the user's talk page and is visible. IWI (chat) 14:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer:The text was non-English (including a different calendars), not just the sources. I can’t find anything in the subject, I think it’s a hoax. IWI (chat) 00:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The main concern was not the decendents section but the family section. His date of birth was given in a foreign language and I can’t find anything about this person. I don’t think they existed. IWI (chat) 00:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The 'owner' of the article having the same last name as the article subject makes me think this is a hoax article, probably with the same name as our hoaxster. I can't find any of the sources, but given the article has been around for a while I don't think speedy deletion is the way to go as it's not a 'blatant' hoax, so it needs to go to AFD, for failing WP:V. Fish+Karate 12:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Now at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Soleman Shah. Fish+Karate 12:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s terrible that this article has been here since 2011. The author appears to have made other articles that are hoaxes in the past. On the basis of WP:NOTHERE, I suggest an indefinite block. IWI (chat) 13:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate, Goldenshimmer, and LivTheAlpaca: I’m concerned that all articles they have created may either be hoaxes or not notable, such as Syed Muhammad Masood. IWI (chat) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to not jump to conclusions. One article is at AFD, where it will have 7 days to be discussed and the veracity or lack thereof of these sources can be reviewed. If that's proven to be ropey then other articles can be addressed. I have asked the relevant Wikiproject for the language (Pashto) to see if the scanty sources which are provided are in any way relevant. Fish+Karate 14:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the list of page creations, ignoring any they may have created using IP addresses. IWI (chat) 14:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose it is possible this is a hoax; Google translate says this is Urdu (or maybe F&K is right and it's Pashto, I don't even know that), and I don't speak it any more than F&K or IWI. More investigation is needed. But User:ImprovedWikiImprovment is making a serious rush to judgement, and suggesting an indefinite block at this stage, before we really know what is going on, is exactly the kind of behavior I think should be prevented at ANI with liberal application of topic bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  What he said. The sources are a mix of languages including Urdu, Pashto, and Arabic and mostly PDFs so not really translatable for non-speakers (as Google Translate, which isn't great but can at least give you a sense of what something says, can't do PDFs). We have to be careful not to expect perfect English sources for every article, and we should try to encourage articles on non-English topics, to try and address cultural bias. I hope this is not a hoax. Fish+Karate 14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, allow me to rephrase: if this is a hoax we should A. Indef the user and B. Check the other articles they have created. IWI (chat) 14:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider what a user said on the page’s talk page back in 2016; doesn’t prove anything but just shows this isn’t the first time an editor has had a concern about the article. IWI (chat) 15:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Just be careful and destroy all my articles and contributions to Wikipedia!!! What the non-sense is going here with me! Delete my user page and my contributions. No need to waste my energy on a platform reviewed and administrate by such group of people who even not aware of a language and using abusive language about other peoples living in world with different lifestyles then their! Thanks and bye bye! Syed Saqib Imad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• So we do or don't need to review this editor's other creations? EEng 05:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Yes, we do; it has been confirmed on the deletion discussion that none of the references discuss it's subject, it’s therefore probably a hoax. We need to check all of them, as well as articles the same person as clearly created on IP addresses and other accounts. IWI (chat) 20:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTHERE ("Little or no interest in working collaboratively", "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods"), I suggest, but DO NOT insist on an indefinite block. Creating several fake pages (if it turns out to be the case) that have stayed here for seven years is exactly the kind of behaviour that damages the overall reliability of the encyclopedia. IWI (chat) 21:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• An Arabic speaker has now checked the sources within Syed Soleman Shah and confirmed they don't mention the subject. Copied over from the AFD: the other articles, all of which look at first glance to have the same issues:
  • Gesudaraz I
  • Syed Adam Banuri
  • Syed Ali ibn Ismail
  • Syed Jafar al-Qa’im
  • Syed Muhammad Masood
  • Ali ibn Ismail
  • Syed Muhammad Tayyab Shah
  • Sheikh Isa Mashwani
  • Syed Muhammad Ahmad Shah
  • Syed Faateh
  • Syed Qaaf

A couple of these have had speedies / prods declined in the past. @EEng:, I say thee yes, these need to be reviewed. Fish+Karate 10:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was just raising the question lest the thread get prematurely archived. Someone else will need to pursue it. Lazy today. EEng 15:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a theory: they may be the user's ancestors, which would explain why they have the same name. IWI (chat) 18:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, indef the editor and nuke all of the creations? If indeed they turn out to be hoaxes/relatives? Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, this kind of behaviour is blatantly unencyclopedic and extremely disruptive; just look at how much time and how many editors are involved. They knew what they were doing, they are, undoubtedly more than any editor can be, WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 19:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Soleman Shah as "delete" and indef-blocked the main contributors Ssimad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Innocentbadshah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for hoaxing. I leave it up to other editors to determine which of their other contributions need deleting. Sandstein 15:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's great but we need those Arabic/Pashto speakers again to check those sources on all of those articles. Man this guy has disrupted, this will be extremely time consuming. IWI (chat) 00:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Has everyone forgotten? This is now the oldest discussion here and needs a lot of editors' help before it can be closed. IWI (chat) 22:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you ask at Wikipedia:Translators_available for someone who can help? EEng 23:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Done. Shall I wait to put them at AFD. IWI (chat) 23:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD them as probable hoaxes and relist until we get a good faith editor that can confirm what the deal is. These are hardly high importance pages anyway. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion for all of the above listed articles' deletions is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gesudaraz I; if there are any that I have missed, add them. IWI (chat) 11:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-term abuse and reversions without cause by User:Nightscream

• Unfulfilled (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SanAnMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Nightscream continues as he has demonstrated in the past to abuse me in comments and treat me like my edits are worthless. He has blindly reverted constant revisions which I have made in good faith in an effort to remove repeated wikilinks as per WP:DUPLINK as well as remove identical verbatim language in the top and body of the article Unfulfilled. He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is "writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing" and "All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content". His reverts on this article in question are definitely a violation of WP:3RR at the least and even borderline on ownership, but the warnings I left him on his talk page were dismissed with the rude comment: "You have jack shit in the way of authority to give "sole warnings" for anything.". This is just the tip of the iceberg. As a matter of full disclosure, these abuse comments were to the ANI board but with no actions taken. Nightscream is an editor that is, quite frankly, a cancer on this site. Nightscream has incident after incident after incident after incident (and there are more) of personal attacks, ownership of pages, and that most recent incident was even noted that Nightscream was on "final warning basis". I honestly believe that the fact that this user was at one time an administrator has given him a very long leash, but there has to be a line finally drawn here. Nightscream has shown over a long period of time that he continues to attack people who he feels cannot stand up to him, and the fact that he continues to repeat time and time again the same habit patterns proves he is no longer an asset to the community. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Because there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Unfulfilled, which involved a number of false claims and questionable behavior by SanAnMan, and since I hadn't responded to the last message that I wanted to, I will compose my response there, hopefully on Dec 10 (daytime), and then see if I can post a note here after I've done so. Nightscream (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SanAndMan has continued to revert unsourced and poorly sourced material back into the article. To be fair, it'as not all his fault: the MoS for plot items encourages original research, which is a bit of an issue. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Unfulfilled

I have moved the entirety of an inappropriate discussion from Talk:Unfulfilled, below. The discussion is about editor behavior, not really about improving the article. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

Yesterday, Dec 5, about five and a half hours before the premiere of this episode, I began the preliminary article for that episode, which I've observed for some time is standard practice among those editors here who edit the South Park episode articles. The basic plot was supported by a press release, and more citations always follow after an episode airs.

Four hours later (just an hour and a half before the episode aired), User:SanAnMan, reverted it back to the redirect to the Season article that it was before I did this, using the rationale that that the episode "has not aired."

This would mean that User:SanAnMan is not only unfamiliar with standard episode article practices among the editing community here, as with WP:CRYSTAL, which states that articles on future events can be created if the event "is notable and almost certain to take place." It also would mean that User:SanAnMan has never come across an article for a future film, novel, album, television episode, etc. If he were a newbie, this would not have caught much of my attention, but User:SanAnMan has been editing here since 2011. Have you never come across articles on future subjects, SanAnMan?

This may suggest that he simply wanted to blank what I wrote out of spite, which is merely tendentious editing. The evidence for this lies in the fact that himself has in the past changed redirects into preliminary episode articles. In this edit, for example, he did this with the article for the episode "White People Renovating Houses", with the edit summary "add preliminary details for the episode based on press release", which is the exact same thing I did. Ditto for the prelim article for "Hummels & Heroin", which he created on the basis of the press release.

For other articles, like the one for "Franchise Prequel", he made edits to the prelim article, a consistent indication that he had no problem with them.

I would like to address SanAnMan directly by asking him why he did this. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@RationalAndLiterate: Simple. I, and other editors on this project, have agreed that one press release is no longer sufficient information for the basis of a full article creation. It's just not enough details. This has been our process now since this season began, so yes, it may have been done differently in the past, but just because that's the way it always was doesn't mean that's the way it always should be. There was no spite in the reversion, just an agreement between myself and the other editors who regularly create/edit these episode articles to not actually create the article itself until it actually airs. I would appreciate it if you assume good faith rather than claiming that I was editing out of spite. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Please show me the talk page where this discussion took place, and/ which other editors agreed to this. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's in the edit summaries of previous articles done this season. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL which you referenced states "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." One press release does not meet that requirement. Also, MOS:TV states "Articles should be verifiable and establish notability", and one press release does not meet notability requirements as it fails WP:DEPTH. See also WP:DELAY also for further discussion on this. I appreciate your view on this matter, but this is how myself, User:Nightscream, User:SNUGGUMS, and the other regular editors of these articles have been doing the process. Don't be so offended that your edit was reverted. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the edit histories of the early season episodes, and in addition to not seeing any talk page discussions on the topic you mention, I see no edit summaries pertaining to this either. Can you please point them out to me? Thanks. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A press release indeed isn't enough on its own for a page. WP:GNG states that subjects need to be covered by multiple independent sources (not closely affiliated with it) to warrant one. This means nothing from Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Comedy Central, or anyone/anything else with known connections to the show. I'm not saying you can't use their comments within the article at all, only that you need more than them for an article to be worth keeping around. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Presentation of evidence by Nightscream

Wow, SanAnMan. I mean really…WOW.

Lot to unpack here. But man, I can’t believe you just fabricated a discussion that never took place, and even falsely claimed that I was somehow in agreement with you on this imaginary discussion of yours. I’ll give you this: You have gall. Let me see if I can address the simplest points, and then move onto the more nuanced ones that require more depth.

• No, there was no "process" that I was party to regarding your senseless revert, so your attempt to name me when citing this “process” is simply a lie on your part.
• No, discussions do not take place in edit summaries. They take place on talk pages, and as was mentioned above, there was no discussion on the talk pages of any early season episode, nor on the season talk page, nor on the series talk page. Indeed, how would such a discussion occur in edit summaries? This claim by you is patently absurd, and you know it. Even if we were to be generous and grant for this possibility, there are no edit summaries in any of the early season episode articles that indicate that any consensus was reached not to begin preliminary articles a day before an episode airs, much less an hour two, with a press release, or even with no citations at all. How do you explain this? You were asked above about this, and you went silent. Why is that? Please, by all means, tell me.
• No, you did not revert the article because of the reliability of press releases, or any "process" to that effect. You reverted it, according to your edit summary, because the episode hadn't aired yet. When you consider:

-that you did this about an hour an half before the episode before the episode premiered

-the fact that others like myself have begun preliminary episode articles shortly before airtime before, all without a peep from you

-and the fact that Wikipedia is filled with articles on future, films, novels, television shows, Olympics, etc.,

...this makes the mendacious nature of this rationale of yours all the more transparent.

Even if you suddenly believed that articles on not-yet-premiered episodes could not be created on the basis of press releases, this ignores the fact that you yourself created the first redirect of the page by citing in your edit summary---You guessed it---the press release. Granted, this was a redirect, not the article proper. But why would you even bother citing the press release, when redirects generally do not require citations at all? The fact that you decided that it did need a citation, and that you cited the press release, is yet another nail in the coffin of your excuse-making.

Press releases, and deletion/blanking

Since we're on the subject, let's address the claim by you and SNUGGUMS "A press release indeed isn't enough on its own for a page." All things being equal, I agree. But here is where the nuance of the general practices of the editing community, including those of the editors of the South Park articles, and Wikipedia's leanings come in:

Wikipedia leans toward inclusion. Outside of obvious vandalism or defamation, it tends to dislike blanking substantial content, even uncited content (and that includes entire articles that are uncited), without giving some opportunity for sources to be found for material. This is why some prescribe the use of fact tags, or citation tags, to be placed at the end of uncited material, especially if it appears that the material may be of value, in order to give the editing community time to find sources, and/or the move of that material to article's talk page. I just recently did this with large swaths of material in the Bill Gaines talk page.

With respect to article that lack citations entirely, a good clue for Wikipedia's attitudes is its deletion policy. Aside from those articles that are speedily deleted (again, for a narrow range of rationales like obvious nonsense, vandalism, defamation), Wikipedia prescribes that when all other alternatives are not viable, that the following tag {{subst:proposed deletion|REASON}} be used to propose deletion, and that if no one opposes it, the article is deleted after a week. If someone does oppose deletion and removes the tag, then the article can be nominated for deletion. All of this indicates that articles with content in them are generally not deleted/removed even if they lack sources entirely.

Moreover, WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB, which are the relevant policies/guidelines that make a press release less desired than a secondary source, do not say that primary sources or self-published sources cannot be used. They merely say that in those instances in which they are used, they must be used with care, and that articles should not be supported primarily by them. Indeed, the most recent time I myself created the preliminary article (albeit post-airing) was for the article on "Buddha Box", the episode just prior to this, which also was initially supported solely by the press release.

We know that reviews for episodes begin appearing on the Web within a day or two of an episode's airing, and I was one of the editors who in 2011 and 2012, began adding multiple reviews to articles right after they were published, beginning with episodes like "The Poor Kid" ([1],[2]) and "Reverse Cowgirl" ([3]), an initiative we began after some in the editing community had begun expressing (including Jimmy Wales himself) that episodes did not have automatic notability without secondary sources.

Thus, for an article on an episode of South Park, supported by the press release for that episode, to be reverted back to a redirect an hour and a half before it premieres, using the rationale that "Oh, it hasn't aired yet", by someone who not only knows that secondary sources tend to be added to the article a day or two after it premieres, but who has himself added those very sources is, to put it mildly, wildly absurd.

And no, WP:DELAY offers nothing to bolster your rationale. The language of that guideline clearly indicates that it pertains solely to subjects whose future notability is unclear. Again, this obviously does not apply to these episode articles, which always generate secondary sources in the form of reviews and other production info, which are always added to the articles as part of standard practice. Do you deny this?

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude form this evidence/reasoning that your revert was exactly what it appeared to be: An completely arbitrary act on your part more likely to have been motivated by WP:OWN-type tendencies, rather than careful adherence to policy, or general practices among the editing community. How do we know this? Because you do it all the time.

SanAnMan's history of problematic edits

For example, you removed an Oxford comma from the "Buddha Box", claiming MOS:COMMA as your rationale. But as it was pointed out to you when it was restored, MOS:COMMA says nothing about removing Oxford commas. In fact, it says the exact opposite: That they may indeed be used, as long as they are used consistently. Since I wrote that synopsis, and since I do indeed use them consistently, in what way does MOS:COMMA justify you’re removing it? You then removed it again, and in your edit summary, rather than explaining how MOS:COMMA actually supported your position, you abandoned that rationale, and leap-frogged onto a new one, explaining "But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article."

Oh really?

Excuse me, SanAnMan, but who are exactly are you to decide whether the entire editing community uses Oxford commas in that article or any other one, especially given the fact that you’re not the one who typically writes the episode synopses? I've been editing the South Park articles for several years, and neither I nor any other of the editors I've collaborated with here have ever formed any resolution about Oxford commas and keep in mind that I'm largely responsible for much of the standard format exhibit of these articles, from the regular creation of the Critical reception that was crucial to establishing notability for the episode articles, ([4],[5],[6]) to the banner at the top of the talk pages that I wrote. Despite this, you claim unilateral authority to tell others which types of commas we use, even on synopses that you did not write yourself?

This is textbook WP:OWN-type behavior.

This was not the first example of this behavior, or the last. I’ve been reverting arbitrary edits by you ever since you started regularly editing South Park articles. The most recent edits of this nature have been to this article. The utter inanity of the reasoning you employ to justify these edits is astounding, as it the sheer frequency with which you employ it. Here are some samples:

1. You removed the South Park Studios press release that establishes the basic plot of the episode from the Lead to the External links section. By itself, this is not a huge problem, but you explain this edit by saying, "Per WP:EL biased sites with conflicts of interest should not be used as cites". But WP:EL doesn’t say anything about conflicts of interest, or biases, or for that matter, which sources should be used as citations! That's because WP:EL doesn't deal with citations. It deals with links in the External links section. Moreover, there is no "conflict of interest". A conflict of interest is one in which the aims or interests of the source threaten the objectivity or accuracy of the information in question. The idea that South Park Studios cannot provide accurate info about one of their own episodes is ridiculous. While the eventual move of the press release from the Lead to EL is not a problem, the fact you provide these rationales for it shows that you lack ability to form coherent reasoning, or sound judgment.

1. In the next edit, you changed the location of the word “however” in a sentence. You offered no explanation for why this was necessary. It was simply arbitrary. And in the same edit, you also removed expositional material from an article explaining that a character is a child. Wikipedia is not a fan site. It is written for the general reader, which means it must be written with the assumption that a reader is among the uninitiated, and may not be familiar with these characters. This why we have something called exposition. Do you understand what that is?
2. You then removed material on one of the major points of parody in the episode from the Lead, saying in your summary, "fine, if you want it listed in the top, then it doesn't need to be repeated, word-for-word, with identical wikilinks (not needed per WP:OVERLINK), in the bod". But WP:OVERLINK only pertains to repeated wikilinks. Not to the wording of the Lead summary. I explained to you in my revert "Yes, the Lead DOES repeat some material from the article body. This because the purpose of the Lead is to summarize the salient points of the article, which by necessity, involves repetition, and which makes obscuring the point of parody in the body inane." I did not revert the wikilink, since I didn't disagree with your citation of OVERLINK for that, but you then you reverted it yet again, now stating "WP:OVERLINK and MOS guides clearly state to avoid repeating details." This is false. Both the Lead and the Infobox necessarily repeat information in the article body by definition. There is no MOS guideline that says otherwise. If there had been, you would've cited it explicitly in the edit summary, but you didn't.
3. You then began split hairs over the fact that Jeff Bezos is depicted in the episode as one of the alien Talosians from the Star Trek pilot "The Cage," by arguing that he has a cleft in the back of his head that even reviews mention. So what? This is trivia. It does not have to be included in order for the description to be generally true, which it is. Articles do not have to mention every trivial detail. They only have summarize the salient information on the subject. The fact that the show depicted him as a Talosian is salient, because it's one of the major pop culture references in the story. His occipital cleft is not. If there were a naturalistic part of the article where it bore mentioning, that would be fine. But nothing about these passages requires it, and shoe-horning it in there is just officious, tendentious hair-splitting that results in bad writing. And yet, you continue to engage in arbitrary edits and without any consistency: with your next revert, you removed the point of parody from the Synopsis entirely. Why ON EARTH would you do that? You removed a point of parody from the synopsis of a parody TV episode? Even though you previously said that were you okay with it being in both the Lead and the Synopsis? This is not different "wording". This is you harming a Wikipedia article by removing content without a valid rationale, and pretending in your edit summary that somehow it's the other guy who's displaying WP:OWN-type behavior. After you changed the article to state that Bezos' depiction was merely "similar" to the Talosians, another editor, JzG, reverted that, saying he viewed your insistence on mere "similarity" as OR on your part. So now two editors disagreed with your edits, yet you continued to revert, again emphasizing whether the two passages repeated "word-for-word", when nothing in Wikipedia policy, guidelines or MOS precludes this. So you are now reverting two other editors who disagree with you, which is clearly grounds for blocking, yet you're accusing others of WP:OWN behavior?
4. You then claimed in your next revert that "WP:3RR and ownership clearly demonstrated" on my part. And yet somehow, you exempt yourself from that charge, even though you were reverting yourself. Why is this?

I have no problem with edits made to my work, or even reverts, when they are done competently, by people who understand not only Wikipedia policy, but the essentials of good writing. Your own writing, from your vocabulary to your overall skills at composition, SanAnMan, ranges from subpar to awful. When an robot accidentally injures an employee in a warehouse you express by saying that the worker got "caught up in the automated mechanics of the plant." Caught up in the automated mechanics? This makes it sound as if he was engrossed in a technical manual. When describing how the establishment of a fulfillment center destroys local jobs or leads to business closures, you describe this by saying, "The new center is quickly taking over the jobs of many people in town". When one business displaces others, it does not "take over" jobs. There are lots of ways to express this, from "destroying jobs" or "leads to businesses closing", etc. When you added critical reception info to the article, half of what you wrote about John Hugar of The A.V. Club's reaction was simply a restatement of the plot. You're not the first person with a lower level of literacy than I to make edits to Wikipedia. But you take the prize for being the first one who insists upon his edits as if they are equal to or somehow superior to those of people who write well.

Despite all this, you reported me to ANI. Not surprisingly, your complaint consisted almost entirely of complaining about past incidents. I find it particularly amusing that you were so indiscriminate with the links you provided to these flaps, even going so far as to include my conflict with serial policy violator Alan Sohn, whose rap sheet at ANI is longer than the Great Wall of China. You also lied when you made the false claim, "He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is 'writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording." In fact, not only have I never said that "any" of your edits amounted to this, not only have I gone on record as saying that many editors, including yourself, make many positive edits to articles, but I did this in the very comment you linked to, when I said, "Why don't you try letting someone who knows how to write a sentence, and for that matter, a decent story synopsis, just do his thing, and make those little tweaks that you do pretty well?"

You are not admin, yet you presume to tells others that this is their "only" warning for this or that. Newsflash: You're not an admin, and have zero authority to tell anyone that you're giving them "only" one waring for anything.

Please falsify this

If you can falsify any of what I've presented here, then please answer the following:

1. What is your basis for the claim that editor consensus can occur in edit summaries, as opposed to talk pages?
2. Where are the edit summaries that you claimed resolved to exclude press releases for even preliminary articles in the beginning of the season?
3. Why did you not provide these edit summaries when you asked for them earlier?
4. Why did you claim that I was part of the "process" that arrived at this resolution?
5. Why did you cite the press release when you created the redirect for this episode, which was not an episode from early in the season?
6. Why did you offer no objection when JE98 created the preliminary article for "Time to Get Cereal", PRIOR to that episode’s airing, also supported solely by the press release?
7. Are you aware that articles lacking sources for notability can stay up for a week after a nomination being nominated, and if so, why would you think it so imperative to blank/revert a preliminary article for a South Park episode just hours before it airs, when you know that secondary sources will be added within a day or two?
8. Given that you’ve been editing South Park articles for less time than I have, and that I’m responsible for much of the standard formatting and practices governing their editing, what is your basis for your claim "But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article."
9. Please tell me why your preferred placement of the word “however” in this edit is superior to the way I wrote it. What policy, guideline or principle of good writing do you cite for this?
10. Why did you claim that 3RR and WP:OWN behavior were established on my part, but not your own, given that you performed the same reverts?
11. Do you really believe non-admins have the authority to issue “sole” warnings for anything?

Summary

So what do we have here?

• You don't write well, and you constantly make arbitrary changes that are not supported by policy or by basics of good writing, and reject correction by others.
• You often don't cite any rationale for these edits, and when you do, you frequently misrepresent the various policies and guidelines that you cite. You even fabricate "agreements" with other editors that never took place. When called on this lie, you double down on that lie with another lie, claiming that it took place in edit summaries (which you are unable to provide), and even cite as one of the other editors who "agrees" with you someone who has never discussed the matter with you, and most certainly does not agree with you.
• When told the policies or MOS guidelines you cite do not support your claims, you revert anyway, fabricating more false rationales.
• You revert even after multiple editors revert your edits, which is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and is a blockable offense.
• You display clear WP:OWN-type behavior, by claiming unilateral authority "we" are not doing this or "we" are not doing that, but you instead accuse your opponent of this.
• You accuse your opponent of 3RR violation, but exempt yourself, despite revering yourself.
• You are not admin, yet you presume to portray yourself as having the powers of one.

Going forward

Prior to your complaint and ANI, your "only warning" nonsense and the reverts you made to the article around the same time, I was hoping I could reach you. Contrary to what you may think, I really have nothing against you, and I dislike this sort of conflict. A couple of years ago I made a point of trying to reduce my interaction with others here because of such conflict, but when someone who routinely violates policy, who shows lack of basic writing skills, and seems to exhibit a malignant narcissism by rejecting the judgement of others out of hand starts insisting on editing the same articles as me this is no longer possible. A few years ago, an editor named Asgardian terrorized the editors on comics-related articles for about two and a half years. Since no one else would draw a line in the sand with him, it fell to me to spearhead the initiative to get him banned from Wikipedia. It didn't end well for him. I'll be alerting others to the evidence I've laid out on this page, and request their comment.

In the meantime, I implore you to consider what I've said here, and take a good look at the behavior you've exhibited in the edits and diffs shown here. If you really want to collaborate with me and others here, I urge you to reconsider the course that you're on. Doing so will go a long way to impress those who may come here to evaluate this matter. I want to believe that it's possible for anyone who really wants to be a good editor to learn to adhere to the policies and guidelines the community on this site has prescribed for improving it, but you've been here for seven years, and given your conduct, I don't know if I'm being naive. Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m going out of town for a few days. I’ll address this steaming pile when I return. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman! Way to guarantee nothing happens with this complaint. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, especially if you're too lazy to read all the relevant evidence. I know sometimes these evidence presentations and discussions can be a slog, but honestly, I will never understand why those who aren't willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work set themselves up here as the arbiters of such problems. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, then why come here to ANI??

If it helps, the behavior is summarized at the bottom of my evidence. Look for the text that reads "So what do we have here?" You can then read the explanations and diffs in the upper sections if you like. Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We may be willing to "roll up our sleeves", but you sure could make it easier by trimming it down. We're all volunteers here, none of us particularly desire to read 10 pages of text. WP:WALLOFTEXT might be a worthy read. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot going on here. I would want to see a response from SanAnMan before commenting. BOZ (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Nightscream and SanAnMan: Please keep comments concise. Walls of text are disruptive. An appropriate format would be:

• Brief description of problem (e.g. User:X is exhibiting OWNership behaviors)
• Violation 1: [diff][diff] (i.e. specific points of policy violation, with diffs for immediate proof)
• Violation 2: [diff][diff][diff][diff]
• Violation 3: [diff][diff][diff]
• Proposed remedy, sanction, or specific request for admin action.

That's it. That's literally all we need. I actually did take the time to read Nightscream's massive wall of text, and I'm not sure what to do with it or why I read it. None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable. Nightscream, you can't just dump all that out and say "deal with this". The only thing you should have written out is the summary section, with diffs attached, and a requested solution from administrators or the community. SanAnMan, do not respond with an equal wall of text. We get it, you two do not get along; we do not need to see another massive wall of text refuting everything Nightscream said point-by-point. What you both need to do is start over. Fundamentally, you're both accusing each other of reverting without cause, which is primarily an WP:OWN issue. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing it without sufficient policy reasoning is a serious offense. Edit warring gets handled at WP:AN3, not here and from what I can tell, all the other specific accusations are fairly minor in comparison. We don't need essays on why a revert is wrong, if it's actually inappropriate, the diff will speak for itself. Lastly, avoid personal commentary, terms like "cancer" or "steaming pile" are inappropriate and will be met with blocks if they continue. Talk to the third parties who will be reviewing these issues, not each other.  Swarm  {talk}  13:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. That may work for some of the offenses in question. But how I would establish that he made deliberately deceptive statements without the evidence that illustrates the deception? Nightscream (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Concise summary

Per Swarm's suggestion above, I'll try to compose a concise, itemized list of the offenses in question, at least the ones that can be so summarized. Nightscream (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal by SanAnMan

First of all, I would like to express appreciation for those following this for the delay in my response. As I briefly stated earlier, I was out of town on a planned family trip, and had hardly any time to properly compose a response to this conversation. In addition, I felt that a cool down time would benefit all involved. I would also like to apologize for my improper language used in the original complaint and my response of my delay, I realize this was inappropriate, and I can only chalk it up to frustration with this situation.

Secondly, as User:207.38.146.86 so vividly stated, holy wall of text, Batman! This is a lot to read through. It's almost as if User:Nightscream is trying to defend his position using whatever methods he can in this case.

I was going to respond point-by-point to Nightscream's accusations here, but since User:Swarm has asked that I not do so, I will comply with his wishes and do my best to keep this as short and sweet as possible and hit the high points of Nightsceam's issues. I completely agree that there is no need to answer or address all of his point-by-point minutia nor do I feel the need to answer his questionnaire, especially since, as Swarm has stated, "None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable."

• Description of problem: Nightscream is exhibiting WP:OWN, WP:WikiBullying, WP:AAEW and WP:THREATENs.
  

• Example 1: WP:WikiBullying as exhibited above by Nightscream's statements:

"I have no problem with edits made to my work, or even reverts, when they are done competently, by people who understand not only Wikipedia policy, but the essentials of good writing. Your own writing, from your vocabulary to your overall skills at composition, SanAnMan, ranges from subpar to awful."

"You're not the first person with a lower level of literacy than I to make edits to Wikipedia. But you take the prize for being the first one who insists upon his edits as if they are equal to or somehow superior to those of people who write well."

"You don't write well, and you constantly make arbitrary changes that are not supported by policy or by basics of good writing"

"but when someone who routinely violates policy, who shows lack of basic writing skills, and seems to exhibit a malignant narcissism by rejecting the judgement of others out of hand starts insisting on editing the same articles as me this is no longer possible."

"In fact, not only have I never said that "any" of your edits amounted to this, not only have I gone on record as saying that many editors, including yourself, make many positive edits to articles, but I did this in the very comment you linked to, when I said, "Why don't you try letting someone who knows how to write a sentence, and for that matter, a decent story synopsis, just do his thing, and make those little tweaks that you do pretty well?""

Not only are these statements a violation of the WikiBullying policy, but they are also examples of just about every section listed in WP:AAEW including WP:ACCUSE, WP:IMADEIT, WP:EMPOWER, WP:MOREX and many others.

• Example 2: WP:THREATEN as exhibited above by Nightscream's statement:

"A few years ago, an editor named Asgardian terrorized the editors on comics-related articles for about two and a half years. Since no one else would draw a line in the sand with him, it fell to me to spearhead the initiative to get him banned from Wikipedia. It didn't end well for him. I'll be alerting others to the evidence I've laid out on this page, and request their comment."

In my opinion, this is a thinly-veiled statement that basically says "I am going to get you blocked or banned", and I consider this yet another personal attack.

• Example 3: WP:OWN by constant reversion of edits that re-added WP:DUPLINKs on the article Unfulfilled: [7] [8] [9]. Nightscream has claimed in his statement above "I did not revert the wikilink, since I didn't disagree with your citation of OVERLINK for that", but this is clearly false.

• Example 4: WP:NPA by way of multiple false accusations as exhibited above by Nighscream's statements. I do not feel the need to re-quote these again, the evidence is laid out in the wall of text.

• Proposed: Sanctions of Nightscream to be determined by administrators.

Nightscream has an extremely long block log not to mention the fact that his admin rights were revoked due to misuse of admin tools, content dispute, ownership and 3RR violations. He has had multiple discussions regarding him on the ANI boards about his tone, his edit warring and his attacks on other editors. His most recent block (just one month ago, I might add) included the following statement by User:Oshwah: "The user is on a final warning basis, and any further behavior that violates Wikipedia's civility policies or Wikipedia's policy disallowing personal attacks will be met with a block. Given Nightscream's history and their block record over this issue, a final warning basis is appropriate and fair, and should not come as a surprise to Nightscream should problems continue and administrative action is taken."

In my opinion, I have clearly demonstrated that Nightscream is an editor with long-term and ongoing issues with other editors and is now attacking me. His attempts at WikiBullying and use of personal attacks should be treated with the highest regard. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, that's your concise reply? I think you neglected to mention that time Nightscream was warned for spitting on the sidewalk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Leo Freeman

• Leo Freeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Added "Armenian architecture" to the Islamic architecture page without source. No edit summary/explanation.[10]
• Added "Armenian Renaissance" to the Macedonian art (Byzantine) page without source, explanation or edit summary.[11]
• Tried to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possible Armenian origin of a Byzantine ruling dynasty, through sheer edit-warring.[12]-[13]-[14]
• Added "Armenian" to the Philippicus (general) page without edit summary/sources.[15]
• 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.[16] 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.[17]
• Removed the Georgian transliteration on the Mushki page, using an edit summary "Nothing Georgian, they are connected much more with Armenians".[18]
• Replaced the Hebrew transliteration from the lede of a church in Jerusalem with an Armenian transliteration. No edit summary/explanation[19]
• Changed "Persian" to "Armenian", even though the Armenian in question served as a general in the Persian armies.[20]
• Added "Armenians in Bulgaria" to the article of a Bulgarian ruler. No edit summary/explanation.[21]
• Removes the Georgian transliteration of a town related to Georgian history, but keeping the Armenian one. No edit summary/explanation[22]
• Edit warring on Henrikh Mkhitaryan in order to add a link to "Armenians".[23]-[24]
• Changed "seventh century BC" to "2nd millenium BC" without source and edit summary/explanation (i.e. making Armenians "more ancient").[25]
• Added "Armenian" to the Proto-Greek language article without edit summary/explanation.[26]
• Added Armenian Highlands to the Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey article without edit summary/explanation.[27]
• Edit-warring on the Sabre Dance article in order to remove the Russian transliteration (a ballet composed by a Soviet-Armenian composer and conductor).[28]-[29]
• Added "Armenian satrap" to the lede of a ruler of the Persian Empire. No edit summary/explanation[30]
• Added unsourced content to the Armenian language page. No edit summary/explanation.[31]

I issued him an AA2 warning in the past with clear examples of his disruptive editorial pattern, to which he unfortunately never replied.[32] Looking at the compelling evidence, I don't think this editor is here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. 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" [Battle of Hayoc Dzor / Հայոց ձորի ճակատամարտ, recommend to see “"HAYK", The Legend of Hayk and Bel] 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)

This requires admin involvement. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a pattern here of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavoir via WP:BATTLEGROUND editing by @Leo Freeman. I do agree with the filing party that administrator attention is needed.Resnjari (talk) 01:33, 18 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. --Jayron32 13:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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)

 Done. You're right. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support--Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support per the above evidences.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support, as per reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Need help

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

---

I just found this page after I requested a permission, and found a (new to me) link there, to what I am guessing is a MediaWiki project that I have no idea about. Apparently, 2 years ago someone was able to edit under my name at that page. It may be because I don't have a registered account at that project, but I am unsettled by finding it there. Here is the link [[33]] Thanks, in advance. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

May I assume that the last two edits I see at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamster_Sandwich

are from you but the first one isn't?

I see that a meta admin reverted you:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/Arbitration_Tribunal&action=history

I have alerted him to this thread:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABillinghurst&type=revision&diff=18716853&oldid=18711245

Let's see what he has to say. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

TY very much! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Issue at metawiki, resolved there — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• 1) the complainant removed a user comment to a proposal in their name, that was reverted. Subsequently it would appear that the complainant had issues in a comment in their original submission. How they put it their during their submission I can only reflect is the complainant's issue. What happened to the user's account in 2016 is beyond comment and investigation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) Addendum. User has been advised to change their password. First step that anyone should do when they believe that there is a chance that your account has been compromised is to firstly check the email address for your account, then change your password. Use a unique, complex password, preferably of minimum of 10 characters. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the comment by another editor. I inadvertently removed that comment when I found what I thought was a vexatious comment left by a red-link "Hamster Sandwich" at the foot of an infobox of some kind. I thank billingshurst for fixing all of that up, at any rate. I can't explain the addition of material to MadiaWiki in 2016 in my "red-link" name, other to state I myself did not make it/ them. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a weird glitch in the software? It is plausible that someone else registered that name (who knows how long ago) and made one edit in 2016, and somehow the system didn't realize that you had already registered it in 2005. By all means change your password, in case he somehow has the same one.

In 2005 all Wikimedia sites had separate user accounts and passwords, but starting in February 2013 (completed in April 2015) the WMF forcibly renamed all clashing user accounts so that every user now had a single unified login across all Wikimedia sites. Maybe they missed one?

The fact that you could edit on meta tells me that you have unified login. Could you please check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Hamster+Sandwich

And look for anything else on another wiki that you didn't post?

Finally, I don't see anything here that needs an English Wikipedia admin. Would you be so kind as to cut and paste this to your talk page and we can continue this discussion there? Just replace this entire thread with a link to where it was moved to. Or ask me and I can move it for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I copied this thread and am moving it to my talk page, if anyone wants to comment there, please do so. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Compromised account?

A glitch in the WMF software? Maybe. But, considering the fact that a number of accounts have been compromised recently, some of them admin accounts, and considering the manner in which Hamster Sandwich returned to editing (i.e. casually asking for "The Hammer" back at WP:BN), and their very odd response to being turned down (Abrupt messages concludng with "End communication"), has anyone actually looked into the possibility that this is a compromised account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's just say I think there would be some discomfort if the banhammer was returned. However there's no red flags in relation to a compromise as far as I can see. I note that the same account made some credibly related edits on this wiki just minutes after the edit on meta. It seems to me like some issues with memory or other confusion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that Hamster Sandwich was the subject of multiple impersonator accounts [1][2][3], so it's not implausible that someone may have created an impersonator account on Meta but never edited with it. Strangely, there's no account creation log entries, so it's hard to tell when exactly that would have happened. Anyways, here's another strange thing: according to SUL, Hamster Sandwich on Meta was attached to the global account way back in 2009, because it was already "confirmed by password". This would seem to suggest that Hamster Sandwich (or someone else) had already logged in to Meta using their actual enwiki username and password at some point prior to that, as opposed to it being an unconnected local account that got merged by mistake. I find it too hard to believe that an unrelated person tried to log in to a Meta account by the same name that they created a decade earlier and never used, and was able to successfully log in post-SUL centralization due to a technical error. And digging back into their old school contributions, I do get the distinct impression that we're talking to the same eccentric individual who's always been behind the account. Perhaps they just forgot, or perhaps it was the "skeevy hacker kid" who hacked their account in 2016 just to do something esoteric at Meta, as they speculate on their talk page. Either way, unless their account has been compromised for the better part of the past decade, their assertion that they have never been aware of Meta seems unlikely.  Swarm  {talk}  17:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• And this editor used to be an admin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Persistent IP vandal

• 219.153.241.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 219.153.240.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.18.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.16.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.88.215.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.91.106.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.16.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 14.106.223.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.81.33.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.80.109.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.80.104.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.88.214.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.22.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.17.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 14.110.208.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For months there have been a slew of vandalizing IPs targeting articles such as Bria Vinaite, Katherine Langford, and Thomas Quasthoff. Apparently everyone is a circus performer and has phocomelia according to them. They are all coming from Chongqing and reappear like whack-a-mole even if blocked or as soon as the protection is lifted. Is a range block an option here? Or can we at least semi-protect the targeted pages for, say, six months? (Semi-protection has proven effective but only for that period.) Not sure what the protocol is for this kind of attack but it's been getting tiresome to revert one after another. (cc @Luk, Alexf, and Callanecc: who have blocked some of the most recent IPs.) Nardog (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: Probably best posting at WP:AIV or WP:SPI as well. IWI (chat) 13:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one already: 123.147.246.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thanks, I did report the then-latest IP at WP:AIV, but that page doesn't seem fit for long-term abuses like this. Will try WP:SPI. Nardog (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This probably is the right place. The problem being these are some huge and varied ranges. It's possible an edit filter might be able to target them, in which case, WP:EFR. In cases like this it's always best to collect together as many examples as possible (whether SPI, LTA, a user subpage or elsewhere). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not good with edit filters, I tried playing a bit with

!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
article_namespace == 0 &
action == 'edit' &
(new_wikitext rlike "Category:American circus performers" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:People with dwarfism" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:Category:People with gigantism" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:Circus performers" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:People with phocomelia")

but I fear it might be a bit too broad. What do you think @Zzuuzz:? -- Luk ^talk 18:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Luk :) I blocked 219.153.240.104/23 earlier today for a week. (I notice you blocked some a bit a wider and longer which should also be fine). I was thinking we could probably target the addition of the particular categories by particular IP ranges. In my experience these ranges are typically like /13 in size and there can be a few of them, which is something the edit filter can handle quite nicely if we can get together a list of them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think Special:AbuseFilter/950 would do the job. Can someone double check if I did correctly and set it to disallow? -- Luk ^talk 22:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've had a tweak, and we should be good to go for log-only for now. I do note there seems to be some other vandalism coming from this user and these ranges, but certainly the category stuff is what I've been seeing more recently. Depending on how it goes I fear we might need to mix in a few more rangeblocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Operation Storm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm User Peacemaker67 write falsehoods, in other battles in wikipedias in the score "results" does not write such nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Storm&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.163.218 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• World War I rages on, apparently. EEng 02:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sadly, yes it does... Along with WWII and the Yugoslav Wars. This from the editor that wrote in an edit summary "Peacemaker67 is Serbian for Australia he writes falsehoods block him", who was edit-warring to change the language template from Serbo-Croat to Croatian, despite both Serbs and Croats being affected by the offensive, and also deleting information in the infobox regarding the exodus of Serb refugees and massacres of Serbs. Over the years I've regularly been "accused" of being a Croat by Serbs, and a Serb by Croats. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Like the Bible says: bludgeoned are the peacemakers. EEng 15:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a week. No need to spend any more time on this user's disruptive editing. NW (Talk) 03:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at any battle on the wikipedia and "results" do not write such nonsense than what is Serbian propaganda.Block Peacemaker67 and clear Serbian propaganda and return it properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.163.218 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The takeaway message from this thread is that we are very fortunate to have such an outstanding editor as Peacemaker67 working on the topic area of warfare in the Balkans. This editor is well-informed, neutral, highly experienced and fully committed to this encyclopedia and its policies and guidelines. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You are very kind. I try. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I want to give a note here. The IP comes from Croatia, which has a history of right-wing and anti-Serbian bias. Croatian Wikipedia will give more information about it. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 05:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@INeedSupport:This is something of a generalisation. What are you suggesting should be done? Deb (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: The situation involving Croatian IP making disruptive edits are usually rare. However, in situations that it does happen, like 1991 protest in Split and 1991 riot in Zadar, I would recommend semi-protecting the articles. Semi-protecting articles is sufficient to stop disruptive edits for an decent period of time. It would appear that any events relating to the Croatian War of Independence would have situations like those. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 17:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Putting my admin hat on for a sec, I don't think the disruption on these articles justifies long-term semi-protection. There can be short bursts of higher-level disruption, but they are generally best dealt with by short periods of semi IMO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:DONTGETIT at Kenshō

A new account, User:Karma Dechen Lhamo, is adding controversial "ionformation" at Kenshō. Despite Talk:Kenshō#Jiyu-Kennett and Dzogchen Edits and multiple warnings, they continue to push their preferred edits. See especially their last edit, which negates the existence of duplicate info, negates WP:RS, negates WP:UNDUE, re-inserts unsourced info, restores WP:SYNTHESIS, and removes source-tags. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to mention the repeated blanking of their own talkpage, removing my warnings out of sight... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that the IP user have created this new account for the sole purpose of reverting edit, which by itself is not in violation of any policies (neither is removing warnings/blanking their talk page). This is likely a COI editor (which is very common for Western practitioners of Japanese arts or their followers). Since you have been watching the article for years, WP:COIN might be a better venue if you suspect there are some connections; if no red flags have been raised, perhaps explain more precisely where the problem with their edits are rather than throwing a bunch of acronyms, which is not really helpful for anyone to act without some prior research in cases like this where it isn't immediately obvious. Alex Shih (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Karma Dechen Lhamo may be related to User:Suchawato Mare, who also pushed views on Jiyu-Kennett; see Talk:Kenshō#Reverted? and subsequent threads.

The problem with KDL is that the "info" they want to add is WP:UNDUE, and that Karma Dechen Lhamo's attitude is WP:DISRUPTIVE:

• They added the views of one particular teacher, Jiyu-Kennett, which are not representative for Soto in general. Her views are based on visions, and, according to WP:RS, are generally rejected by the Soto-tradition. See Talk:Kenshō#Jiyu-Kennett and Dzogchen Edits. To add this info, and insist on keeping it, is WP:UNDUE.
• I separated the views of Warner and Jiyu-Kennett, attributing them both; KDL reverted this.
• The info was added twice; I merged the duplicate info, and removed unsourced info; KDL undid this merger with the same revert, restoring unspourced info, des[ite a request to source it.
• I also removed their NPOV-tag; their rationale was that "Several edits seemed to be removed without cause." Their info is still there, so this tag is not needed. Nevertheless, this tag was re-inserted too with the same revert.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Western practitioners of Japanese arts engaged in COI editing? You don't say ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Help

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

---

Dear Administrators, please help me. Once again, some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976 and Indonesia at major beauty pageants. They changed placements of theirs country. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. They are KimverlynMaeRAMOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 125.164.40.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others. They changed placements of theirs country. They robbed achivements of some countries and replaced with theirs contestants. If you see history of these pages in 2017, 2016, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. Last time user GorillaWarfare helped me to prevent them but now they change again. I'm so sorry because my English language skills is limited. Please help me to prevent them and consider blocking them for a long time. Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 6:16 , 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection for three months on each article listed due to the previous sock puppetry that was confirmed to multiple users that edited these articles. A report (or follow-up report) should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if these accounts and users are also being accused of sock puppetry as the accounts confirmed previously. I see that a report has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; I'll head there next, examine the report and comments, and go from there as necessary... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Brian Evans (singer)

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

---

Need admin eyes on Talk:Brian Evans (singer) for a WP:NLT violation. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The threat seems clear to me, so I have issued a block. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the person evaded the block as 2806:10B7:1:38F0:1031:771:172:E93D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Sakura Cartelet^Talk 19:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 range. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I also blocked the IP that was disrupting the article which seems to have prompted the legal threat in the first place. Will an admin with a better understanding of copyright please take a look at this? There appears to be a legitimate concern about the copyright status of a photo being used in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a Commons image which has been verified by a commons OTRS member. Contesting copyright on Commons-hosted images needs to be handled on Commons. --Jayron32 13:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruption at several gemstone articles

There is an editor using a range of IPs (2605:B100:F34F:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) making disruptive edits at several pages involving gemstones. All of the edits involve adding unreferenced claims regarding the value or size of certain specific gemstones (e.g. "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani Ruby") and/or removing referenced claims regarding the value of other gemstones. This looks to me like some kind of promotion for financial/business purposes. Most of the edits have been reverted by established users. Pages involved include:

• List of individual gemstones
• Emerald
• Ruby
• Liberty Bell Ruby
• Sunrise Ruby

Can admins please have a look and see if page protection(s) or a range block is appropriate here? Gnome de plume (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• A more accurate range is 2605:b100:f348::/45 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and this does seem somewhat promotional. The King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani emerald is a real thing, according to this source, though it's highly suspicious that the world's certifiably largest emerald is not better documented than this one page. As for removing unsourced content, find a reference and add it back if it's verifiable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of digressing into discussing non-admin-related issues, I think you're naive to accept jewelrycult.com as evidence of something being "a real thing". Gnome de plume (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, but I think you might more accurately have said I would be naive to believe any exceptional claim that's only repeated by a single source as being true, regardless of which single source it is. Upon looking deeper I've turned up Talk:Ruby#Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016 in which another IP editor requested adding the "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani Ruby" to that article, based on two no-longer-extant sources. One of those sources appears to be the website of a communications company of which a cursory Google search reveals a Sean Robert Gehani is(/was) an "officer". That, plus the simple fact that the name is being claimed as both the world's largest emerald and the world's largest ruby, suggests a deliberate hoax. I'll wait to see what happens next but the range should probably be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought this one was over with. There's an SPI from more than two years ago: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freecomwireless The King of Canada gemstone garbage is certainly the same guy. In 2016 this was a truly bizarre mixture of bogus gemstones, overblown claims about great physics research (that turned out to be nothing but decades-old air conditioned science in breathless prose) and freeman on the land type rants. I never figured out if the freecomwireless.com subpage used as a ref had been hacked by someone, was being used by a former employee, or by a current employee who had lost his marbles. It was the weirdest stuff I have ever seen.. I don't know if it was intended to embarrass the company or to drive internet traffic for freeman on the land claims of being King of Canada, but someone was watching the traffic on the company page because I saw posts that identified my geographic location after I accessed the page. Meters (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Kenanga.Phethai

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

---

• Kenanga.Phethai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been warned not one, two, but three times, by myself and Iune (talk · contribs), to not insert incorrect information (specifically, unsourced changes to storm intensities in tropical cyclone articles). The reason why I bring it up here is that the editor is simply not communicating about it, making it impossible to convey my concerns to them. A block might not be a bad idea since in my opinion, this is a rather clear-cut WP:IDHT case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave them a 24 hour block and a notice on their talk page that they need to provide a reliable source for any change they want to make to the details of a storm. I hope this can slow them down and get them talking to their fellow editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Reporting a disruptive editor

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

---

I would like to report Ronz for consistently reverting edits on Art_of_Living_Foundation. They have made 6.63% of the edits on : https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Ronz&page=Art_of_Living_Foundation&server=enwiki&max=, where the user has mostly reverted other's contributions. While Ronz has spent a lot of time and effort adding and fixing the criticisms section on the article, no effort has been made to improve the main sections of the article. These edits reflect an unconscious bias and/or agenda. These actions have consistently blocked other editors and deterring contribution, resulting in a very poor quality article. I would encourage the administrators to review the edits made by the user since 2009, despite suggestions otherwise from other members on the talk page Talk:Art_of_Living_Foundation. Ronz has even blocked my simple edits such as moving the sections to better highlight the relevant portions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.127.68 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Over 50% of your edits are to the article so please do not use statistics try to an indicate anything. You have presented no evidence to support any kind of bias. Also you have not informed Ronz of this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 01:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see continued discussion about why certain information must be added to the page - Talk:Art_of_Living_Foundation. The User talk:Ronz has consistently blocked these changes since 2009. User has in fact made counter-allegations that the article is being used for publicity / promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.73 (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw this and informed Ronz of the discussion since the anon seems to have forgotten (or not noticed) to give Ronz a notice. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• ANI is not for resolving content disputes. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Please consider this issue for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by User talk:Ronz 71.245.186.73 (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any problems with a single edit Ronz has made to the article, on the contrary, most of the "improvements" to the article made by the above two IP editors, the main complainants here, are highly promotional in nature and sourced only to highly promotional and unreliable sources. Furthermore, it isn't even Ronz who is doing most of the reverting, I can see many reversions by a number of editors dating back to September or earlier, Ronz is merely one of those people. This discussion seems to have been started in a vexatious manner, and the proposed changes to the article should be discussed and explained on the article talk page. I see no reason to keep this discussion open any longer, as its premise is verifiably not true. --Jayron32 13:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

edit delete request

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

---

The edit of Oregon Trail made by Alskdjfalksjdfklajskl today probably needs to be deleted. The edit made the article so large that my browser was unable to load the diff, forcing me to make a blank edit of the previous version in order to restore the article. I imagine that anyone else trying to view that diff will run into similar technical difficulties. Sario528 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yea,  Done. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Urgent WP:USERNAME violation

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

---

The user thekikekillerlmao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently created, which is blatantly offensive, needs to be blocked. IWI (chat) 19:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment Please post on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention Hasn't made any vandalism so far, only edit is gibberish post on his own talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's already been blocked now, the fact that you would support this account not being blocked is in fact ridiculous. For the record, I did but that name is very offensive and so was urgent. IWI (chat) 19:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm where did I support this account not being blocked Just pointed that UAA is the right venue and there is no real urgency for ANI here. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Let's not waste any more time on a closed matter :). IWI (chat) 19:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Cheers User:ImprovedWikiImprovment ! --DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

‎Bloodofox

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.

[[34]]

[[35]]

[[36]]

[[37]]

[[38]]

[[39]]

[[40]]

[[41]]

I have asked them to stop [[42]].

Note there is in fact a lot more of this. over at [[43]], 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. [44]), 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 Wikipedia 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)

Did you even read that thread [[45]]?Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 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)

• Could one of you please post a link to the RfC/discussion that is frequently mentioned on Talk:List of cryptids? It's hard for uninvolved editors to form an opinion without that. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC).

Sure, it's at the top here: [46]. Below you'll find an addendum that we also mention a lot. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Right, all the sources on an article like Paul Bunyan are all scientific in nature. No Folklore books or websites used at all. Good old sources like Folklore and folktales collected by Charles E. Brown, the Paul Bunyan Fine Art souvenir collection of ready-made myths, Lumberjack Myths by J.E. Rockwell, Fearsome Creatures of the Underwoods, the MF Amazing facts page. I'm not complaining about that page but one persons junk is another persons gold. I'm just saying treat articles on fantasy and myths and folklore equally, and stop the reverts you do on a regular basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 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 ^talk \\ 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)

Wow, how noble of you! You agree to an article ban if you're given everything you want first. Your comments here are simply drenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, none of that old discussion involving you and I was at all personal, and it's hardly a reason to turn this discussion into a 'hey, I also wasn't able to use a source after Bloodofox requested others take a closer look at it' shiv party. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:25, 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.

"[I] relentlessly backed..." someone I just said should be topic banned...

"[I've made] 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 "[whoever disagrees] 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 couple reverts 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 ^talk \\ 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

Of course, we can always go back to articles like this rather than allow editors who aim to improve our folklore coverage make them into articles like this. Only time will tell. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• Please, anything to make the cryptid pain stop. This has been a tedious recurrent issue at WP:FT/N. I think Rhododendrites's proposal for a double TBAN sounds like it could work. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 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 Wikipedia, 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 myself). The "certain" source you're referring to is specifically a book by cryptozoologist George Eberhart.

Elimdae, while I disagree with your characterizations of my actions, I agree that a proper RfC on sourcing on this article would in fact potentially go a long way at this point, because this stuff has long been out of hand and is very much likely to reappear no matter the results of this discussion without some further policy clarity. :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 Wikipedia'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)

User:Dude Master 2 - unsourced/fabricated statistics, doesn't respond to multiple warnings

• Dude Master 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues to add unsourced or fabricated population statistics, and change sourced ones so that they no longer agree with the source. Multiple levels of warnings from several other editors have been given since the account was created in August, for not adhering to NPOV, addition of unsourced material, and deliberately introducing incorrect information, by DBigXray, LiberatorG, etc. The user has deleted the warnings from their talk page without any response, and continues the behavior, in some cases edit warring. They have never commented on any talk page, and have never used an edit summary. It doesn't appear to be vandalism per se, but mostly arbitrary changes to statistics to suit their own point of view.

Examples include:

• Kaifeng Jews - reduced the population in Israel from 3,000 to 30 without explanation, and edit warred:
• Special:Diff/865326108/869898804, Special:Diff/871760309/872147222, Special:Diff/873403685/874019345
• Economy of India:
• Special:Diff/871808323/871813500 - replaced sourced statistics with fabricated ones more favorable to India.
• Special:Diff/871641041/871808323 - changed negative 7.1% growth rate of India to positive 7.1%.
• Moroccan Jews:
• Special:Diff/871852699/873318020 - increased sourced statistic of 578,400 to 1,578,400, and 486,000 to 1,000,000, contradicting the source.
• Overseas Chinese: Special:Diff/860574843/prev - increased statistic from 9,349,900 to 10,349,900, contradicting the source.
• Arab diaspora: similar arbitrary and fabricated changes of sourced statistics (now rev deleted due to an unrelated copyright issue).
• Chinese Canadians: Special:Diff/868426795/872785866 - unsourced change in statistic.
• Asian Americans: Special:Diff/861274581/861335284 - change in statistic contradicts sources.
• Brazilian diaspora: Special:Diff/868331588/872863330 - unsourced change in statistic.
• Income in India: Special:Diff/868331588/872863330 - change contradicts the source.
• Standard of living in India: Special:Diff/870889616/872330686 - deletion of sourced statistics, not adhering to NPOV.

There are numerous other examples. In some cases a statistic was replaced with a correct number, but without giving the source, and leaving the old now-contradicted source, for example: Mexican Canadians: Special:Diff/849681735/856363358 --IamNotU (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, I myself had contemplated bringing this user to ANI, but had left it for later as I had doubts that some of the edits may be constructive, may be this new user will learn in due course of time. I have patrolled this users edits couple of times and reverted some of deliberate factual errors and spared some, that I wasn't very sure about. He does not explain his edits in edit summary, and his only edits on Talk pages [47] are to clean up the warnings, I would support an WP:IDHT block for Dude master 2. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, thanks for responding. You're probably right that some of their edits may be constructive, but it's difficult to tell which ones. It looks to me like the majority are unsourced and/or obviously fudged numbers. Whatever positive contributions there may be aren't worth the damage being done, or the amount of effort needed to figure out which is which. That, combined with the total lack of communication, calls for a block, if it continues. Let's see whether they respond here. So far they haven't edited since being reported... --IamNotU (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, I noticed that in the Kaifeng Jews article, it was actually them who added the 3000 number, then changed it to 30. When you reverted it, you didn't go back far enough - neither number was sourced. I found and added a source that puts it at 19. In any case, they should have explained instead of repeatedly making the same edit without a summary or discussion. --IamNotU (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Armand Cucciniello

• Armand Cucciniello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In January 2016 this page was created by a sockpuppet of the editor Armand Cucciniello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In April of that year an SPI was opened. Three accounts were indeffed and user Armand Cucciniello was blocked for 2 weeks. Three of the four accounts had been used to make extensive edits to the page Armand Cucciniello. While the user account Armand Cucciniello has been inactive since then, the page Armand Cucciniello has been built out almost exclusively by a steady stream of IP addresses. Most of the additions have been either unsourced or poorly sourced, and in general the article has taken on a self-promotional tone.

The IP addresses have tracked with Mr. Cucciniello's movements based on publicly available information. For instance, according to his LinkedIn profile, Mr. Cucciniello moved to Korea in February 2018, right around the time when Korean IP addresses started editing his Wikipedia page. Korean IPs continue to edit the page, most recently earlier today.

I don't know the best way to address this problem. I'd think long-term semi-protection would be effective. I considered making a request at WP:RFPP but then thought that perhaps this is more of an ANI issue. Please ping me if you need my attention. R2 (bleep) 22:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I have removed most of the unsourced material, I will leave whether to semi-protect the article up to the admins, but I think it was the right decision to bring this here rather than RFPP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

My short summary of the article: "He's a diplomat and journalist. He went to Boston College. He then went to Iraq and served as a spokesman for the U.S. embassy. A reporter wrote a book that mentions him." My response: {{db-bio}}. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend I think that was excessively harsh and shouldn't have been done without community input. The guy had a pretty in-depth article written about him in NJ Monthly in addition to the other sources that were listed. Please bring the page back for further discussion. R2 (bleep) 05:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Not without some evidence of coverage in reliable sources: all I'm seeing are news reports and other primary sources. The story you give has no citations, it's from a periodical that writes soft-coverage stories about life, and its author's articles in that periodical primarily focus on golf. Nothing reliable whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Carmaker1 Part 6

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

---

I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this again: Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Past discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

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. [48]). 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 ([49], [50], [51], [52]) added a designer's name (Jeff Teague) in front of a citation ([53]) 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 Wikipedia is, he doesn't appear to hold himself to the same standard.

Carmaker1 also continues to defy project consensus in his mission to purge Wikipedia of the model-year automotive nomenclature system he seems to loathe (e.g. [54]).

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)

• Good God, given the history, and now we find out he's been hoaxing, how can this not be an indef? EEng 03:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Fuck a month, this should be indef with a potential ban discussion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:08, 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)

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

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 [55]] (blog of a respected car news org), [56]. [[User:sp|spryde] | talk 14:23, 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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat by user Sammartinlai

• Sammartinlai (talk · contribs)

First I was accusing accused of "stalking" by this editor who is obviously not aware of watchlists. When I tried to discuss this with him, I was not only dismissed with rudeness, but he then posted an accusation on my page that I (either I was operating, or just was) "a bot". When I tried to address the bot comment, as well as his general hostility, I was again dismissed with a blatant personal attack, (not to mention a BLP vio). I tried again to engage this editor, but again was dismissed, this time with another "stalking" accusation accompanied by a legal threat. - wolf 05:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This thread was brought to my attention by Thewolfchild, because we are working together with a struggling new editor in the British Army space. I've warned Sammartinlai for the personal attacks, but before proceeding further, per WP:NLT, it would be useful if Sammartinlai would clarify if this is a real threat of legal action against Thewolfchild, or whether they would like to withdraw what they said in that edit summary. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sammartinlai has withdrawn their legal threat per this. I have recommended they also withdraw to Thewolfchild directly, and they should be conscious that any further personal attacks may result in a block. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

For completeness, and in case they didn't get this message in the move, I'll just note that Sammartinlai has just been renamed BlueD954. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to also register my concern about NPA and WP:Civil by this user. For example, a relatively innocent error by a new anon user, amending the number of battalions of the Royal Gurkha Rifles in the British Forces Brunei article from two to three, was met with the first message on the new user's talkpage of 'Get your facts right' [57]. No welcome to a new user, no intro, no explanation of the fact that the regiment had been reduced from three battalions to two some years before, but simply the blunt and rather unfriendly message.

I would strongly encourage Sammartinlai/BlueD954 to remain calm, civil, and to WP:Assume Good Faith, for the benefit of us all around here.

In addition, archiving admonitions/warnings at lightning speed from his talkpage rather gives the appearance that the user is trying to hide something. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm skeptical on this user's "withdraw" of their legal threat. While it seems too broad to me, as it simply says, "I withdraw" in the section header and followed by "and don't want to hear anymore" - I'll assume good faith here and assume that this message was the user's intent to withdraw the threat. On another note, I'll also state that BlueD954's continued conduct and behavior toward other editors is absolutely unacceptable. This user has repeatedly violated Wikipedia's civility policies and their edit summaries are full of numerous personal attacks and remarks that we really should not be tolerating. We've been more than fair in regards to warning the user about this and asking for them to stop. This is a final warning for BlueD954 in regards to civility - This behavior is not appropriate or acceptable on Wikipedia, and it is expected to continue no longer. If BlueD954 engages in any further incivility or makes another personal attack or disrespectful remark or statement in any of their edits, they will be blocked from editing. No more of this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR, WP:OWNERSHIP and disruptive editing issues

• Catalyszczowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kante4 and I warned him not to put assist on club season articles per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_100#Assist_Stats_on_Premier_League_Team_pages_(Arsenal_2015-16 via user talk page yesterday but this user still put again without any reason and any reply [58] [59] Hhkohh (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just now user uses non-English to reply on user talk page, but I do not know what they said Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)