::I've been noticing Morphenniel doing these disruptive edits as well - and their [[Special:Diff/874373357|nasty responses]] when asked to stop. The disruption is taking some bizarre forms - see [[Silver Star (Amtrak train)]] where another editor removed an utterly preposterous claim, and Morphenniel reverted with the summary "Prove it." I agree with Andy that the focus on railway electrification - and a sudden change from polite to hostile - reminds me a lot of I B Wright and Bhtpbank. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
::I've been noticing Morphenniel doing these disruptive edits as well - and their [[Special:Diff/874373357|nasty responses]] when asked to stop. The disruption is taking some bizarre forms - see [[Silver Star (Amtrak train)]] where another editor removed an utterly preposterous claim, and Morphenniel reverted with the summary "Prove it." I agree with Andy that the focus on railway electrification - and a sudden change from polite to hostile - reminds me a lot of I B Wright and Bhtpbank. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
::: When the ''primary'' reason for a revert has become the opportunity to annoy another editor, rather than any objective improvement in the article, then that's time it was stopped. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
::: When the ''primary'' reason for a revert has become the opportunity to annoy another editor, rather than any objective improvement in the article, then that's time it was stopped. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
:::: Holding on to un-sourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions. I have provided edit summaries for every article for which I have deleted un-sourced content. I refer you to the very first sentence of [[WP:PROVEIT]] - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." [[User:Morphenniel|Morphenniel]] ([[User talk:Morphenniel|talk]]) 11:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
== BobiusPrime ==
== BobiusPrime ==
Revision as of 11:13, 21 December 2018
Page for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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+Karate12:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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+Karate14:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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+Karate14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
I'm afraid I was just raising the question lest the thread get prematurely archived. Someone else will need to pursue it. Lazy today. EEng15:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[7] 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.[8]
Removed the Georgian transliteration on the Mushki page, using an edit summary "Nothing Georgian, they are connected much more with Armenians".[9]
Replaced the Hebrew transliteration from the lede of a church in Jerusalem with an Armenian transliteration. No edit summary/explanation[10]
Changed "Persian" to "Armenian", even though the Armenian in question served as a general in the Persian armies.[11]
Added "Armenians in Bulgaria" to the article of a Bulgarian ruler. No edit summary/explanation.[12]
Removes the Georgian transliteration of a town related to Georgian history, but keeping the Armenian one. No edit summary/explanation[13]
Edit-warring on the Sabre Dance article in order to remove the Russian transliteration (a ballet composed by a Soviet-Armenian composer and conductor).[19]-[20]
Added "Armenian satrap" to the lede of a ruler of the Persian Empire. No edit summary/explanation[21]
Added unsourced content to the Armenian language page. No edit summary/explanation.[22]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can someone propose a topic ban of some sort? This seems like the sort of thing that would generate some consensus. Giving the admins something to act on, like enforcing a community-agreed-upon topic ban, would help. --Jayron3213:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for making that connection. I agree it's the same person, or as close to being the same person as matters to us. I don't think a freeman would be trying to claim to be the King of Canada, I don't think that would be compatible with their legal fiction of the person nonsense, claiming to be King would be an acknowledgement of the existence of a monarchy and assent to be bound by its laws, blah blah admiralty tin foil hat something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Freeman on the land type" was my shorthand for "whack-job claims" in my notes. I shouldn't have used it here. If I remember correctly, in 2016 there were King of Canada cl;aims embedded in the background text on the supposed Freecomwiireless ref. If this stuff has come back but without the corporate page then I guess it's not an attempt to embarrass the company, just some nut job who somehow had access to the corporate subpage in 2016. It was a hoax then and I have no doubt it's a hoax now. (I mean really, the largest emerald in the world and the largest ruby in the world are both named "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani" something?) I would nuke this on sight if it continues after the protections end. Meters (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. [34]), 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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 couplereverts when he edit warred over blanking the page last year (two of many attempts to kill the page).
The main point of contention is this: whether WP:RS says that no cryptozoology source can be used to verify a subject's inclusion in the list. We even had an RfC recently. The closer said rather explicitly that just isn't the case -- they're not prohibited from fulfilling that verification role, even though obviously better sources are better. We can use our WP:RS guidelines to determine which cryptozoology sources are better than others. It's not all or nothing. Obviously most cryptozoology sources are lousy for most things. In this list article, however, the issue isn't whether to use them to make a scientific claim or even a statement of fact beyond "x is a cryptid". It's simply that part of the inclusion criteria for this list article is, self-evidently, that a source verifies the entry is regarded as a cryptid. Cryptid is part of the vocabulary of cryptozoology, hence a lot of the sources which say "this is a cryptid" are about cryptozoology. I have argued that there exist sources about cryptozoology that can be reliable for this sort of verification (a book about it published by a publisher that has editorial oversight, for example, but not someone's blog -- the sort of thing fyunck wants to include). So I'm one of the cryptozoologist pov-pushers, clearly. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Slater, the RfC made no such establishment, as the users commenting made clear (a thread that in fact did not include comments from yours truly). The "certain" source you're referring to is specifically a book by cryptozoologist George Eberhart.
Elimidae, while I strongly disagree with your assessment, I agree that a proper RfC on sourcing on this article would in fact potentially go a long way at this point. With our without me, this stuff will simply continue to rear its head in some form or another unless we get this policy and guideline disagreement hashed out. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because a different IP made an edit between his last two edits here[[38]][[39]][[40]], which was an alteration of a post he made. This was then undone and he loged in an redid the alteration. Moreover the edit to Fyunck's talk page by the IP (a different IP) is a cut and paste of one bloodfox made. Now this means either someone is masquerading as bloodfox, or bloodfox is socking (as he denies explicitly the IP was him). Either way this is clearly linked to this topic [[41]], as it discuses the list. Someone is playing silly bugger.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slater, if you think I'm sockpuppeting, take it to the Checkusers. You know the drill. I'm obviously not—the IPs don't even match—and I don't see how you can make that accusation from the diffs.
That said, I was indeed somehow logged out, which is particularly odd because I was obviously attempting to respond to discussion here. It seems this was some kind of site issue or something, but could someone please delete the diff with my IP? I would prefer not to get more threats mentioning wherever I might be that day. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but this anon IP looks to be the same one who did this before to my talk page back in January and February of 2018. The many sockpuppets of User:Bjoergenbestever. So it might be unrelated to this topic, maybe a coincidence and more tennis-related. Just an FYI, but it's the exact same MO. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though Bloodofox can be snarky, they are one of our more diligent editors for keeping cryptid-related articles compliant with policy. I think any topic ban on the subject would be a net-negative for the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close this circus this is an content dispute plain and simple. Regulars from the Fringe Noticeboard are doing what we often do - and demanding rigorous application of WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:RS. There are other editors who put a lot of effort into building this list and, while their passion is commendable, it's a terrible list based, in part, on the fact that "cryptid" is such a poorly defined term that it's next to impossible to create a reliable list of things that fall within the category. Are they animals? Plants? Organisms? Entities? There's no clear boundaries to the category. I mean, one of the entries was for an extinct subspecies of a well-known apex predator. These sorts of conflicts often lead to flaring tempers and Bloodofox is not always the most diplomatic editor. But when you've been through the WP:FRINGE dance on enough of these tedious articles, it's easy to become a bit... short. Suggest we just close this up for the distraction it is and work on making this list a little bit less awful by rigorous application of WP:RS and a willingness to cut the cruft. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to argue that bloodofox's behavior has been fine or that the quality of his content work gives him a pass on behavior, that's one thing, but this is definitely not a content dispute. Getting into the definition of a cryptid and the validity of that term is making it about the content dispute. I've dealt with all manner of creation scientist, conspiracy theorist, climate change denier, etc. to know the frustration of dealing with that sort. Bloodofox isn't just "fighting the good fight" such that a wave to WP:FRINGE is sufficient to shut down this thread. It's a single goofy list I've proposed a tban on, not cryptozoology wholesale (someone else can propose that if they want, but this is the only place I've observed such problems). Would you really claim that bloodofox is not approaching this list with a textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a content issue but behavioural complaints, as should be clear from all the comments above. If this were to be closed based on the always-snappy, generally-facile, frequently-wrong "content issue" grounds, we would go straight back to the current enjoyable status quo. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Colossal Octopus is watching youComment. While trying to build my own educated opinion about this controversy, I have encountered the following sentence Unfortunately for Montfort, the British knew what had happened to the ships, resulting in a disgraceful revelation for Montfort in the Pierre Denys de Montfort article. Don't say that this is a simple content controversy, because this shamefully sounds as "British people were allowed to know, but other people not". Such an island-centered formulation should not stay in an inclusive encyclopedia, as could be backed by part of the usual letter soup. Pldx1 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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 [42] are to clean up the warnings, I would support an WP:IDHT block for Dude master 2. --DBigXrayᗙ21:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 pageArmand 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Say what? Are you really saying that New Jersey Monthly isn't a reputable publisher because its articles don't include citations? And that's something you get to decide unilaterally since you're holding a mop? Frankly it seems like an abuse of admin privileges. I'm going to deletion review. This thread should remain open so admins can come to a real solution once the article is restored. R2 (bleep) 18:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. [43]). 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 ([44], [45], [46], [47]) added a designer's name (Jeff Teague) in front of a citation ([48]) 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. [49]).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't agree with what Carmaker1 did but he information is right and not a hoax [50]] (blog of a respected car news org), [51]. [[User:sp|spryde] | talk14:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Absolutely not. This user added a claim that the cited source said something it did not. That compromises the integrity of the page, and when it's done repeatedly, it warrants sanctions more severe than almost anything else. Issues like personal attacks typically don't have any effect on the encyclopedia (and thus no effect on readers), but presenting falsehoods in articles deceives readers. If you don't realize that it's a problem to cite a source to say something it doesn't, go to college and try doing this in a paper, and then come back and tell me how your professor reacted when you got caught. Until then, don't defend this kind of fraudulent activity. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah blah; none of that says what he's doing is a hoax; unlike many forms of Wikipedia jargon (like WP:CONSENSUS), "hoax" on Wikipedia means exactly what it means in the rest of the world. I'm not defending fraudulent activity, I'm attacking fraudulent attacks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was a hoax, just incompetence regarding WP:INTEGRITY. Based on their persistent struggle with sourcing and their regular reliance on personal knowledge, I suggest a topic-ban from automobiles for 3-6 months; working on articles where they don't have direct personal knowledge may be the only way for them to appreciate Wikipedia's citation standards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree adding in a side of stubbornness. He added the info with the wrong link on December 10th here. Apparently he and Sable932 don't get along and Sable reverted (correctly). Carmaker1 then blindly reverted but also added the correct source later in a different section that does show who designed what here. Carmaker has been here way too much for the attitude but he definitely is not a hoaxer. If he can stop and understand why someone is doing what they are doing, they may have a much longer stay here. That is independent of whatever topic he is on. spryde | talk21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it was an intentional hoax - I suspect that after the first instance, Carmaker1 was trying to antagonize me personally rather than deliberately keep misleading information in the article. (As an aside, this is what Carmaker1's grudge against me appears to stem from.) Still, it's disruptive editing and damaging to the page's integrity nonetheless, and his excuse of having eventually added a supporting citation elsewhere in the article doesn't hold up when he intentionally left it misleadingly cited in the infobox.
Power~enwiki, I maintain that the topic ban should be indefinite, until Carmaker1 can demonstrate competent editing and an understanding of core Wikipedia policies, and be able to edit cooperatively and civilly and respect consensus. Past sanctions clearly have not worked, and I fear that a topic ban expiring in six months would only result in another discussion here in seven. I feel that several months (at minimum) of genuine improvement should be actively demonstrated before a topic ban should be lifted. --Sable232 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with others that there doesn't seem to have been any hoax involved here. This was careless insertion of probably correct info, in a manner that suggested it was supported by an existing ref when it wasn't. Unfortunately it happens way too often on wikipedia, and it's highly problematic but clearly not hoaxing. As others have said, getting the words right do matter since we offend others unnecessarily not to mention confuse both other editors and the original editor when we get them wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for beleaguering the point, but for the sake of clarity, given that Carmaker1 is, as I've seen other perennially-disruptive editors do, trying to strike a conciliatory tone on his talk page (User talk:Carmaker1#WP:INTEGRITY and User talk:Carmaker1#Claims of Hoaxing) in response to being blocked:
Carmaker1 added information in front of a citation that didn't contain said information. I removed it, stating as much in my edit summary. He undid that removal, so I removed it yet again, clearly stating "there is no mention of Jeff Teague in the cited source". His response was "yes there is", which is a clear falsehood, as already established. While a correct source was eventually added in the prose, no attempt was made to fix the misleading one. Carmaker1's attempt on his talk page to claim that he didn't know this edit was misleading is a blatant lie, so perhaps EEng is right.
Carmaker1 trying to weasel his way out of sanctions (look at his contribution history and the previous AN/I discussions - this behavior goes back years) by feigning civility and claiming confusion now that the jig is up makes it appear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is here to build an encyclopedia. He does a hell of a lot of good work but that is marred by the conflicts. I am just not sure if he can get the right temperament to do so. spryde | talk02:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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' [52]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is a new one (for me at least), on the same day that an ANI is posted about a legal threat made by this person, I also posted to Pracemaker67's page a list of links that show beyond a doubt this same person is stalking a struggling new user and leaving some unpleasant summaries in the process (a new user that PM67 and Buckshot06 are trying to help), and not only does this person refuse to respond to ANI... he suddenly changes his name? Ok then.
Well, both Peacemaker67 and Buckshot06 are now well aware of... "BlueD954"s behaviour, and they're both admins. Oshwah has given a stern warning here, and like Oshwah, I will also AGF that the legal threat has been withdrawn. (That darn Oshwah's good faith is infectious, he's always so... happy) I guess there isn't anything left to done here. (But a quick note for EdJ; "BlueD954 is the new name for Sam. "Blue954" is a different user, albeit one who has not been active since 2012 - fyi). Thanks for the reposnses guys. - wolf18:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google translates the reply (from Indonesian) as "apus2 play just as good lo forehead, the cave if the data itself, the page caves created from 0 tired, playing lear wrote zzz". I'm not sure this helps. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He also reverts the deletion of Top 10 attendances which was discussed also and agreed to remove. Not sure what to do, do now want to go into an edit war. Kante4 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll translate it for you all, he said that "You just delete the data as you please. I did that data myself. I made that page from scratch, it's tiring, and you just delete it. Zzz."Wira rhea (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks three editors for translating. Wira rhea is an Indonesian. So now we can close it after more than 3 hours no reply as we almost have dealt with these issues and thanks everyone again Hhkohh (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think the user is probably well-meaning but WP:CLUELESS. The first block was a bit short, so hopefully this gets their attention. I would support an indef block if this continues. -- Scott (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like to start with short, limited blocks. Sometimes all you have to do is stop the editor and get them to reconsider their editing strategy. If they continue with disruptive editing, they can always receive a longer block. I'm troubled by admins who go from 0>60 with a starting block of indefinite length and I do not have that philosophy about blocking. LizRead!Talk!04:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created hawza Najaf article. In other hands, there is some redirect(Najaf seminary, Hawza 'Ilmiyya Najaf) connected to hawza article but they are more appropriate to my articl. Please help me that redirects to be in hawza article would be linked to my one.M1nhm (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to take a look at this user's contributions. While I see no reason to doubt good intent, the level of competence in the English language shown by M1nhm appears to me to be insufficient to contribute usefully to en.wp. See for example this paragraph from Network of agents (Wikalah): "The meaning of word wikalah that mean of ours is wikalah in Arabic means to let someone perform duties on behalf of someone especially when someone cannot accomplish his duties by himself. In the other hands, wikalah in terms of jurisprudence is someone choose someone else as his agent who that someone has the right to interfere in Decision making and approving a Duty or to be the second person who can interfere in His affairs. After the above definition, it can be seen that the wikalah are used when a person is unable to perform his duties by himself for reasons such as position and necessities and Imamas could not communicate with Shia by direct and usual ways."86.147.97.63 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The meaning of word wikalah that mean of ours is wikalah in Arabic means to let someone perform duties on behalf of someone especially when someone cannot accomplish his duties by himself. In the other hands, wikalah in terms of jurisprudence is someone choose someone else as his agent who that someone has the right to interfere in Decision making and approving a Duty or to be the second person who can interfere in His affairs. After the above definition, it can be seen that the wikalah are used when a person is unable to perform his duties by himself for reasons such as position and necessities and Imamas could not communicate with Shia by direct and usual ways."
I think these articles require some heavy copy-editing, and I'm sure the intention is good. I am just concerned that the user's level of English might not be up to standard to edit the en Wikipedia. JZCL18:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They also made an incomprehensible post on here yesterday, asking for help with changing some redirects. I think. Not sure if admin intervention is appropriate here as the balance of their contributions appear to be positive. -- Scott (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly what they are trying to add is a net positive... I only feel that if they keep contributing in the way that they are currently doing that a very large amount of editors' time may be spent copy-editing and essentially translating what has been written. As I said above, the work all appears to be in good faith. But that is not equivalent to being a "net positive", especially if we have no idea what they are trying to say in the first place. JZCL00:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the editor can be asked -- or required -- to create articles in Draftspace and not in Articlespace, and that they not be moved into Articlespace until someone --a mentor? -- has had a chance to go over them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP is under the impression that they can contact the artist through this page; the artist gives credit for various production aspects to Jack Antonoff in the media notes accompanying her release of the album Melodrama. The IP is mistaken; if they think that their intellectual property has been used without credit, they will need to find another way to contact the artist or her management (and no, they cannot edit the article here to give themselves credit). General IzationTalk 04:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question: your mobile phone address is only blocked to anonymous accounts (i.e. IP editors). Since you're editing from an account, why does this matter? Black Kite (talk)07:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, considering today they attacked an innocent IP address in my area over good faith section removals. Affected pages are as follows:
Alan Walker (music producer) – The IP removed a controversy section that the user added yesterday. The IP was correct in doing so, as controversy sections are generally supposed to be avoided according to the WP:NPOV policy. The user claimed in their revert today that the IP was a vandal for reverting their edit.
Private military company – The IP removed the "in fiction" section for falling under WP:TRIVIA. "In fiction" is clearly just another fancy way of saying "in popular culture", which is what the guideline talks about. The user claims this is okay, but did not efficiently explain their reasoning.
Also, to counteract an argument they made at AIV against the IP, IP editors are not registered users. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit within policy and guidelines, registered or not. To claim deception here is most likely an act of bad faith and most likely a WP:NOTHERE case. 66.87.148.199 (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Having a different interpretation of policies or guidelines" (even if the interpretation is incorrect) is not the same thing as "not being here to write an encyclopedia". Why haven't you discussed this with the user before taking it to ANI? I do see some questionable edits from that account, but nothing that seems particularly egregious, and their talk page is a redlink - nobody has warned them or tried to engage in conversation with them. You haven't even notified them of this thread, as is required. --bonadeacontributionstalk08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some odd behavior from this account (esp. claiming that an IP is actually a logged in user name--not technically possible with the MediaWiki software), but I agree with the above response. Bringing this to ANI without warning or even contacting the user was premature. -- Scott (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want to send this to AfD, Admin Metropolitan90 says I am free to do so to send the article to AfD again. Yet Admin, Fenix down has reverted me with some new rules that don't seem to exist. I feel I have every right to nominate the article for AfD again with expressing my views on why it should be nominated. However Fenix Down is threatening me with a ban which I think is way out of order and he is abusing his privilege as an admin in doing so, can I get some oversight to have a second round at AfD for this article thank you. Govvy (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Yes, you were free to renominate; however, Fenix down closed the nomination with a result of speedy keep. The second AfD is closed; you cannot just reopen it yourself. (Opening a third AfD would also be a bad idea.) Your next recourse is to discuss the closure with Fenix down and, if you cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion, request a review of Fenix down's closure of the AfD at WP:Deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be overturned and re-opened (though I do agree it's very likely to be kept). The first one could have been a SNOW keep, but wasn't a Speedy Keep, and was closed by Fenix down, who also closed this one. I don't see any of the WP:SKCRIT criteria being met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm aware of all the concerns, but much of the article could use the magic of transclusion to directly include the stadium information from the articles on individual World Cups. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: However his close was not impartial, due to the fact he closed the previous AfD, I am of the opinion that can represent a bias view. One shouldn't rule twice and really should let someone else close it. You can revert an AfD decision when it's been incorrectly closed as I believe the case is here. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it because the previous AfD was only 5 months ago and there was overwhelming consensus that this was a notable list. Nothing has changed in that time and so to my mind 2c of SKCRIT is applicable in spirit and there is no need for the bureaucracy of a second AfD when the previous one was essentially a unanimous keep. I'm not sure why we would have a third has immediately opened rather than deletion review. Fenix down (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenix down: Really... you don't want to give a second chance? Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, you can't dictate, I am ashamed at your response, you let the admin team down, you threatened me with a ban because I have an opinion. That's just sick and you don't have the decency to let it run to see some keep votes, I wanted to see if peoples opinions have changed in the five months. But you are afraid to let wikipedia be wikipedia, some admins have been really failing wikipedia of late! Govvy (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD was essentially unanimous and involved a reasonably large number of editors clearly stating that it was a valid list. You were threatened with a block if you continued to revert closed AfDs, nothing to do with your nomination. You've been around long enough to know the correct course of action if you disagreed with me was to engage with me directly and if that did not resolve anything to take it to DRV. Fenix down (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted an admin action, not an edit, but a formal AfD close. You don't get to do that, nobody does, not even an admin should revert another admins action in AfD. I repeat: You have been around here long enough to know the proper process is talk page engagement and then DRV. You are expected to follow that process. Fenix down (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert who ever I want if I see it as wrong, now you're displaying arrogance! Admins are the online police force and other than being an admin you have no true power over wikipedia. If you can't apologise to me you don't deserve to be admin. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the first part of your statement, you decide NOT to do. Reverting an Admin's action in the closure of an AfD, is not something you should do. This is a discussion for DRV in this regard if you feel the AfD was prematurely closed. Let me also add from the Deletion Process page it states: "Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves, an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review". RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to put the article to AfD and got threatened with a ban. How am I suppose to put the article to AfD if Fenix wants to ban me for doing that. This is all about being threatened with a ban, if Fenix didn't do that, things would be different for sure. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were not threatened with a ban for listing it at AfD. You never were threatened with a ban, but a block, which is a big difference for one. Secondly, Fenix's comment on your page was about UNCLOSING an AfD, not listing it. If you felt the closure was incorrect, you should take it to DRV to have it looked at there, not reopen it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yada yada, 1 and 1/2 months later this guy is back and reverts everything again back to the state of 17th Oct without any discussion. In the process fucking up the tables again and undoing all the fixes and additions in the meantime ( Eg. re-adding unsourced, rumors, which another user had to remove again(. But now they also made an account, which they randomly decide to use. Same shtick, same tone in their commit messages, same misunderstood "freedom of speech" / "i like my version more" justification in the commit message of the violation.
I'm sure this is not a valid complaint from my side in this ANI board here, and I'm definitely not "formal" enough, but I just wanna let you know that I already wasted enough hours of my life dealing with this moron and if you care about the state of this project and the mix of people involved you should probably do something against these toxic elements. It was a mistake to just ban this guy for just 3 days, when it was clear they're not gonna change or are compatible with teamwork.
To revert their edits will be a long process again, as you can't easily revert multiple spaced-apart commits and it's all tables, so the editing will be a confusing pain of tabs and dashes. I did this work and had this pointless fight once, but if I need to constantly fight windmills here, then no thanks. It's actually amazing, you can look at basically any other article about GPUs or CPUs and all have nice tidy tables, just these 3 tables on the mentioned article are awful as they edit there. Seriously, do look it up, eg the List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units or any tables in the respective product articles linked in the "lists of X".
For information, just read the cited 1st ANI, the IP's contribs (messages), especially the insane and insulting rants they left, and their and especially my talk page. I'm sure there's other stuff I forgot, because it was some time ago, but I just don't want to waste more time digging into this pitiful stuff again. There's also some more info in the history of the article's Talk page, but I later removed this section as per suggestion in the 1st ANI as it was too focused on this guy for an article talk page.
@Caknuck:, you wanted to be notified as noted in the first ANI. @TurboSonic:, maybe you care too. And maybe @Yamla:, as they semi-protected the page for a while.
Huh that's very interesting I would like to ask though why did you wait until now to tells us? But that's besides the point, if I was an admin I would just block him from editing List of Nvidia graphics processing units since it seems he only edits that page only, and if he continues on other Wikipedia pages I would just block his IP and/or account for either an extended period of time or forever, but that's just what I would do since I don't really what admins would actually do. TurboSonic (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editting at Camila Cabello. User RapGod2X keeps adding photo that does not appear to have the correct license. Even if it does, the previous photo is better quality, as the new photo was screen capped from YouTube. User does not appear to want to discuss issue and has re-instated their edits with warnings such as "you don't want to get into this". †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk00:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say the user "does not appear to want to discuss issue" (sic): have you made any effort to discuss with them? Seems like a mild content dispute from my viewpoint with neither side (so far as I can see) attempting to communicate with the other. As for the warning, it's not ideal but I'd leave it as it's a one-off and come back if it becomes more frequent or more threatening. With all of that said, RapGod has violated 3RR by replacing the other image 4 times in the last 24 hrs, so technically a block is in order. JZCL00:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave them a copyvio warning, and I've nominated the image for deletion at Commons, as it's a screencap from a YouTube video that is a copyvio in itself... Black Kite (talk)00:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have two editors, overlapping to blank large and important sections of articles as unsourced. They are happily edit-warring over other editors. They have been warned repeatedly, by several editors, for some time. The content being blanked is largely stuff that has been there for years, unchallenged, and mostly unchallengeable. Yes, per the dogma of WP:V et al there is a case for this needing to be fixed, but behaviour here has gone way into the disruptive. As we all know only too well, it is far easier to bulk blank content like this than it is for anyone to work to fix it. Also, I see zero effort to fix anything from either of these editors (their contribs are one long sea of red).
For Morphenniel in particular, this has now crossed over into personal stalking and hounding. They've gone down a list of articles I happened to edit yesterday and started blanking sections from them, whether I edited that section or not.
I've been noticing Morphenniel doing these disruptive edits as well - and their nasty responses when asked to stop. The disruption is taking some bizarre forms - see Silver Star (Amtrak train) where another editor removed an utterly preposterous claim, and Morphenniel reverted with the summary "Prove it." I agree with Andy that the focus on railway electrification - and a sudden change from polite to hostile - reminds me a lot of I B Wright and Bhtpbank. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When the primary reason for a revert has become the opportunity to annoy another editor, rather than any objective improvement in the article, then that's time it was stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holding on to un-sourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions. I have provided edit summaries for every article for which I have deleted un-sourced content. I refer you to the very first sentence of WP:PROVEIT - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Morphenniel (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BobiusPrime is an inexperienced editor who is clearly from the political right. He is trying to assert his preferred presentation of the Jim Acosta video farrago into Paul Joseph Watson. His edits are tendentious. I have tried to explain the problem but he does not seem to want to know. He has characterised my edits as vandalism. Could another admin please try to explain the issues to him? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does profound damage to itself when it assumes good faith on the part of a user who has told a provable lie. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Alex Jones, supporter or not, knows that "I've not seen any 'fake' news distributed by [InfoWars]" is patently, bright-line false. This is one example of many from this user but instead of instantly getting the indefinite block such a statement deserves, we have to handhold them. This user is using plain lies to defend the media outlet owned by a man who once claimed tap water fluoridation turns frogs gay. BobiusPrime will never, ever contribute positively. Why try? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be prepared to explain 1) explicit lies I have told, 2) what the "problem" is without condescension assuming knowledge you do not possess, and 3)non-circular proof the Acosta video was "doctored." My postings are there for all to read. Nothing said to me by this user can be remotely interpreted as positive tutelage. His comments associated to edits should demonstrate this. I have no intention of stalking this user to his other work, but I would suggest other administrators audit a cross-section of his work to determine if the negative interaction is systemic. --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it's kept very localized? You may consider the subject of the article as "fringe," but that does not justify targeted perversion of an informational article. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't about "proof" — it's about reliable sources. If there is a consensus among mainstream reliable sources that the video was doctored, then we say so — and if that consensus is so overwhelming as to be essentially unanimous, then we will state facts as facts. In this case, there is clear and overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that the video clip was doctored; that is to say, edited in a misleading way. That you or anyone else disagrees with that is irrelevant except insofar as it might be worthy of mention that someone disagrees with the fact. However, apparently, the only source you can find which disagrees is an opinion piece in a partisan right-wing news outlet; it might not have sufficient weight to merit mention. That's a question for the talk page, though. Bottom line: Your personal opinion that there is not "proof the video was doctored" is not a reason for us to change anything about the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is profound. It reminds me of Bush/Gore presidential race. One reporter described Cheney as having "gravitas." The description was parroted by nearly every news outlet. By the standard you described, Cheney absolutely has gravitas. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but apparently I am expected to in the Wikipedia you describe. In addition, I don't believe you read up on the citations. I don't believe NBC is generally considered a partisan right-wing news outlet. --BobiusPrime (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have found one source which states that it may not have been intentionally doctored, but inadvertently modified in a misleading manner. That one source is interesting. It may have sufficient weight to justify including that as a dissenting view. However, there also appears to be an overwhelming number of sources that do view the modification as intentional, and that does appear to be the mainstream POV we have to give the most weight to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate your response. You seem interested in an actual discussion of the matter. As far as the overall article, I expected more of an academic standard to prevail. A "source" that purports to know as fact that which is in the mind of a person they do not know cannot reasonably be considered "reliable." Without any proof, the use of the subjective term "doctored" is inherently opinion, and I attempted to present it as such. Point and counterpoint were offered in the paragraph, leaving it to the reader (rather than an admittedly biased editor) to decide. I admit that is no longer a fashionable journalistic standard, but should be in a project such as Wikipedia that aims to establish a meaningful record of the human experience. Let me ask you this.. if you were personally and legally liable for the veracity of this article, would you allow "doctored" to be presented as truth or fact? Would you stake your professional reputation on it? If you were called to task and accused of libel, could you defend the use of "doctored?" This is hypothetical, so forget Wiki jargon. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to guess. Literally thousands of other outlets have published these statements. Has the person in question sued any of those outlets? (The answer, of course, is no.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out, I am fairly new to Wikipedia. So, Guy, is there a protocol for random admins to appear and comment, or do I wait for a select few that you summon? I am hoping for a wide readership. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do nothing to attract partisans of your point of view to this report, and neither does Guy. That would be a violation of WP:CANVASSING, which is not allowed. This page is highly trafficked and reports posted here frequently attract a great deal of attention, not only from admins, but from rank-and-file editors such as myself. So you're likely to get a "wide readership", but, you should be warned, it's extremely unlikely that you're going to get a great deal of support for your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ken. If the discussion is kept civil, I don't mind defending my position. I am first to admit that I do not know everything, but I try to be a learned gay frog ;-) --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's the problem with that: WP:ANI (i.e. this page) does not deal with content disputes, so if you're thinking that you will be defending your position about that here, you're mistaken. Discussions about content take place on the article talk page, as Bishonen told you earlier on your talk page. Because administrators have no special authority to deal with content, they do not settle content disputes. What this page is about is dealing with behavioral problems. Guy has noted what he believes to be some behavioral issues on your part, which is why he brought the problem here. In particular, he mentions WP:tendentious editing and your mischaracterization of his edits as WP:vandalism -- which I hope you now understand after Bishonen's note to you is not the case. So if you're "defending" anything, it'll be your editing behavior, not the content of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You're right. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
