Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Soyanaroboy may be hired to promote Vladimir Plahotniuc[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Busea.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User in question: Soyanaroboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Article in question: Vladimir Plahotniuc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Soyanaroboy's primary contribution to Wikipedia is to polish Vladimir Plahotniuc's article. Please refer to their contributions. Namely, he or she did the following edits to hide negative coverage about Plahotniuc:

Please note that in March 2017 it was discovered that there are sockpuppet accounts created with the sole purpose to promote Plahotniuc. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lack of Professional Courtesy on the part of some Admin's and Editors[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is nothing actionable here. We would need names and an incident. Please don’t impede the function of this page which is to get administrator help with specific incidents. Please try the help desk or Tearoom instead. Jehochman Talk 05:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I wish to voice a concern about a number of Admin’s and Senior editors. This applies to the behavior of more than one and I will not ping as I can’t remember all. There seems to be , for lack of a better phrase’ a Superman complex about many. Instead of providing helpful comments, especially when the new editor is acting in good faith and is not a troll or vandal. Comments like “behaving badly” are made when a senior editor tells some one that a phrase, sentence, paragraph is unacceptable, and the editor so critiqued reasonable asks “why?” in what way. It is impossible to intuit meaning from some ones statement, and telepathy is fantasy. In like manner, when an article is rejected it is not helpful to state merely that it “Doesn’t meet WP standards”. What standards are theytalkingabout. WP has Five Pillars of standards. Which of the Five Pillars apply? And how about a discussion and answering the question. I have asked questions why on at least two occasions and my questions go unanswered? The only reason a question like that goes unanswered is that there was no answer, and the critique or rejection was not justifiableOldperson (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Without any specific examples, there's really nothing we can do in response to this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps admins should be vetted.-EEng
In regards to "professional courtesy", (almost) all admins and editors are volunteers. They're not being paid and edit Wikipedia in their free time, but by the same token they have no qualifications and no real vetting. It's policy on Wikipedia not to bite the newcomers and I'm sorry that some editors have violated this in your experience. Indeed there is a lot we can do to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone. I'm not sure how exactly we can help you without links to some drafts or other pages where you have unanswered questions. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
"Almost" all? Who's paid, and where do I sign up? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
And with all due respect to WP:BITE, there are some newcomers who are actually "newcomers", another group which tries to contribute with grossly sub-standard or POV edits, and others who quickly suck up all the WP:AGF in the room because they think that "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that we don't have any rules or policies, so they don't have to listen when they're told that they're doing things wrong. I'm not excusing discourtesy to actual newbies simply doing their best to improve the encyclopedia, but it does have to be recognized that not all newcomers are created equal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Paid editors are paid. I'm afraid AGF applies whether you like it or not. I know I started with grossly sub-standard edits. And so I'd rather treat every newbie as if they are a good-faith contributor like I was, rather than a WP:NOTHERE case. Even if I'm only right 10% of the time. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree, don't most of us start out with sub-standard edits? Might a POV pushing newbie just not know about NPOV? Of course we don't AGF when someone demonstrates clear intent to mess up the encyclopedia by adding vulgarities, porn, threats, or someones' personal info, but substandard or biased edits by a new user just mean that they need guidance.
As for the original complaint, while editor conduct is not actionable if the editors are not identified, I do find it odd that some welcome to wrikipedia templates say "your edits have violated policy" or something like that, without stating what policy was violated, but this is an issue for the templates' talk pages, not ANI. P.S I do agree with your complaint about certain senior editors, but it would be a personal attack for me to name anyone without enough evidence of wrongdoing to request sanctions against them. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't regard them as admins or senior editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
{ping}Hawkeye7}}Except that they are just that. I got a chuckle out of that image. It evoked a recognition as regards certain tendency's amongst people who are engaged in an actiity for a long time. For instance dealing with vandals and trolls, kind of has a way of stilting one's attitude in a certain direction, and not a nice one. The same with cops. They spend all of their time dealing with criminals and soon in their eye everyone (but they) are criminals, dishonest, breaking a law. There is of course truth in that, everyone, and I mean everyone lies, and those that say they don't are the biggest liars. It is a genetic defense mechanism, without we might not survive, emotionally, financially or even physically. So people who have been at this business, even as volunteers, for a long time, begin to see themselves as above the rabble, even boardidng on omnescience and a superman or woman complex. It happens to the very best. It behooves all of us to keep grounded and assume good faith, save for the real vandals and trolls, which apparently abound. At least answer the question with a decent answer. Shorthand impells one to direct to this or that WP policy, but even those will often require some explanation. I say Tomahto, you say tomaeto. Beauty is in the eye.. and all of that. My main gripe at the moment is that I wrote an article about a notable person. There is plenty of evidence in the article as to how notable. He was the Deputy Governor/Deputy Treasurer of the Virginia Company, his younger brother even has his own Article [[Nicholas Ferrar}} . Yet the article was declined because "This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.", There may be other things wrong with the article, but to decline it because It is Contrary to the Purpose of WP?" IF an article on this man is contrary to the purpose of WP then an article on any person is contrary to the purpose of WP. I have asked {{ping|K.e.coffman)} what is meant and why, how does it differ from others.. Crickets. Discussion of other problems is separate.Article in question Draft:John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company). I make this complaint with trepidation as I know for a fact and from experience all I am doing is drawing attention to myself and my edits. I think that is how this happened in the first placeOldperson (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Your code has some typos in it so you have not pinged Hawkeye7 and K.e.coffman but I have now. The draft seems to use non-neutral language and extensive quotes, both of which are issues that need to be resolved. Bilorv(c)(talk) 03:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bilorv:Thank you for correcting my mistypes. Mistypes seem to me thing, (I do have a excuse, more than one, but I try hard. Thanks for your clear consise explanations. Those are issues that I can correct.Although I do admit I am at a loss at how to paraphrase the Fortnightly quote without losing it's meaning. But my draft was stopped, No chance for cleaning up or resubmission. Just stopped with a link to ask for advice. No way to fix it and resubmit. The quotes are fixable but K.e.coffman says that"The Topic is Contrary to the Policy of WP" and that is absurd. The topic is a person who is clearly notable. What gives? Does this mean that writing articles about people who are notable is contrary to the purpose of WP, and the stop sign should be removedOldperson (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Oldperson - I have been looking for the comment that "The Topic Is Contrary to the Policy of WP". I have not found it. Please provide me with a link or diff. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The article is here:[[raft:John Ferrar (merchant)}}, Yes when new I asked a lot of questions. And who doesn't still trying to naviate the countless pages of policy, style, instructions not to mention syntax. Much of it hard to retain for this oldperson. Granted my posts may be long, and considered tiresome, but short posts would be snarky and disrespectful and leaving the reader scratching their headOldperson (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Alex Mukulu Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Oldperson - When you ask a lot of questions, and sometimes you do, it is not reasonable to expect that they will all be answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Oldperson - When you go on at as much length as you have here, some editors will consider your posts to be tiresome, and will find that the best response is to ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK)[edit]

I opened up a move request at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) on December 22 and in my move request I listed a valid rational backed by guidelines, policy and reliable sources why I thought a series of articles should be moved. Leaky caldron was the first to oppose the move and in their original oppose reason they brought my edit history into the move request.[1]. This was taken negitvly by other editors and after another editor supported the move Leaky caldron again brought my edit history into the discussion in relation to the articles that are being proposed for the move while also claiming I created some sort of mess.[2]

After I arrived home and read the comments I honestly was honestly in shock about why my edit history was even being brought up in this. In my reply to the issue at hand I voiced my thoughts about this that I thought by bringing up my edit history in this move request was essentially Leaky caldron saying they don't like the proposal and it implies some sort of ownership.[3] I asked Leaky caldron to keep my edit history out of the discussion and keep it on topic the editor subsequently struck 1 of the 2 comments about my edit history but left the other alone.[4] After Leaky caldron thought I was attacking them about my comment where I said " implies some sort of ownership on your part" I tried to clarify my comment that I wasn't personally attacking Leaky caldron.[5]

Leaky caldron then asked me to examine WP:OWN and WP:OAS and their contributions to Big Brother articles which I did. Honestly I found no ownership issues and I think the editor does great work. However after reading WP:OWN and WP:OAS my mind didn't change I still thought the editor's comments about my edit history was more in line with ownership-like behavior and not stewardship-like behavior. I also didn't appreciate being threatened with either striking out my comments about ownership or being taken to WP:ANI by Leaky caldron.[6] So I replied to Leaky caldron that I wouldn't strike my comments but I was open to discussion on our personal talk pages or they could take the matter to ANI because I feel that I haven't done anything wrong.[7]

Instead Leaky caldron went behind my back without any further discussion and modified my comments by removing mentions of ownership with {{rpa}}.[8] This was the last straw for me and the reason I am bringing the matter here to ANI because I feel this is a personal attack on my charachter here at Wikipedia. Never before have I ever encountered an editor that behaves like this in a discussion and quite frankly I find their behavior inappropriate. To me when un-involved editors see my comments with "(Personal attack removed)" they will get the wrong idea about me and my character. If un-involved editors review my conduct and find I have done something wrong and explain it to me calmly I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and apologizing. However I will not tolerate with being blamed for things, being threatned into doing thing and having my comments modified when there is no reason to do so (or when the correct process was not followed). Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  • A repeated reference to ownership (by me) was removed in line with policies WP:OWN and WP:RPA. The complainer has spent a year, apparently, devising a renaming strategy. I registered an oppose which may have upset the complainer in the terms in which it was stated (subsequently amended by me prior to this ANI). Obviously RN is a community decision and it will go whichever way it goes. I am not vested in this set of articles, I correct regular vandalism, that is all, unlike the complainer, who has produced TL;DR to another editor who is opposed to the RN. I believed that that repeated suggestion of ownership against me by Alucard was against policy. They now appear to accept that it was a false assertion. So the removal using (Personal attack removed) seemed the correct approach rather than escalation here. Happy Holiday Season. Leaky Caldron 07:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Uvuvwevwevwe Ossas[edit]

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)

"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. --bonadea contributions talk 08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
User has been notified of this thread. 66.87.148.199 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Some odd behavior from this account (esp. claiming that an IP is actually a logged in user name--not technically possible with the MediaWiki software), but I agree with the above response. Bringing this to ANI without warning or even contacting the user was premature. -- Scott (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what happened here [9]. It seems a very long time to be a edit conflict unless the editor made the edit then failed to save or something. I noticed that it included a report from the reported IP. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: Looks like the user saved an older revision of AIV over a newer revision. Similar to what happened to Aero Chord here: [10] 66.87.148.199 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I sort of guessed that but I'm wondering how it happened. Was there an edit conflict a long time back and they didn't notice and when they came back and found out they resolved it by copying over the whole old page? Did they edit the page a long time ago but never saved and when they did they got an edit conflict and did the same, or even got a hidden edit conflict (these happen and sometimes lose stuff but I don't know if I've ever seen them lose so much old stuff, I think it's normally only just very recent edits). Were they viewing and old version e.g. if they'd been following the IP's contribs? Something else? Thinking about it, viewing and old revision may be the most likely since it's perhaps easiest to miss the warning editing an old revisions IMO. The one you linked to seems more understandable, possibly simply either an intentional reversion to an older revision without making it clear, or trying to add back old stuff who's removal they are disputing but in a ham-fisted way. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptiveness by 68.193.153.95 / REDXSCORPION (2nd try)[edit]

After 1 and 1/2 months this guy is back and reverts everything again back to the state of 17th Oct without any discussion; undoing all the fixes and additions in the meantime. But now they also made an account, which they randomly decide to use. Same shtick, same tone in their commit messages, same misunderstood "freedom of speech" / "i like my version more" justification.

I'm asking you to block the IP and account from editing this specific article.

Just read the cited 1st ANI, the IP's contribs (messages), especially the insane rants, and their and especially my talk page.

I already posted this here before, but it was just archived without getting any answer..

  • I suggest one step you could take to working towards solutions to this problem is making User talk:REDXSCORPION not a red-link. Peter AU --Shirt58 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Shirt58: I put them a notice there now. I thought it's just superfluous, as I already did that for the IP back then, and it's clearly the same person. -- IonPike (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Carmaker1 Part 6[edit]

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

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

This editor was blocked recently for persistent disruptive behavior, as a result of the previous post on this noticeboard regarding it. His very first edit after the block was more of the same - biting a novice editor with an "only warning". While his edit summaries may be slightly less uncivil, there has been scant improvement (e.g. [11]). 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 ([12], [13], [14], [15]) added a designer's name (Jeff Teague) in front of a citation ([16]) 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. [17]).

Carmaker1 is either not here to build an encyclopedia and instead has some sort of axe to grind, or simply does not have the temperament to edit cooperatively and constructively. Being that it's the Christmas season I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's the latter, and perhaps a different subject area to focus on and develop positive editing habits with would be helpful. Since automotive articles seem to bring about a significant emotional reaction, possibly related to his claims of being in the industry, I'd suggest, at minimum, an indefinite topic ban from articles relating to motor vehicles, broadly construed, as well as an indefinite ban from posting a level-4im warning on the talk page of any other editor. --Sable232 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for the Teague-related hoax. To quote myself at his talk page: Obviously anyone can misread a source or misremember where something came from, but when you're warned that you've added a hoax, and yet you edit-war to ensure that it remain, you've gone well beyond WP:AGF. No comment on anything else, because I've not looked into it. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Good God, given the history, and now we find out he's been hoaxing, how can this not be an indef? EEng 03:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a hoax. It was stubbornness. See below power~enwiki spryde | talk 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless Carmaker1 is intentionally adding false information, I wouldn't call it a hoax. Adding poorly-sourced or unsourced names is very frustrating, but it's different than hoaxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, this user was causing the article to include a statement that a source said X, when it obviously didn't say X: that's a hoax, an attempt to deceive readers into believing that a source said something it didn't. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with what Carmaker1 did but he information is right and not a hoax [18]] (blog of a respected car news org), [19]. [[User:sp|spryde] | talk 14:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Coming in here with no background at all, and just looking at this one case, I'd consider calling this a "hoax" is a personal attack with no justification; the user's anger in their unblock request, though misdirected, is a bit understandable. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This user added a claim that the cited source said something it did not. That compromises the integrity of the page, and when it's done repeatedly, it warrants sanctions more severe than almost anything else. Issues like personal attacks typically don't have any effect on the encyclopedia (and thus no effect on readers), but presenting falsehoods in articles deceives readers. If you don't realize that it's a problem to cite a source to say something it doesn't, go to college and try doing this in a paper, and then come back and tell me how your professor reacted when you got caught. Until then, don't defend this kind of fraudulent activity. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Blah blah blah; none of that says what he's doing is a hoax; unlike many forms of 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 | talk 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I doubt it was an intentional hoax - I suspect that after the first instance, Carmaker1 was trying to antagonize me personally rather than deliberately keep misleading information in the article. (As an aside, this is what Carmaker1's grudge against me appears to stem from.) Still, it's disruptive editing and damaging to the page's integrity nonetheless, and his excuse of having eventually added a supporting citation elsewhere in the article doesn't hold up when he intentionally left it misleadingly cited in the infobox.
Power~enwiki, I maintain that the topic ban should be indefinite, until Carmaker1 can demonstrate competent editing and an understanding of core 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)
  • 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)
Carmaker1 added information in front of a citation that didn't contain said information. I removed it, stating as much in my edit summary. He undid that removal, so I removed it yet again, clearly stating "there is no mention of Jeff Teague in the cited source". His response was "yes there is", which is a clear falsehood, as already established. While a correct source was eventually added in the prose, no attempt was made to fix the misleading one. Carmaker1's attempt on his talk page to claim that he didn't know this edit was misleading is a blatant lie, so perhaps EEng is right.
Carmaker1 trying to weasel his way out of sanctions (look at his contribution history and the previous AN/I discussions - this behavior goes back years) by feigning civility and claiming confusion now that the jig is up makes it appear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I think he is here to build an encyclopedia. He does a hell of a lot of good work but that is marred by the conflicts. I am just not sure if he can get the right temperament to do so. spryde | talk 02:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see that before but I still wouldn't say there's any sign of hoaxing. First, I'd note that the ref had already been added before the 'yes there is' comment was made [20] [21] so it was true that at the time, there was a source which mentioned Jeff Teague.

Now I think anyone reading the 'yes there is' is going to conclude the 'yes there is' referred to the coachbuilt source especially since Jeff Teague wasn't even mentioned in the prose at the time. But since Carmaker1 had already added the source which did mention Jeff Teague, it's impossible to conclude from the evidence presented there was any deliberate attempt at falsehood and particularly there doesn't seem to have been any hoaxing. It seems easily possible that Carmaker1 was simply very careless and meant the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague. Possibly they confused themselves as to what ref was given in the infobox. Or more likely (based on what they've said on their talk page) were referring to the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague and not the source in the infobox and did so in a very confusing way.

Either way, misleading people into thinking something is in a source when it isn't, is highly problematic in general even when not done deliberately. Although in this case the actual effects are likely to be minimal since realisticly anyone checking to see who was right would check the source themselves and you were never going to change your mind based on Carmaker1 saying it was there when you knew it wasn't. I'd be much more concerned if Carmaker1 added the info and said in an edit summary something like 'As mentioned in cited source'. In that case, the claim may be enough to reassure people who'd AGF and take their statement at face value not realising the problem that had been created. In this case, since the statement was made in response to a dispute, as said there was never a risk of something like that happening.

Maybe more importantly, while it's still highly problematic when not done deliberately, it's reasonable to treat deliberate attempts to mislead different. If someone is deliberate misleading what is in a source, that person should be blocked quickly since to many extents wikipedia relies on people not lying about what's in the sources they provide. When people are people are simply careless, it's worth giving them some chance to learn why it's imperative they are careful what they do so people don't think a source say something it doesn't. (If they don't learn quickly, a block will still be forthcoming.) I haven't looked into the history a great deal, so can't comment on whether Carmaker1 has already well exceeded any allowance for learning not to accidentally mislead.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of Carmaker1's motives, his editing patterns are unproductive - not only this microcosm of it, but the long-standing patterns of angry and uncivil edit summaries, reliance on claims of insider information to justify unsourced or poorly sourced information, and defiance of consensus, all stemming from an apparent crusade to right great wrongs as evidenced in said edit summaries - and there should be a means of requiring him to change that behavior. Considering the two preceding AN/I discussions here, both regarding the same topic area, he still does not appear to fully grasp the concerns raised regarding lack of verifiability, disregard for consensus, original research, and incivility. On that note, see below. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Reference Carmaker1's most recent tirade on his talk page. He continues to make personal attacks against me with accusations of hounding/stalking, as if he expects that because he decided to make an enemy of me that I have an obligation to clear my watchlist of anything he might edit.
He continues to misrepresent his ongoing battle over automotive model years - as I noted in the previous AN/I discussion, WikiProject Automobiles came to a consensus regarding how these are handled. Carmaker1 doesn't like this consensus so he refuses to acknowledge it. The fact that he cannot respect one of the most basic Wikipedia policies demonstrates his inability or unwillingness to edit productively.
@Carmaker1: - I am not proposing that you be "booted" from editing automotive articles, I am proposing that you learn how to respect consensus, respect other policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, and refrain from attacking other editors on a routine basis. Since previous attempts to prompt such a change in behavior have clearly failed, what other options are there? I propose giving you another opportunity to do that; if you don't believe you can, then Wikipedia may not be the place for you.
As evidenced by the previous AN/I discussions and Carmaker1's contribution history and talk page, I am far from the first editor to be on the receiving end of his uncivil and uncooperative style. For the sake of the project as a whole, I'd like to be one of the last. --Sable232 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Formal topic ban proposal[edit]

Carmaker1 shall be banned indefinitely from editing articles related to motor vehicles, broadly construed. The ban may be revisited after no less than nine months of routine and consistent productive, cooperative, and civil editing in another topic area, and clear understanding of and respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, have been demonstrated. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Sweatisoftheessence making personal attacks[edit]

Closing as blocked for 3 days by Scott, Any future attacks should be reported here (or undo the thread closure), Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 17:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having been warned yesterday not to make personal attacks against me, Sweatisoftheessence is opting to edit war and make further attacks rather than engage in talk page discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. -- Scott (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Mountain157[edit]

OP is blocked indefinitely, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhishek9779. -- Scott (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone take a look into Mountain157 actions. The user has been repeatedly tried to push his own POV on various pages. For instance, at Human right violation in Balochistan page he deleted credible cited content and tried to push his own POV: [[22]], [[23]], [[24]]

Again at list of notable people from Karachi, he added Ayman Al Zawahiri name. The page is meant for people from Karachi. Ayman is not from Karachi. [[25]]

Again here at al Qaeda in the subcontinent page, he made the following edits. He claims he provided sources for it but he did not do anything like that. [[26]]

If you try to argue with him, he will claim that you are 'state sponsored or something like that'. So could someone please take a look into this case? Anonymous17771 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anonymous17771: As the instructions on this page state you are required to notify Mountain157 by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk page. I have done this for you on this occasion. Nthep (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accused by admin of being a sockpuppet[edit]

Hi everybody. I'm sorry this is so long but I'm about to name four admin here, so I feel I should be detailed. This is kind of a stupid little thing I'm posting about–removing one sentence–but it's a big deal to me and I hope you can understand why I'm posting.

I saw an arbcom case posted recently; a socking allegation was made; I thought it would be better if an uninvolved editor requested the SPI rather than one of the involved editors; so, I posted to SPI.

Bbb23 closed it and in his closing commend said: I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master. diff

I thought this was a derogatory comment/personal attack so I did some research and then I posted to Bbb's talk page with quotes from policies and such and asked for the sentence to be deleted. diff

Bbb's reply: You have all the earmarks of a sock. diff

I asked again. diff

Bbb did not respond.

I read WP:RPA ("Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.") and WP:CIVIL ("Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.") so I replaced the sentence with the {RPA} tag diff and told Bbb I had done so diff.

Bbb reverted and threatened to block me. diff

I asked again. diff

Then these responses from other admin were posted to Bbb's talk page:

Levivich, why can't you just disclose your alternate accounts rather than indulge in these posturings? - Winged Blades of Godric diff

It appears to me that you've had prior experience on Wikipedia, based on the fact that your first edit was five weeks ago, showing significant proficiency with Wikipedia jargon, editing procedures and policies, up tp and including the NPA/sock business, which would be known to habitués of ANI. You were nominating things for deletion and participating in discussions four days in. There, that's grounds for suspicion, so I see no personal attack. I strongly advise you to stop digging the hole deeper, and please disclose your previous accounts. - Acroterion diff

I posted a response in which I totally lost my cool, for which I'm sorry. diff

The responses: I reviewed and made up my own mind based on your comments, editing history and conduct, prompted by your demands on this talkpage and at SPI. Stop making the hole deeper. - Acroterion diff

Saying that you are more suspicious than the subject of the SPI is not a personal attack. You were just given reasons why there is suspicion, so it is not baseless any more than your accusations in the SPI were baseless. You really should drop it now. - GB fan diff

I posted another response in which I totally lost my cool, which I also regret and apologize for. diff

---

I am not a sockpuppet. I am not a returning editor. I've been reading WP for like 15 years but I've never edited WP under any other account or IP. This is my only account.

In my research I came across this essay which is totally on point (there's one for everything on WP!): Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet

Sometimes a brand new account is accused of being a sockpuppet account, simply because it is apparently experienced with the ways of Wikipedia, and leaps straight into areas of the project that the accusers think to be obscure, or shows proficiency with Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. In years gone by, when Wikipedia was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it is now 2018.

Wikipedia has been around long enough for people to have read it and learned about it, without creating an account, for years, now.[note 1] Its policies, guidelines, and processes are extensively documented on Wikipedia itself...Furthermore, these policies and guidelines are linked to from the {welcome} template that is often the first thing placed on new users' talk pages. It shouldn't be surprising therefore that someone with a modicum of intelligence manages to learn about how Wikipedia works, and what to do, before, or immediately after, creating an account.

It shouldn't be surprising either that someone knows of, for example, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Wikipedia's deletion discussions have never been secret, and they have sometimes been observed by journalists...It is far from impossible for someone to learn of the internal workings of the project before creating an account.[note 2]...Don't automatically cry "sockpuppet!" when a brand-new account simply and solely shows proficiency.

Also: Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless and Wikipedia:Newcomers aren't all clueless

Contrary to what Acroterion said above, I never made any demands, only requests. I didn't know I was supposed to wait some period of time before participating in an AfD discussion (the newbie docs encourage you to jump right in and participate in discussions). I've only filed the one SPI. I also filed one revdel and posted evidence to an arbcom case recently.

I guess this statistic matters so: my mainspace edits are 55.3%, userspace 16.9% (drafting), article talk 10.4%, WP 7.3%, User talk 5.6%, Wikipedia talk 3.2%. xtools Levivich edits Over 70% of my edits are main and user space and 3.2% is WP talk. I don't know if that's good or not for a newbie but I feel like, hey, I'm really doing mostly articles and only a little of things like AfD.

I think these admin's comments are derogatory statements about me and that they are a personal attack. Sockpuppetry is like a capital offense at WP, it can get you banned, so accusing me of that is accusing me of serious wrongdoing.

I really don't feel like the admin have good basis for their accusations. I can't believe Arcoterion wrote that because I showed "significant proficiency with Wikipedia jargon, editing procedures and policies," participated at AfD and posted 1 SPI, that "that's grounds for suspicion."

Competency is required is a policy, and I spent a LOT of time this last month reading all the policies and documents and trying to be careful and do things right. I dipped my toe in AfD. I posted a revdel one time because I thought the closure was a bad one. I posted to arbcom because I really another newbie like me got wrongly banned. I posted to SPI the one time because I thought I was helping. I don't understand what I did wrong?

(This is why I lost my cool in my last two posts on Bbb's talk page. I put a lot of time into reading all the manuals and trying to do things the right way and now I'm being called a sockpuppet–by admin!–for it. Still I shouldn't have responded until I had calmed down a lot.)

It also bothers me that the admin who accuse me of being a sockpuppet aren't opening an SPI on me, so I feel like I can't get out from under this cloud.

If they don't have good basis, then isn't accusing me of sockpuppetry is a personal attack? Because:

  • WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence...Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
  • WP:ADMINCOND: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities...Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."
  • WP:Casting aspersions: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."

This is particularly scary for me because it's coming from four admin. If it were just some editors saying stuff about me on a talk page, it's like whatever. But one of the admin said it in a closing comment, which is an official admin action. That's high profile and like giving it the Wikipedia Stamp of Official Truth: Levivich is a suspicious sockpuppet!

So I'm asking for the community's input and help. Two questions:

1. How do I prove I'm not a sock puppet without giving up anonymity?

2. Can someone please remove the personal attack from the SPI archive?

Thank you. Levivich (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  • The Levivich account was created on 12 November 2018. Can anyone find an essay explaining that the only new users who complain about a suggestion they are a sock are in fact socks? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You accuse 5 accounts and 20 IPs of sockpuppetry on flimsy evidence after 6 weeks of editing, and you're upset that someone called you "suspicious"? I think the Germans have a word for this... -- Scott (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that was a bit flip. I see now that there's a case for you being an eager new user and in over your head. As has been pointed out elsewhere, you aren't being accused of sockpuppetry. Being "suspicious" (a reasonable observation based on your SPI case) is not a blockable offense. This can all be forgotten if you drop it--indeed, already would have been had you just let Bbb23's comment slide.
In the future, I'd recommend not wading into the dispute resolution process for disputes where you aren't involved. It doesn't directly contribute to the encyclopedia, it requires knowledge of a large number of bureaucratic processes, and it's just not fun. You can expect to be accused of much worse things than this, on far less evidence. If you can do it well, it's one of the more reliable routes to becoming an admin someday, if that's something that interests you--but you are going to need much thicker skin. -- Scott (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting advanced reference formatting right in the second edit to Wikipedia [27] demonstrates prior knowledge of Wikipedia's markup language. Reading "manuals" however carefully doesn't give you the level of expertise demonstrated by that edit (for comparison, this is my attempt at formatting citations after reading the explanatory material given on-wiki). AGFing, this looks like a clean start account or a long term IP contributor if not a sock. — fr+ 10:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A very quick look at the IPs that were accused in the SPI shows that they include
  • A school in Florida
  • A static IP in Kansas
  • A mobile IP in South Wales, UK
  • A dynamic broadband account in New Zealand
  • A mobile phone in the Ukraine
  • Another school, this time in California
  • A T-Mobile account in Hungary
  • I stopped looking at that point. Do you see the problem that Bbb23 had with your SPI now? Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • From my comment at Bbb23's talkpage: "It appears to me that you've had prior experience on Wikipedia, based on the fact that your first edit was five weeks ago, showing significant proficiency with Wikipedia jargon, editing procedures and policies, up to and including the NPA/sock business, which would be known to habitués of ANI. You were nominating things for deletion and participating in discussions four days in." It's not a PA if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, correct or not. You were participating in arbitration proceedings concerning Giant Snowman within weeks of starting out. Everything you've done since then, including this complaint, simply cements the impression that there's something not quite right here. If you're innocent, go edit, quit wasting our time making demands (yes, you've been making demands) and sloppy SPIs that make us wonder what you're up to, and everything will be fine. If you're not, then it's likely that there will eventually be a clear-cut problem that reasserts itself. Right now, the problem is that you're making voluminous accusations in all directions, most of which are the result of a single, rather mild observation by Bbb23. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: Since your eleventh edit was a >5,000-byte, perfectly referenced, formatted and MOS-compliant chunk of prose of the kind that many seasoned editors would have to subsequently tweak or copyedit for that level of precision, you should look forward to receiving similar responses as you enjoyed from Bbb23. Seasons Greetings to all ANIers, btw. ——SerialNumber54129 13:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As multiple people have said, there is a suspicion that Levivich is a returning user based on their initial editing. That is all that was said in the SPI, it is not a personal attack to make an observation based on the available evidence. The only thing that needs to happen here is for Levivich to go and edit the encyclopedia. ~ GB fan 13:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to stand up here for the essays Levivich cites about not assuming all newbies are clueless. I recall one new editor who was blocked after wading into an article—or maybe the talk page of an article, it was a while ago—on a matter of international conflict and got summarily blocked for excessive competence. I believe it was a topic on which the editor has expertise, and if I haven't confused two different happy endings, they became an admin a few years later. I started off myself by almost immediately creating an article using MS Word and a copy of the wiki-code and its output for another page, which I used as a template for the formatting stuff including infobox and named refs, and for house conventions like subheadings. It would have looked extremely precocious if Word hadn't included smart quotes. I had no prior knowledge of Wikimedia markup language; in fact the main impetus for my starting editing here was to learn it; but I'm told it's widely used and many people know it from in-house wikis at their workplaces. In any case the edit summary for this edit, cited above as astonishing, reveals that it involved going back to bits of two previous versions; i.e., it's stated to have been done at least in part via cut and paste. (Good edit summary, by the way!) Notoriously naïve though I am, I see no reason to abandon the assumption of good faith here yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can make a valid case that Levivich is a naive editor who learns quickly, who has jumped into the deep end of the pool, not realizing how deep it really is, and who, having made a poorly conceived SPI, is not well placed to offer complaints that they're being unfairly persecuted or to demand satisfaction. Perhaps from this Levivich will have learned that shrill denunciations are a poor response to a passing and reasonable observation by the admin that checked the SPI. Levivich isn't in any form of actual trouble. Acroterion (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If you want to explain your situation privately, you can send an email to the functionary mailing list. By the way, if the cops stop you, anyone who's ever seen a YouTube video knows that you answer their questions politely and try not to antagonize them. If a checkuser starts accusing you of being suspicious, I'd just let it go. Why argue about it? If you're not blocked, the checkuser obviously doesn't have enough evidence to do anything about it. This one time, a cop pulled up next to me and said, "Hey!" I look over and see that she's actually quite attractive. I'm still kind of cautious and say, "Yeah?" And she asks me if I want a ride. I think to myself, "I've never seen a YouTube video that says what to do in this situation." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • SPI filing: This is what I saw: User 1 was blocked after a couple of ANI reports six months ago. A couple days later, User 2–an account created a year prior that hadn't edited in a year–begins editing in the same article, making the same changes, as User 1. A few days after that, the User 3 account is created, but stays "dormant" for six months. Then, User 3 starts edting–again in the same article, making the same POV edits–and on its 18th edit filed an arbcom case against an editor who was one of the editors who was reverting User 1 and filed an ANI against User 1. The accused editor accused User 1 and User 3 of being same. I thought it would be better if the SPI was opened by someone uninvolved. I thought I was helping; that's why I filed the SPI. The other usernames and IPs I listed were other apparent SPA accounts who had edited the same article for the same NPOV reason, in between the time periods of User 2 and User 3 above. I thought this timeline was "enough" for someone to check the IPs. I didn't realize that was not enough evidence to start an SPI. I am obviously never going to file another SPI again. I'm not sure why it makes me suspicious that I did that; I really thought (and still think) that I was helping another editor who was "wrongly accused" at ArbCom by an SPA. @Black Kite: No, I don't see the problem with the SPI. Can you explain it to me? (Not a facetious question, I honestly literally don't see why the timeline above is not an indication of sockpuppetry. Nor do I see why my contribs are an indication of sockpuppetry. In one case, multiple accounts are making just a few edits all in the same place. In my case, it's one account, making 1,000 edits in a month in various different places. I am honestly totally befuddled.)
Wikimarkup is an easier form of HTML. I made web pages back in the '90s and early 2000s and that's where I learned HTML. It's not hard to pick up wikimarkup.
MOS cites are "perfect" because they're made by ProveIt or VisualEditor or one of the other tools that makes cites for you. I learned the short footnote citation format from an editor who showed me an example at an article. Generally speaking, due to my RL profession, I've been writing, researching, and citing for my entire adult life. Citations aren't new to me. (MOS citations are, but there's an app for that.)
To sum up above, you're telling me that Wikipedia is a place where, if you read the documents, look at other people's examples, and do a good job, you will be accused of being a sockpuppet?
@Acroterion: please provide a diff where, other than the one SPI filing, I was "making voluminous accusations." Please provide a diff where, before I was falsely accused by 4 admin of being a sockpuppet, I made a "shrill denunciation." You keep accusing me of doing things I haven't done; I think you should provide diffs to back it up.
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for point me to the functionaries mailing list. I don't have a private situation to explain to them, though. My situation can be explained publicly: I have read WP for about 15 years but have never edited before. This is my only account.
@Serial Number 54129: How do we change that? I'm trying here. It's why I'm making a big deal out of this.
Can anyone CU my IP address to confirm that I've never made an IP edit before? If I knew what my IP addresses were for the last 15 years, I'd list them so they can be CU'd too.
It's flat out not true that my work on WP looks like that of a seasoned veteran. It's not that good; I think the case is being vastly overstated. Look at my sandboxes (I learned to make multiple sandboxes from another editor's user page) to see what it looks like when I'm drafting and practicing: User:Levivich/sandbox I'm no Hemingway here.
As to the comment that Levivich should just go edit the encyclopedia, yeah, right. I am not going to volunteer my time under a cloud; I'm not going to volunteer my time "under suspicion;" I'm definitely not going to do that when I've done nothing wrong; and absolutely not if the suspicion is based on me doing too good of a job.
All of you folks thinking I'm a sockpuppet, I ask that you take a moment and really consider what if you're wrong, what if I'm telling the truth? Do you really think a newbie is going to keep playing here when everyone is accusing him of wrongdoing because he's supposedly too good at this? Can any of you understand why this is so amazingly upsetting for me?
If this is a place where, in order to continue volunteering here, I either have to (1) intentionally make mistakes so no one thinks I'm a sock, or (2) put up with like a dozen admin publicly accusing me of serious wrongdoing, then .... well... who would want to be part of that? Levivich (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You're not under a cloud, unless it's one of your own making, since you seem to be determined to answer mild criticism with a barrage of kilobytes of text, demanding justice and rejecting reasonable suggestions that, having proclaimed your innocence to the heavens, you might go back to editing the encyclopedia. For evidence you're demanding of the voluminous filings and denunciations, look at the head of this section, the section immediately above and Bbb23's talkpage. Really, this kind of ANI time-sink is far more concerning than the SPI or Bbb23's comment. The parable of The Mote and the Beam comes to mind: we're not here to win contests of will, we're here to write an encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Before I was accused of being a sockpuppet, what was it that I did wrong that constitutes a "beam in my eye"? That's why I'm asking you to post diffs. So far, I'm told that I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet because my citations are well formatted, I participated in AfD in my first week here, and posted one SPI in my second month... Are those really "beams"? If it's something else, please post the diff of what I did wrong. Yes, I'm making a big deal out of it, after the criticism, which I do not see as "mild," but extremely serious, since I'm being accused of a bannable offense, a "capital crime" as it were. Part of my point in bring this up here is to try and convince you that casual accusations of sockpuppetry are not mild–to me, and I think to other new editors, they are very serious, serious enough that I would stop participating over this. I am under a cloud, and it's one that you put over me! Levivich (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the day you need to understand that you should file SPIs very carefully and don't take trivial remarks too seriously. You are not even blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi88iisc (talkcontribs) 18:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you're now going over the top with nonsense about "capital crimes," I'm guessing that acceptance of help is not something you're willing to consider. You are judged here by your conduct, not by what others say about you. Please keep that in mind. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@FR30799386: If you look at the diff of mine that you posted [28] and compare my version [29], you can see the first paragraph is a straight cut-and-paste of a previous version [30] and the rest of the article is a straight cut-and-paste of an earlier version [31], just as someone mentioned above. That wasn't my work at all. Does this change your opinion at all? (Also, looking back at it now, I realize I inadvertently left out a picture when I copied-and-pasted, which I've put back)
@Black Kite: I don't know how you traced those IPs, but I thought tracing IPs was something I was not supposed to do, especially in light of the recent to-do about off-wiki contact. I thought I was supposed to post the IPs and let others check and see if they're open proxies, or geographically similar or whatever.
@Scott Burley: Thank you for the strikeout, it means a lot to me that you keep an open mind. Thank you also for the advice, "I'd recommend not wading into the dispute resolution process for disputes where you aren't involved," which I want you to know is advice I will follow from here on out. I actually thought the opposite, that it's better for an uninvolved editor to file an SPI than an involved one, but obviously I was wrong. I don't think I would ever want to be an admin or anything like that. I do have thick skin, and I wouldn't complain if this was just an editor, or even an admin, making some comment on a talk page somewhere. I also don't mind the other admin who said I'm a sockpuppet who gave me their reasons why. At least if everyone can read their reasoning, they can judge for themselves if the accusation is legitimate, so it lessens any harm to my reputation or my need to "defend" myself. This is different with Bbb. Bbb is a checkuser and an admin, who called me suspicious in performing an "official" duty (closing the SPI). Everyone will assume that Bbb has some technical information about me that suggests I'm a sock. Bbb also has not stated any reasons for their statement (although I think they have to by the policy about admin accountability). You don't have to answer this, but let me ask you something: you said your own first reaction was "flip": is it because on one side you saw Bbb, and on the other side, a nobody (me)? If so, that's what I'm talking about. I can't see letting it slide that a checkuser admin is calling me a sockpuppet and won't say why. That's "yikes" to me; serious enough to make this stink. Bbb could have just said, "This was an inappropriate SPI." or something along those lines, without casting aspersions about me.
I know now that I was wrong to file the SPI, but I still don't know why I was wrong, and I would appreciate somebody filling in the gaps between the SPI I filed and a "good" SPI. (In an alternate reality, Bbb would have just educated me a bit on what was lacking in my SPI instead of calling me suspicious and a sock puppet.) I'm looking at Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Possible signs and it seems like my SPI met the following criteria, which is why I filed it: Precocious edit history, Excessive support for one's cause, Repeating the same disapproved activity, Editing identical articles, Edit warring, Connection to the article (all these are with reference to The Exodus), days on and off (none of the accounts seemed to edit on the same days, it was one after the other in serial), Accounts with occasional usage, Accounts used only briefly (almost all are SPAs, except the alleged master), Lack of establishment into the community (applicable to all account I listed but the master), Single-purpose accounts (almost all the IP/users I listed were SPAs). Under Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Triggers of a sock puppet investigation: Use of a single-purpose account, Engaging in an edit war, Account block (the master account was blocked). I thought this SPI met those criteria, so it should be filed.
Bringing it back to the point: I appreciate everybody's responses and taking the time to talk to me. I just want to remind any closer that the specific thing I am asking for (what makes this ANI post "actionable") is for "I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master." to be removed from the SPI archive. I'm will answer any questions but otherwise I'll shut up now. Thanks again for the community input, thanks in advance if anyone grants my request, and Merry Christmas to everyone who celebrates it. Levivich (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Xmas to you too, and FYI you can check on IPs by clicking the WHOIS or GEOlocate links on their talkpages. Now sometimes that's not completely accurate, and you've got to check for proxies, but you can often ensure that certain IPs aren't the same person, as it was in this case. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Anonymous17771[edit]

Unnecessary. The reported user is blocked indefinitely, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhishek9779. -- Scott (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like someone to take a look into Anonymous17771 actions. This user has been targeting my edits that I have made with factual cited information. He is claiming that I am pushing POV on pages, but he is the one who is aggressively reverting cited information. I have only added content to Wikipedia but not removed any as he is claiming. When it comes to the "List of people from Karachi" edit that I did it was based on multiple sources such as: [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]]

All the people listed on the List of people from Karachi" are not necessarily originally from Karachi. They are currently residing there but were born elsewhere. So it is not clear why Anonymous17771 has a problem only with this one person that was included with citations.

For the one in which he claimed that I did not give sources for "Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent"; if a terrorist group is based and operating freely in a country with no repercussions, that has to be considered as implicit support by that country. And there are multiple sources that can support the contention that AQIS is operating out of Pakistan. One of them is given below.

Then lastly for the article titled "Frontier Corps" he deleted the sentence I had added and the sources given with no proper reasoning given.

[1]

For the edits that I make he is going and with a bias editing any information and sources that I give by saying claiming its "POV editing" or "Unconstructive editing". So can someone please take a look into this case?-Mountain157(talk) 4:36 24 December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talkcontribs) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Mountain, thank you for reporting this. The user has been blocked. Jehochman Talk 01:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs help over here.[edit]

This page Freak Me (Ciara song) suffered to be bounced between a redirect and mainspace FOUR times just this month between an IP user and User:Hayman30 per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freak_Me_(Ciara_song)&action=history. One of the reasons I hate redirects, they are very easy to manipulate and this happens quickly. I don't have any opinion regarding the notability of the song, but this needs to be solved once and for all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just a basic content dispute. It doesn’t require admin intervention, it just needs someone starting a talk page discussion (and maybe an WP:RFC.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that any of the sides will create talk pages here, seeing the behavior of the page history so far. That is the problem. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
No one has even tried yet. You’ve got to try first. That’s step one. Nothing else can be done here yet. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Weird spat at Inti Creates[edit]

An attack by an LTA. I semi'ed the article for a few days. If it resumes, the protection should be extended. Otherwise, it appear that all accounts are blocked and/or globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a weird edit war going on at Inti Creates. I can't really figure out what is going on: is this a real edit dispute, or some kind of trolling or performance art? Can anyone help with this? -- The Anome (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick block needed for compromised account[edit]

Blocked by Favonian, –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Billy_porno[edit]

Billy Porno is blocked indefinitely and his draft deleted, may he put his name to use outside Wikipedia. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Billy_porno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This account was created earlier today and has been removing the speedy deletion nomination tag from their draft. Having a look at the draft, it is not sth serious, and an admin might need to intervene. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hats off to Mr and Mrs Porno for giving their son such an hilarious name. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
More than hats off, presumably. EEng 18:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threat of violence[edit]

I assume this does not require any further discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone block Special:Contributions/2001:18C0:39E:DA00::/64, please? Diffs: "i add this. If you remove this text again, i kill you for real, NinjaRobotPirate.", "i add this. If you remove this again, i kill you and your friends, NinjaRobotPirate." This editor is obviously very attached to their original research. Please don't make it a 24 hour block; this /64 has been stable for months, and I'm tired of recieving death threats on Wikipedia. It's just impotent internet rage, so no need to contact WP:EMERGENCY. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I’m not an admin but I think you should send an e-mail to emergency for any death threat you receive. IWI (chat) 05:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Regardless of whether it's a credible or empty threat, a death threat is a death threat, and you shouldn't just scoff it off as nothing more than a sick joke at your expense. Bringing this to WP:EMERGENCY's attention would at least give you the last laugh in a civil way. ;) Blake Gripling (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one month. Happy to extend as needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. And, to the editors above, you would probably get along well with my family, who have been urging me for years to take things more seriously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Haha; I guess we would. IWI (chat) 12:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack by Calton[edit]

Looks like we are done here--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Talk:Hepatitis C vaccine, Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) posted a rhetorical question attack by stating "You know, lying about what I wrote. Is English your first language?" WP:NPA states to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." 108.173.18.28 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A complaint about Ruslik0 by one of the related Alberta IPs was rejected at AN3 a couple of days ago, and I've semi-protected the article to force discussion after a slow edit-war on the part of the Alberta IPs to include promotionally-tinged material about very preliminary research at the University of Alberta, sourced only to the university, with edit summaries like "do not revert." They've finally gotten around to using the talkpage. This is the second forum they've approached. Having been challenged by three editors, a better strategy might be to reduce the bluster and show, using prominent sources independent of the university, that this is the breakthrough they're claiming. Bluster isn't a substitute for independent sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a personal attack now? Nonsense. Read the context. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC).
The IPs are clearly POV-pushing, and are probably people somehow affiliated with the University of Alberta. My thoughts from the IP's willful misunderstanding of Calton wouldn't have been Is English your first language?, but it's certainly not a comment that Calton should be sanctioned for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
In the real world, I'm an ESL instructor in Japan. No, really. --Calton | Talk 09:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, SOMEBODY'S not happy [36] --Calton | Talk 23:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User randomly reverting someone else’s edits[edit]

Already blocked as a sock--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dominick333 rapidly reverting the edits by User:Blue Square Thing for some reason. The former is a non-autocomfirmed editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewstang (talkcontribs) 03:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hurtful and uncivil comments by User:Mmcele[edit]

Editor blocked, comments deleted. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I logged onto Wikipedia on Christmas day to find a disgruntled new editor directing me to "go die!!!" along with lessor derogatory remarks. Could someone deal with this, to stop these things in their tracks and hopefully give a wake up call, that this is a horribly uncivil thing to state. Ignorance can be a defense, likely the only one, but surely there is a line not to be crossed?
I do not want to interact with this editor (other than giving ANI notice) and possibly be baited into some battle. I think this unprovoked attack is egregious and should not be taken lightly as it has given me a very terrible start of a day. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked them for 72 hours initially, and when editors return from a day or two away, hopefully they can decide whether that's sufficient or they wish to extend the block for a longer period. Nick (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, can you do something about the comments? Striking them would still present them. Otr500 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ReverendSpecialK[edit]

Indefblocked by Doug Weller--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the past 12 months, ReverendSpecialK edited four pages, with all of their edits being problematic in nature:

  • Vienna, Removal of the section "Famous Jewish cultural figures from Vienna": [42]; [43]

The user has received several warning and a block for edit warring: Talk page permalink. They appear to be WP:NOTHERE and I would appreciate a review of the situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think most of these edits could be considered good faith for a novice editor. Although the edit warring and refusing to learn the rules is an issue if it persists. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me be more direct then. The editor is repeatedly making pro-Nazi edits in Nazi-related articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's kind of astonishing that his edit to an article called "Nazi songs" manages to remove almost uses of the actual word "Nazi". --Calton | Talk 15:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • AGF and all that, but when any random edit you spot-check over the last couple years can be read as pro-Nazi it's hard to avoid certain conclusions. See this on Panzer Division Kempf (removing an admittedly unsourced claim about said division committing atrocities) and this on Operation Barbarossa (removing sourced claim about Nazi Germany's war aims against the Soviet Union). Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    You are correct, it does look there's some POV pushing here as well. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Calton: he's replacing "Nazi" with "national socialist", which combined with his removal of Jewish related text is probably just his attempt to remove what he sees as a derogatory term. Anyway, he's not here to improve the encyclopedia and the removal of Jewish related texts show his agenda, so I'm blocking indefinitely. He can appeal and agree to stay away from such topics and I'd probably unblock him. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
      • he's replacing "Nazi" with "national socialist"
      • Really? No kidding. I totally missed that since I am a bot who only counts words and doesn't understand sarcasm. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Borderline legal threats at Talk:Incel[edit]

The IP editor was blocked and discussion archived due to block evasion. -- Scott (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IPV6 editor is currently claiming at the talk page for Incel that the lede is "defamation." So far quite vague but admin eyes should likely focus on this page for a little bit in case it gets worse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Leo Freeman[edit]

Per a unanimous consensus, Leo Freeman is topic banned from any and all subjects relating to the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus, broadly construed, for the duration of six months.  Swarm  {talk}  21:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Added "Armenian architecture" to the Islamic architecture page without source. No edit summary/explanation.[44]
  • Added "Armenian Renaissance" to the Macedonian art (Byzantine) page without source, explanation or edit summary.[45]
  • Tried to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possible Armenian origin of a Byzantine ruling dynasty, through sheer edit-warring.[46]-[47]-[48]
  • Added "Armenian" to the Philippicus (general) page without edit summary/sources.[49]
  • 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.[50] 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.[51]
  • Removed the Georgian transliteration on the Mushki page, using an edit summary "Nothing Georgian, they are connected much more with Armenians".[52]
  • Replaced the Hebrew transliteration from the lede of a church in Jerusalem with an Armenian transliteration. No edit summary/explanation[53]
  • Changed "Persian" to "Armenian", even though the Armenian in question served as a general in the Persian armies.[54]
  • Added "Armenians in Bulgaria" to the article of a Bulgarian ruler. No edit summary/explanation.[55]
  • Removes the Georgian transliteration of a town related to Georgian history, but keeping the Armenian one. No edit summary/explanation[56]
  • Edit warring on Henrikh Mkhitaryan in order to add a link to "Armenians".[57]-[58]
  • Changed "seventh century BC" to "2nd millenium BC" without source and edit summary/explanation (i.e. making Armenians "more ancient").[59]
  • Added "Armenian" to the Proto-Greek language article without edit summary/explanation.[60]
  • Added Armenian Highlands to the Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey article without edit summary/explanation.[61]
  • Edit-warring on the Sabre Dance article in order to remove the Russian transliteration (a ballet composed by a Soviet-Armenian composer and conductor).[62]-[63]
  • Added "Armenian satrap" to the lede of a ruler of the Persian Empire. No edit summary/explanation[64]
  • Added unsourced content to the Armenian language page. No edit summary/explanation.[65]

I issued him an AA2 warning in the past with clear examples of his disruptive editorial pattern, to which he unfortunately never replied.[66] Looking at the compelling evidence, I don't think this editor is here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the depth of how problematic this pattern was before -- I had only interacted with the ultranationalist edits on Armenia, i.e. attempts to date Armenia's history back to a "traditional" date with no sourcing at all before 2400 BC. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear LouisAragon, I can't understand why you are so obsessed with my route, that was you who wrote me you are not saying my edits are "incorrect", isn't it ? Even the fellow list, you have chosen and put here, is absolutely correct, based on historical facts and on the basis to develop Wikipedia. Just as an example taking even editing about Proto-Greek, assume, you know certainly it was proper. So concerning traditional date "2492 BC" in the article "Armenia", one more time, friends, it is traditional (!) date, legend, and it was written not as a fact but certainly, I quote from the article - "Traditional date 2492 BC" [Battle of Hayoc Dzor / Հայոց ձորի ճակատամարտ, recommend to see “"HAYK", The Legend of Hayk and Bel] was / is it acceptable ? guess yes. And it was the basic view of that article for many years, before user Calthinus determined about its ultranationalist concept. You can see on the page "Japan" the traditional date - "660 BC", why it is not ultranationalist for you Calthinus ? Your way of thinking and ideology are ambidextrous. Because what you argue has nothing to do with nationalism, protocronism, that is encyclopedical issue, information. And I insist we must keep the traditional date as it was before, with the "Formation and independence" + of course, other data you deleted with it - Hayasa-Azzi (1500–1290 BC), Arme-Shupria (14th century–1190) and so on until the Orontid dynasty 6th century BC, not just (!) from the Orontid dynasty. The Armenian "Establishment history" is partial, uncompleted with your renovations and intentions Calthinus. Please, reconsider your approach to the issue. Leo Freeman (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Em, no, I produced sufficient and comprehensive scholarship, including Armenian scholarship, not only debunking the myth you are trying to restore in the infobox, but showing how it arose out of attempts by ethnonationalists to reframe global history. And I doubt LouisAragon will take this seriously either. --Calthinus (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This requires admin involvement. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a pattern here of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavoir via WP:BATTLEGROUND editing by @Leo Freeman. I do agree with the filing party that administrator attention is needed.Resnjari (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone propose a topic ban of some sort? This seems like the sort of thing that would generate some consensus. Giving the admins something to act on, like enforcing a community-agreed-upon topic ban, would help. --Jayron32 13:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month WP:AA2 topic ban (broadly construed) 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus region. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon this isn't broad enough. Given what you have demonstrated about his history, and especially his tendencies to attribute accomplishments in the histories of the Levant, Greece, Georgia, and Iran to Armenians, I propose broadening the ban to cover all topics in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus region. --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. You're right. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Support--Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Support per the above evidences.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Support, as per reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Support; Strong evidences (as diffs), are provided. Rekonedth (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Support a topic ban for all topics Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus regionBillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. Frankly, I'm not sure this will suffice; this user seems pretty single-minded (and largely WP:NOTHERE) with regard to the focus of their editing, so I'm doubtful this course of action will retain them as a useful editor in other areas; more likely is that they will sock or otherwise attempt to avoid or circumvent the block, or simply decide to leave the project entirely once they are thwarted in pushing a nationalist perspective in edits relating to the history of the region in questions. I would also note, there are some basic competency issues involved here--these issues were not been a focus of discussion above because the complaining editors decided to steer clear of it as ancillary issue, but as an un-involved party I will point out that, aside from having a sketchy understanding of policy and how to approach content in a neutral fashion, this editor also clearly has extremely limited facility with English. Reading their above comments, it is possible to divine the gist of their meaning, but they are clearly far too gung-ho and insistent given the limitations on their ability to communicate effectively here and engage with complex editorial issues in a language which they seem to be only semi-functional in. All of these factors taken together, I'm skeptical that a TBAN is going to resolve these issues in a fashion that retains an otherwise useful editor, but it is the standard approach in cases such as this, and I see no reason not to give the benefit for the doubt and start here. Snow let's rap 08:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. per above evidence. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. The available evidence is overwhelming. I propose expanding the ban to cover all topics related to Armenia, Armenians and Armenian culture broadly construed, because in my experience geo limiting tends to be problematic in such cases. — kashmīrī TALK 20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frequent disputes with Galatz[edit]

I'm tempted to block all of you, but I have a little post-Christmas cheer left in me. Still, if you folks continue in the same vein, some admin with more understanding of the wonderful world of wrestling will start issuing blocks. The battleground mentality is astonishing. One separate word to Galatz. I've combined the separate ANI thread you started with this one. Don't fork a discussion like that here. It's hard enough reading one. And I don't believe you when you say it wasn't retaliatory.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Galatz has frequently reverted edits done by and bullied other users on List of WWE personnel and other wrestling pages in regards to 205 Live. This is despite the existence of WP:RS and seems to be a case of WP:Own. The user has also personally attacked me, calling me and my edits "stupid" on my talk page. Evidence of personal attack here:[67] - User:Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I asked for a WP:RS yet still none of been provided. A user provided a number of blogs that all have been proven to fail that criteria. You made sweeping changes across over 30 pages made by someone on Christmas Eve, without allowing time for anyone to chime in or trying to get a wider range of opinions as required by WP:CONSENSUS. This has been discussed many times and always concluded with they are part of Raw still. I also notice you have failed to mention that I am not the only one who disagreed with this as you make it appear, see here as an example of another user reverting you [68].
No I did not call you or your edits stupid, I called the fact that something specifically billed as a Raw brand exclusive, could be dual-branded stupid; see [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Can you find one source to back up your claim that those were dual-branded? If not it is WP:OR.
If you want to make this change the WP:ONUS is on you to prove through WP:RS that it is in fact its own brand. So me asking you to provide them, is not WP:OWN, its following policies. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
WWE has literally just acknowledge 205 Live as a brand in this tweet they posted today. https://twitter.com/WWE/status/1077957293482958848 Who is more reliable than the company itself? - User:Mt.FijiBoiz 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:PRIMARY, but that is not the point. WWE's official annual report, states on page 8 (14 of the PDF) [76] NXT has now evolved into our third brand after Raw and SmackDown. You mean to tell me that a tweet probably posted by an intern has better information than the annual report which is edited and reviewed by all the top executives?
The point is there is an established consensus and you changed over 30+ pages without following procedures to attempt to change that. And even if it is changed, when is it changed as of? As of 3 months ago when this was discussed, consensus was it was still a sub-division of Raw, but yet you have changed things that happened 2 years ago. Notice any flaws in that logic? Or the Annual Report dated 8 months ago also clearly stated they had 3 brands, but yet you changed older information than that.
Does 205 Live do their own tours or do they tour with Raw?
This is precisely why you should not rush to make these changes like you did. These are things are should be discussed before you make sweeping changes, so they can be addressed before, not after. It is also why you should have responded to my comments on the talk page references above or on your talk page, rather than going to ANI. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Going by WWE's official annual report, should we delete NXT UK (WWE brand), a brand supposedly created on December 15, 2016, as it wasn't included? Is it just a "sub-brand" of NXT? - User:Mt.FijiBoiz 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, NXT UK does not tour. Does that make it "not a brand"? - User:Mt.FijiBoiz 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The facts very clearly changed since then. It was announced previously but launched over the summer. And yes it does tour by itself. It has done multiple shows all over UK. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Opinion Wow, it's been a while since we've been here, and while not a fan of rushing to ANI, I agree with the OP. For months now, involved editors have been requesting that this reorganization happen. Galatz has disagreed with them all, and in my opinion is bordering on WP:OWNing the article. While WWE may be a primary source, that source has been the primary means of determining the way the roster is listed here. I'm not inclined to see Galatz blocked, but some sort of warning should be issued, this particular issue should be settled on the talk page, and from last check it seems like the consensus is "A lot" to one in favor of the reorganization, with what seem to be good sources. Again, my opinion, my small weigh in here. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kjscotte34: What is border line WP:OWN about asking for support for a stance taken? Per WP:ONUS that is the proper thing to do. And per WP:CONSENSUS, having 3 people agree on one pages talk page, on Christmas day when most people are not online, is not proper procedure for making changes to 30+ pages. They need to go to WP:PW and bring it to the attention of more than the 3 people who comments on that page. A page which many people in the project have said they do not follow because of various reasons when it was discussed before. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pro wrestling again. Color me shocked. But after repeated ANI reports like this I'm beginning to wonder how much of this sink on community time should be put down to the stupidity intrinsic to the subject and how much to one or two particular editors. EEng 18:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Shocking, once again you add nothing to this conversation except for being WP:UNCIVIL. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
      • While EEng is being a bit of a troll, Galatz, you are the one digging your own grave here kind sir. When 5 editors are telling you to leave something alone, and you keep messing with it, it gets to the point of enough being enough, which is why you are here. The 5 don't have to convince you of anything, you need to convince the 5 why your POV should take precedence. That's kinda how things work around here. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Now playing on ANI pay-per-view-E