Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Complaints with EurovisionNim

For the past 4 months I been going back and forth with user EurovisionNim. The problem I have with him is how he constantly try to copy everything I do. Things like, how I photograph, how I speak, what words I use.

I doubt that it breaking any official policies broken but it just isn't creative, it not real skills, it just mimicking somebody else. Other photographers which focus on cars have there own distinct style yet still valuable to be use in the articles. Nim just seem to piggyback on the biggest fish he could find for his own gain. This is fine if you are starting out because since I done it until I found my own way on how to photograph things. Nim was here far longer then me and had plenty of time to find his own creative field that isn't just cars but never has. He also have a tendency of bragging of things like "I been here longer then you" or "I started this trend before you" and go on about that he expect his pictures to appear in different media and etc like it a game of which of our photos appear in the most.

Evidence to support this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=871445766&oldid=871445518 (When I recropped a photo I took of a Tesla Model X, since that edit, Nim done a wave of “less tighter crop” versions of existing images to try and make his use of image more justifiable, any other photo he took or updated before the 1st of December had little to no relation to cropping..)

Around June I started to photograph side shots of cars as a little extra but not intention of using on articles. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1992_Peugeot_205_Zest_1.1_Side.jpg (My first side shot)

After that, from August to October, he began adding side shots to articles. Again he never took side shots before until I did.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kia_Picanto&diff=863719283&oldid=862152307
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volvo_XC40&diff=855593190&oldid=855502294
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porsche_Cayenne&diff=861579492&oldid=860432902
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitsubishi_Eclipse_Cross&diff=862140498&oldid=860852053

Times where he take words I said recently and use it to try and justified his reason.

Examples like this, is where I mentioned the term chromatic aberrations to address a issue with his image. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C5%A0koda_Fabia&diff=prev&oldid=862070333

Then a day later, he used the exact word as I did which I had little doubt he would understand what it means because I personally didn’t at the time, yet he still used the term as a reason why his photo should be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=862149241&oldid=861988612

Other things is that he like to taunt (bit blunt, but it the closest word I could describe it) with comments like these, knowing that I might respond to them:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_Hilux&diff=next&oldid=874126177

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EurovisionNim&diff=next&oldid=871501295

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EurovisionNim&diff=872624577&oldid=872601164

It got to this point that me and EurovisionNim will continue with petty exchange with each other and from suggestion with another user, this is suppose to be the right place to go. This is the base evidence and problems, I can try and dig up additional one if needed. --Vauxford (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Vauxford. It seems that an editor is learning and is emulating the work of another editor (you) because they admire your work. Do I have it right? That doesn't violate any policies and guidelines that I am aware of. This is a collaborative project based on freely licensed content after all. If the issue is "petty exchanges", then the solution is easy. Don't engage in petty exchanges. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Bang on the money Cullen328. I like learning. Vauxford, please note I do not revert/replace for no reason. I only do that because I know my (or someone elses) image is better quality. Its like no problem, I have every right to be WP:BOLD. You seem to be taking me for a ride, as opposed to helping me. I can picture on whatever car I wish. I was told by Mr.choppers "...if a shot of a Holden Commodore parked in London is of high quality then that could be the best one to use. EurovisionNim used to annoy me to no end, but when a photo is better than mine then there is no point arguing..." Exactly, this is what I mean't. You need to understand clearly that I do not revert editings without cause. i do not mind being reverted, but I do mind if the reverter is the creator of the files, such as in the case of Vauxford as explained in [1], [2]. I discussed the issue with Vauxford but he stubbornly refused. I think my proposed suggestion, is that going forward, whenever I make a replacement of Vauxford's examples, another editor can revert it, so it prevent bias. I am more than happy for this proposal. In addition, he expects for us to "let him know before I make a revert" which I think its completely ridiculous. This is not his personal website, hes not the king of Wikipedia. I have been doing the same thing for the last 3 years and haven't had much complaints so I don't see how I should make any changes, except maybe going easy. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Going easy is always a good approach and ambitious photographers are commonly unable to be neutral when comparing their own work to photos taken by another editor. Aggressive pushing of one's own work into an article is disruptive, and photographers should always defer to the opinions of uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Given the number of editors who insist that everyone else must do things their way, it's startling yet somewhat refreshing to see someone insisting that someone else must not do things their way. EEng 06:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A good example of a discussion in relation to images is Talk:Audi_Q7#Audi_Q7_great_example, which focuses on uninvolved editors, between two images such as File:2018 Audi Q7 (4M MY18) 3.0 TDI quattro wagon (2018-11-02).jpg & File:2017 Audi Q7 S Line Quattro 3.0 Front.jpg. Editors except Vauxford think that the Australian example is far better quality than the other example. I understand that his DSLR image are better, but not the powershot examples. Again this is Wikipedia not a personal website, editors have the right to contribute in peace. Based on majority consensus, the Australian Audi is the much better example. I let go of the Audi A4 edit, as I admit I did request for the photo, so all good. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It boggles me that you are so obsessed with the Audi Q7 article and it images. Stop with the rhetorical answers. My personal problem with you isn't the only problem I'm talking about, you being disruptive in other things such as taking the BRD page far too literally and almost every day you keep making these discussions where we have to pick which image is better and what not and you ping everyone that might've agreed with you on something unrelated in the past. You seem so determined to change images almost every week for your own gain and this is the problem I'm trying to point out. You said that you trying to be a better editor but to me and others you just became more annoying and tiresome to work with and what worst is that you simply can't grasp the concept of that. --Vauxford (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)'

WP:BRD is technically an official policy. It is linked to WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:BOLD. I also have a problem with you too. Thats why I set out a compromise on Talk:Audi_Q7#Audi_Q7_great_example, which I would like you to see please. It is essential that we follow up on discussions and also have a fair share of images. You, on the other hand, have been trying to randomly replace perfectly good quality images with some of your ones. It doesn't matter, I relied on WP:CARPIX for a long time and this guideline has been told to me many times. Why do you need to be so difficult? Is it because you think your images are better than the guidelines? I am thinking of not continuing anymore. This, along with some of the concepts seem to be difficult. I think you aren't taking higher quality images enough, all you care about is your images, which in fair respects I understand, but if someone were to replace your image, don't you want to go into a consensus? I don't care much about the images, but my example is pretty decent. Why do you think your image is the better one. The majority have decided for the Australian image. If a third neutral opinion is given, then I won't make any further edits. You seem to treat Wikipedia like your own website. I suggested you focus on the big sellers in the UK, such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche etc. or cars not sold in Australia, such as Vauxhall, SEAT, Dacia etc. It appears either you want to only have your images, or you just are trying to bog me down. Besides I've set a compromise and to end this dispute, I suggest you take it. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

But it the fact that you do this almost every day, JUST because it a official policies, doesn't mean you have to shove it in our face on a daily basis, you take every thing and what people say so literally, using a metaphor, what if someone told you in order to get better photograph you would have to "kill two birds with one stone", what the betting you would actually kill two birds in belief that it would improve your photos? That how your mind seem to take in things. That Audi Q7 discussion doesn't matter at this point, don't try and sway the point I'm trying to get across to you and the admins. --Vauxford (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The point being is I did the exact same thing with OSX. However he didn't complain, but you seem to be the only one who cares about your images and only will allow reverts when a user lets you know. I told you the compromise, which would solve our issues. Its essential that policies are given to users because the fact remains your edit summaries when you revert, you don't even do or you think your image is "fine" when in fact it is not. The point of CARPIX is that it was told to me [3], and therefore it would be suggested by the community to utilise this guideline. If you followed that guideline and photographed exactly to the guideline, and if I replaced yours, and you reverted it, then I'd have no problems as you'd be 'following the books.' Again, you were the one when you first started to consult me, so I suggested I give you a list, but now you seem to take this liberty to picture every car on the road. Whilst its not a problem, you just replace images randomly. His edit summaries are completely bogus, suhc as "previous is fine" or something like that, which indicates he may have a problem with the quality of images on the site. I'm not sure if I'll be needed on Wikipedia as theres no point of me contributing if I cannot post high quality shots to replace the existing low quality example. Vauxford, its only the Audi image, why are you making this a big deal, I want to compromise and half the use of yours and mine as per this discussion. I will of course leave the foreign Wikipedias for your Q7 and I'll handle the English, Wikidata and Simple Wikipedia. That means its easier and to prevent further discussion. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, "You take the foreign language wikis and I'll handle English Wikipedia" is not really a compromise. It's more like "get off my lawn." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think thats the main problem with Vauxford, he wants me to focus on non-UK cars, so I believe hes the one thats being disruptive. You cannot stop anyone from picturing anything. It seems extremely inconvienent, and unfair because the same cars that exist on the Australian market can be sold in the UK. Vauxford, doesn't matter if a Holden Commodore in London or a Vauxhall Astra appear in Australia, whoever pictures the better one can be used. Its plain simple. I have a strong stickler for higher quality images. Vauxford has accused me of not able to make my own decisions. This is the type of annoyance that I see from Vauxford thinking he'd have the right to replace all his images. In addition, users are expected to let Vauxford know if they are to revert his images, without him seeing for himself. He believes all photographers should have their own styles. When i began in 2014, I was only using an iPad to take car photos and a crummy camera, but OSX helped me improve my photos. He also believes that his images are more superior to mine and accuses mine of being a "carbon copy" [4]. I don't see why he should be focusing on the Asian vehicles and let me focus on the cars not sold in the UK. Its Wikipedia, not a dictatorship, and you are expected to comply with guidelines and policies prescribed. If no one complies with these guidelines, then whats the point of them being there? You may as well delete them. If rules can be bent, then you'd be seeing users able to vandalize articles, which to me is absolutely not tolerated. I think if Vauxford followed CARPIX guidelines, then I wouldn't be starting these arguments. I suggest for all images taken by myself and Vauxford, before replacing, there should be a third opinion. It would be non-negoiable and this could resolve 95% of our problems. Also I know what the image guidelines on CARPIX pretty much off by heart (my memory isn't too good, but this has been concreted into my head), therefore its essential this policy is given to people. I'm strict about these policies and follow by the book as this is how I was told when I began in 2014. If I wasn't told about CARPIX, then I'd not follow these guidelines --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

EurovisionNim and Vauxford, perhaps you could both collaborate on writing a Wikipedia-internal Howto on how best to photograph cars? This would allow others to also learn and help contribute! —Sladen (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be a grinch Sladen, but we have different ways of photographing cars. Vauxford, why don't you add me on Facebook and we can use Messenger to share images. This way, we can work out our problems. I did the exact thing with SquiddyFish, and therefore we are working hard, and ensuring Wikipedia is at its optimum. However, theres no such thing as 'copying' photographs. Also he needs to understand something. I use two lens to photograph cars :). I like your suggestion, and I think Vauxford can edit up the Vauxhall articles to make it to the best quality. Use your books mate that you have and ramp up Wikipedia !! Its not all about photos. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

EurovisionNim Make up your mind! First you said your taking a WikiBreak which you ditched 3 days in. Now you made yourself "Retired" and then later "Semi-retired" and now you trying to sway other people who aren't fully aware of this situation as well as indirectly telling me to edit somewhere else. Well I'm not buying it. Just a reminder, "Retired" means one have stopped working permanently. Vauxford (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember, this is my right. I am allowed to do that if I wish. Remember the discussion we had with Oshwah. He explained I am allowed to retire from editing, then if I change my mind that I want to edit again I am allowed to return and continue. I am returning on a semi-editing plan. I've left a little note underneath explaining I have family issues, so I need the time to have a break, but I cannot seem to retire. Its too hard. I can't seem to retire, its just too hard. Its not like disruptive anyway, so why do you need to make such a big fuss. Theres bigger stuff to worry about. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Nim - These semi-retired/retired templates are to be used when you're not really on any more or are taking long breaks away or are no longer editing here at all .... You added the template(s) to your userpage[5] and then 7-8 hours later removed them[6],

It's also worth noting you say have family issues but here you say "I am not going to be continuing this argument. I think for the best of everyone here, its best I retire. I don't see how I can contribute much with the limits you are restricting me" - Ofcourse I'm by no means saying you're lying but it seems odd you would say the first comment and then 10-11 hours later say it's for a completely different reason (If I had family issues I would not only state this but I'd also not edit here)

If you have family issues then you should stop editing and focus on your family - Please remember we're only a website - Friends and family are far more important. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be brutally honest Davey2010, my editing style has been a little bit too much for you guys. I reckon as we discussed on my talkpage, I want to take a step back. This is one of my new years resolutions for 2019. Again I've explained to Vauxford based on the discussion with Oshwah, that users are able to come back when they wish. I do these, but actually I made a silly mistake, so I'm doing this on a part time basis, balancing my life. I think Wikipedia has got into my bloodstream. i know most to all of Wiki policies off my heart, especially CARPIX, so hence its why I've been making these edits. Vauxford should really be focusing on this. Again, you are one of my friends Davey, along with Oshwah and OSX, however my family issues I don't think have been the best realistically. I lost my grandfather on the 3rd of December, so this has really racked me, and he has been sick. It has come to people like Oshwah who encourage me to edit as much as I wish. I do not intend to lie but I do however change my mind a lot, which may be annoying, and I do apologise, however remember see WP:CHOICE. Users can feel free to stop editing permanently, or decide to come back. I have you guys for the last 5 years I've joined and most of you guys have been supportive whenever I felt down. I've used self-requested blocks in the past, but haven't been very effective to me. I think now Wiki is becoming too many opinionated, but I cannot seem to retire. Its too hard for me. I enjoy learning new things. Now Vauxford has shown me ways to better myself, but I note he is taking it a bit too far. Mate, i think for the better we need to work together and lets continue to build Wikis. My writing skills are extremely poor, so thats why I resort to photos. I can however supersed WP:CARPIX and Vauxford and I along with a few others can work on ensuring a unity of car image guidelines. That means we can prevent confusions. Look, see Wikipedia:Wikipediholic, I am described as a full-blown wikiholic. I am usually on the spot with my emails, however I haven't been out much, so I should now improve my exisitng photos. I hope Vauxford understands, because I mean no harm to Wiki at all. I've received not many barnstars, but I've worked hard to ensure Wikis. I guess I am too passionate, which I unfortunately don't know how to control. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say other then this, even with what you do and how you change your editing habits my judgement and how I view you is going to be same. --Vauxford (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

For some reason things like this come up every so often regarding automotive images. I admit I'm not entirely familiar with this specific dispute as it seems to largely involve late-model European-market cars so I haven't seen most of the edits in question (although this decidedly unhelpful one is among the few).

A large part of the problem is this: an image of a car spotted in a parking lot is rarely an excellent one. By nature, there's other cars, buildings, people, etc. as distractions in the background - and these images usually end up excessively cropped as a result. Sometimes one gets lucky and the car is in the right place and things work out (Vauxford has some very good ones), but generally the best photos come from the car's owner, who can position the car well against a good background and get the proper angle on it (many don't, but that's beside the point). However, most people aren't going to upload pictures of their personal vehicles, so that leaves the parking-lot ones. And most are perfectly fine for the purpose, but the result of that is what you see above - constant debate, and sometimes edit warring, over whose image is the most adequate. In a lot of the discussions I've seen, if the image were graded on a 100-point scale the debate would be over which is a 55 and which is a 56. While there is no "Don't change it if it's already good enough" rule, there does come a point where Wikipedia is not helped in any way by such an incremental improvement. It ends up being a revolving door of people wanting their own image showcased because there's not enough difference between the two to simply select one. Photography seems to attract the most eager ones; I recall in the past prolific photographers being followed around by others trying to become the same. The taunting noted in the above diffs is going much too far though - that sounds like some sort of grudge.

EurovisionNim, your comment of I can...supersede WP:CARPIX... is cause for concern. That guideline is (or was, until the massive back-and-forth changes over the past month) the product of consensus. Nobody gets to throw that out in order to fit their own photography. --Sable232 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have told Vauxford till I am blue in the face, that guideline should be adhered to. If there was no consensus, or the guideline didn't exist, then half of the car photos would be piles of junk. WP:CARPIX is a guideline I have adhered to for many years i've been on the site. If only Vauxford followed that guideline firmly, then, as I explained 95% of our arguments would have not been in place. Otherwise it'd be time before one of us gives up, and I guarantee, I've made lots of friends such as Davey2010, Oshwah & OSX (retired). These guidelines I follow , I don't care what they are, if its that big. Regardless, Vauxford is more than welcome to update/edit the guideline all he wishes. By doing so, we can make sure the thing is in order and ready to be successful. Remember, consensus is non-negoiable, its one of the five pillars on Wikipedia. A quarter of his photos do not adhere to the guidelines prescribed. A lot of Vauxford's images are distracting, but cannot really fault him, however he claims a small spec of dirt and 1/10 of a car behind is fine. Mate, sometimes if theres a good background, such as in the case of this one, then theres no grounds to replace it. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

"prolific photographers being followed around by others trying to become the same." I'm glad that someone get some elements of what I'm trying to get across with this user as well as evaluating the evidence I provided. Nim, I tried to improve it with some basic and neutral rule of thumbs, Turning a basic and easy to read guideline where the reader can choose to follow it or not into a god awful mess. I even put slightly more effort into that contribution by intentionally photograph these examples specifically for that section. This is a example of you taking stuff too literally and ruining it in the process.

Another thing I forgot to point out. Nim doesn't seem to understand the difference between a essay and a official Wikipedia policies123, he seem mash them into one thing and gets exasperated because apparently I keep "violating" them. --Vauxford (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Its not violating any Wikipedia policies, so why should I change? OSX expected all car spotters, including myself to follow his set guidelines to the highest standards. Through your addition of these images, I took the chance to build onto the discussion, as I saw some worse examples. Also the comment "...why can't you focus on cars not in the UK..." [7] is an indicator that you don't want anyone else to contribute cars that are sold in the UK. I mean, is this some joke or something? If a Holden decides to sell one of their cars in the UK (Commodore), you'd tell me that I am not allowed to picture any Holdens? Its everyone's right to photograph whatever car they wish to do, and showcase it on Wikipedia. The guidelines at WP:CARPIX should be adhered to by anyone who is part of Wikiproject Automobiles. I've suggested for you to photograph cars that are European mainly, like Porsche, SEAT, Aston-Martin, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and let someone else do the other vehicles. Its gotten to a point where theres no chance for anyone to share their images on the site, rather you are driving away all the contributors. WP:CARPIX is a guideline which anyone can edit, hell if an admin on this chat decides he wants to edit it, and is not part of WP automobiles, he can. I have utilised some of my 2018 examples to further make it more comprehensive. Charles01 is the main person that should be blamed for the hardship caused. Also I don't really understand why you always get worked up with my images, yes I do replace them, but generally for valid reasons. I try to ensure my images are "perfect". If it wasn't for OSX, I'd be still using my iPad or iPhone and then they'd be low quality junk. I don't replace all your images, however I do if I know mine are improvements of yours (even for little things, I get worked up, as I want Wikipedia to be the best article as possible, this applies to writing too). I only replace them when I know mine (or someone elses, such as M 93's) is better. I like your Vauxhall and SEAT images and others not sold in Australia. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You are basically reciting sentences that been said by other users (e.g. "If a Holden decides to sell one of their cars in the UK (Commodore), you'd tell me that I am not allowed to picture any Holdens? " - which was previously said by Mr.chopper, these are not your own words or your thoughts. Every time someone point out something against you, you flip it around to point at me, this is no way of resolving this conflict. I discredit OSX due to his nature in the past, especially from all the past discussion that he was involved in. I never had a proper conflict with anyone else other then you. Not to be harsh but the way you are talking right now is just proven me how much of a burden you are to people you work with. --Vauxford (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

To summarize things appropriately here, I discussed this dispute between Vauxford and EurovisionNim on my user talk page here and tried offering input and a solution to the matter and to no avail. You can refer to the user talk page section I just linked for more information and a summary of what this dispute is over exactly.

Vauxford - as stated by others above, it's perfectly fine for an editor to use the edit summaries, responses, and other content from others like EurovisionNim has been doing - remember that nobody owns any content on Wikipedia and everything is free for other editors to take and use for themselves. Over the many years that I've been an editor on Wikipedia, I've taken the good templates, scripts, responses, edit summaries, etc that I've seen others use and I incorporated them to improve my editing and how I communicate with others; they helped shape who I'm seen as and how I communicate to this day. If I were met with messages such as, "don't copy me or my things or I'll report you" (such as what you've been conveying to EurovisionNim here, on my user talk page, and in other places), I wouldn't be the editor I am today. This project and building this encyclopedia is what should come as first priority in your mind, and if someone uses your style of editing, adding edit summaries, communicating with others, or use of templates in order to improve this project and make Wikipedia a positive experience for others, you should be happy and you should be proud that somebody sees what you're doing in such a high regard and enough that they incorporate it into their edits and habits. There are editors (such as Thegooduser, TheSandDoctor, LakesideMiners, and many others) who use the user page formatting I designed, the user talk page and edit notice templates and formatting I've created, as well as many other templates and scripts that I created for myself to use. It makes me happy to see other editors follow my example and use the tools, scripts, styles, and templates I created for myself, and the manner and methods I use to edit and communicate with others to improve upon themselves, improve the project, and make Wikipedia a better place to be apart of. If you have the right mindset and attitude, and you truly have Wikipedia's quality, this project's growth, and maintaining a positive culture regarding editors and communicating and sharing with others as your top priority (as you and all editors who are here to build an encyclopedia should have), then you should be open to others copying from others and you should have no problem with editors copying what you do or how you edit in order to make their edits better.

Vauxford, EurovisionNim - Regarding car images, WP:CARPIX, and this other dispute that's mixed into this discussion and complaint here: you two need to sort this out among yourselves peacefully, and get neutral input from other editors in order to fully resolve this matter. You both have been doing the right thing so far; none of you have engaged in edit warring, and you both have been very good about discussing disagreements with each other and without allowing it to spill over into any articles and cause disruption or hardship to others. This is commendable, and I can easily speak for many other editors in saying that we appreciate it and wish that other editors had the ability and willpower to do the same. However, this dispute appears to be something that should probably be made on the project's talk page and will most likely require the input of other editors who are involved with WikiProject Automobiles and adding photos and pictures to car-related articles in order to help resolve.

No administrators here are going to step in and take action or block anyone from this discussion, and no administrator here is going to be able to resolve everything between you two and provide the silver bullet with a perfect answer, recommendation that hasn't already been suggested to you both, or administrator "magic" that's going to make it all go away and with everyone happy. I have a feeling that this is what you're looking for, and I unfortunately have to tell you that this isn't going to happen. The fact that nobody is going to take action against one or both of you should be a pleasing thing for you both to hear, since (as I said above) you two are mostly doing the right things... I just think that somebody ran to ANI a bit too soon and with the wrong mindset about certain things, and that two different arguments and disputes are being thrown into one discussion.

In summary: Regarding the complaint by Vauxford about EurovisionNim copying his style, editing, and edit summary usage... I think this issue can end here and now given what I said above. It's allowed, should be encouraged instead of met with push-back and resistance, and is quite frankly a silly subject to continue arguing about any further. Given the issues with WP:CARPIX: take it to the project's talk page, start a new section, continue the discussion, and ask for the input from other editors (start a request for comment there if necessary) and get this resolved. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah It all sound using people's templates and possibly their editing summary but him trying to do everything I do and trying become Vauxford #2 is problematic. It just result in bland, uninspiring results, I keep telling him to think for himself and hold his ground when people criticise him, he prevent that from happening by latching on the biggest fish (e.g. me or some other person that agreed with him over something unrelated 2 months ago).

A case like this does result a grey area so I don't expect any action to be taken anyway but I just want to have these complaints come to light about him. Another thing that I find irritating is that he stalks me everywhere I go. I know he does as proven when I made a edit on some Czech village that was razed by the Nazis and I added a photo. It couldn't be any more unrelated to cars or anything in his field yet he insist of making some form of edit, even when it wasn't necessary. What you said above is completely fine and I'm not against it but the way Nim does it on a scale equivalent of a parasite. I don't stalk and get right up Charles, Davey or some other editor's back on a daily basis. --Vauxford (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Vauxford - If an editor is doing everything that you do, that's an opportunity to assume good faith, understand that they don't have the level of confidence and self-esteem as you or many others do, and to mentor someone. Help the user to build their confidence and their self-esteem and be there for them when they need you. Is that truly and honestly something you can't do for someone who needs it? Saying to them, "you're copying me too much and that I'm going to report you for it" isn't going to help them become their own person as you mention above as something you wish they'd do. It's going to push them away and make them feel isolated and unable to apply their enthusiasm and their personal desire to improve the project and truly feel like they belong somewhere. I understand that Wikipedia is not therapy, but what EurovisionNim is doing isn't against policy. Just help him. You may disagree with me here, but I don't think that giving other users and editors praise and encouragement, the assurance that there's nothing to be afraid of, positive reinforcement for their good work and their growth, and the mentorship, words, and tools they need to build their self-confidence and their self-esteem so that they feel welcome on Wikipedia and that they belong here is something that I consider too much to ask of experienced editors who truly care about this project, want to see its popularity and participation grow, and want to be looked upon as a leader and an editor that the community respects and will "shush everyone in the room" when you stand up to speak because they all want to hear your words of knowledge and wisdom. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Oshwah. Vauxford, by you making the reverts and saying you have a dislike, is de-motivating me and not allowing me to perform to my full potential. I can't imagine what you are trying to do, with your images and your comment saying my images are junk. The images I upload at least have some value, especially since I did a revert and I informed you in relation to the reverts, but you in your stubborness believe that your image, because its high quality is going to be an improvement. Unfortunately, not to be offensive, but you are wrong. Whilst I appreciate your uploads, users would expect the conventional model of the Mitsubishi outlander, as opposed to the PHEV models, so thats why I suggested you focus on it. Quality is not all about everything, it depends on how you use it. In Australia, the Outlander PHEV is rare, but the Outlander standard is very common, so thats why i left a comprehensive edit summary. In addition for car classification, I let you use your Skoda example, because I knew that was the better example and was rated Quality image. Look, its not all the time I replace your image for the sake, sometimes I use your image for that, and thats what I did. Its a deal and therefore we are all happy. I've left you a msg on your talkpage to discuss this over. If you make a revert, but the edit summary I cannot understand, I'm just going to revert you back. You are permitted 3 reverts within 24 hrs. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Although I personally think he didn't have much credibility in the first place but calling my images "crap" is hitting a new low. As much as Nim can be frustrating I would always maintain my cool and to not make anything I say to sound derogatory. --Vauxford (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Another addition to try and get my point with this user is the edit warring he got into with other users.

• Here

• Here

• Recent one --Vauxford (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please remember Vauxford, this evidence is not edit warring. Thats a little different. Edit warring means reverting within 24 hours three times. I didn't do it that way. Have a read of WP:3RR --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work like that, the first two that you got into with are all a few hours apart or even less and the recent 6 reverts you did are all less than 24 hours respectively. --Vauxford (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

3RR is a brightline - It doesn't mean you go up to that line, The moment you are reverted you go to the talkpage ....

I'm sensing a short block may be in order here.... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 02:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t been previously warned about 3RR in the last I think 4 years. How would a block be effective if I haven’t been warned. I mean I know about 3RR, but it doesnt mean that you should block. Besides I discussed this with Oshwah and he said users must be warned first before blocking. This was discussed on IRC. I don’t believe I have. It’d be unfair to block me, due to the fact that I wasn’t warned about it via a user template (I was warned back in 2014, but haven't since until now been in such a war). Look, I don't always edit war, however remember Dave, WP:BRD is only a suppliment to the policy i.e. the community hasn't really accepted the policy yet :). I do a lot of anti-vandalism fighting. I'm happy to admit, I have gone a bit too far, but to be fair I sometimes feel the need not to contribute but a warning should be sufficient, because I have a good standing, and never misuse my tools that were given to me on the userights. —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vauxford, based on my unacceptable comment. I am extremely apologetic on the way I treated you. I was just totally upset and I knew that it was not on. You are a great photographer and I want you to continue. I hope you understand my error and we move on from there. I like your photos, you are doing such an amazing job and I guess I have gone too far, and I want 2019 to be a better place for everyone here. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, boy... where do I start? My issues with Nim go all the way back to 2015, when he waltzed into the Kia Picanto article boasting about how it is his "least favourite vehicle" (Exhibit A and B). News flash: Nobody cares if you hate a particular car. Then there's the whole mess at the Audi Q7 talk page, where he tagged me and referred me as a "she". And finally, there's the Mazda MX-5 article, where he insists that only he and Vauxford are the only authority when it comes to car images and other editors' opinions don't matter. You see, for the past three years, I've done as much to tolerate Nim's antics when it comes to which images to post on car articles, but his problem is that he takes other editors' edits and reverts too personally. - Areaseven (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Areaseven Just to clarify, I was not involved when Nim did the edit where he said he would let me "handle this" and even if I was involved, I would've left it up to you and Nim, he like to hide behind others because he is unable to stand his own ground when one disagree with his edit. --Vauxford (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate it when editors name-drop other editors on their arguments and excuses. - Areaseven (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally Areaseven, the trouble is that sometimes you revert mine or Vauxford's edits and then you always have to come up with a lower quality image. We aim for the highest quality images possible, and the (Exhibit A and B) were complete jokes. I never intended of it to be taken seriously, I thought you'd guys like a little bit of something. See what happened three years ago doesn't matter, because that was like personally not going to be an improvement. Yes I do take other users edits and reverts personally, The reason behind this is because I want to ensure that the Wikipedia is nicely flourishing to the standards that I know would be in images and WP:CARPIX. Thats why I carefully assess examples, and is based on the guidelines. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

See, there you go again, mate, insisting that your edits are superior to everyone else's, yet there have been instances where you used photos of cars fitted with aftermarket equipment or were just plain filthy. BTW, I still haven't heard your excuse for referring me as a "she", mate. - Areaseven (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I make a really silly error Areaseven, I was typing really fast and did not realise your profile. It was a complete mistake and I do apologise for it --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that's new. I've never heard of a fast typist who immediately assumes that another editor is a female. Got another excuse? - Areaseven (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't an excuse. I thought based on previous edits, I thought your profile was female, then I misread it and didn't realise. I'm so sorry about my mistake --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're saying that "what happened three years ago doesn't matter" then whatever comment that OSX said to you two years ago as your defence doesn't matter either, sounds a bit double standard to me. --Vauxford (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No it does, but thats because me and OSX were on good terms and I didn't mind what he did. I had a lot of respect for him Vauxford. I don't see why i should deviate away from his way of picturing cars. He estabished to me that WP:CARPIX is the way to go with your images, yet you insist that was obsolete. its getting to a point where I don't feel like contributing due to the fact that no one wants to edit and edit, but i cannot retire, its just too much for me. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, proving my point that this is becoming more of a obsession then a hobby, which is giving you more distress then enjoyment. --Vauxford (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand Vauxford, but i have different standards in regards with the quality of the image. The trouble is you lot are deviating away from WP:CARPIX, which was considered a product of consensus, and because consensus is based on the five pillars of Wikipedia, so therefore thats why I have been obsessed over this policy because we want to ensure the images of vehicles are in factory condition and also looks polished and clean. I mean, whilst I'd admit some of my shots haven't been to the best, I'm not the only one, some of Vauxford's earlier ones look tightly cropped. I do however love his recent uploads, which are good enough to my liking. However his 'angle' is very complicated because people may have different preferences. I don't really care much about myself, and my health, hence the reason why of my obsessive edits. I've got nothing else to do – besides I think my images are fine, but I do need to update my edit summaries to a more detailed version. Look, you all, I want to move on and continue to edit --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

By continue to edit warring and inflate your ego? Then go ahead, just don't be shock when people speak out against you. --Vauxford (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No Vauxford. I will not edit war anymore, I promise. However, its not like its as serious as you may think. I do like a lot of your photos, but you and me have the same styles of photography. We need to act as a community band and work together. Images are very subjective and angles are complicated as we have differing versions. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Update on the situation

Recently now, Nim is taking the recent dispute I had on the Honda Civic page as a stunt to catch me red-handed. The first wave of edits was a error on my behalf when Nim wrote in his summary that he replaced a "blue image". I mistaken this because there two blue images on the page, one on the top infobox and one at the bottom of the latest generation, I thought he replaced the one on the top infobox without reading the diff and reverted it but turns out he replaced the one the latest generation one which he knew and apologise and acknowledge on my talkpage as a error on both of us. However he took that back and combine it with a completely separate revert I did on Eddaido and pasted a edit warring template on my talkpage not long ago Davey mention the following of a block from his 3 bouts of edit warring with several users. --Vauxford (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I explained to you pretty clearly that if I made a mistake to let me know. I assumed that because you made three reverts in the last 24 hours that you'd be edit warring, thats what I read. I was completely confused as per WP:3RR, I've also analysed the edit history. You aren't allowed to make 3 reverts in 24 hours, thats the guideline regardless of this. My error was made so, and I've learnt from the three. I'm new to these templates, so I apologise most sincerely. Also being called a 'hypocrite' I take insult personally and I do think its completely unacceptable. I don't understand, but this may be linked to WP:PERSONAL, I was a bit misguided, no need to take it up the chin if I've made a silly error. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't try and straw man what I said to you as a "insult", although was quite brash of me but it true as proven with evidences, it a big difference to your derogatory comment where you called my images calling my images "crap" which I could've class it as a "personal attack" but I knew it was childish and pity of you saying that so I didn't bother. --Vauxford (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologised over this incident, if you want me to do it again I can. Calling images such as that was unacceptable and I just want to enjoy myself, you aren't a bad photographer, don't get me wrong. I don't want this to be a repeat again, but its true. That insult is forgotten and I've moved on from this, but you just bring it up again and again to be defensive. Its just lowering my self-esteem. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I understood that, but I'm not letting you weasel out of it. --Vauxford (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - between this, the taunting, the calling editors out in edit summaries, and the fact that EurovisionNim's (thankfully now-removed) "images to avoid" section on the project conventions page was selected to be mostly Vauxford's work, it appears to me that EurovisionNim has some sort of fixation on and/or grudge against Vauxford. I'd strongly advise Nim to disengage in order to avoid making this issue any bigger.

Despite not being directly involved, I've also noticed that these ongoing image disputes are starting to frustrate other automotive editors. Something else for you to be mindful of. --Sable232 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I know he won't admit it but it very likely so and yes, he has aggravated a number of editors by making RfC on their talk page rather then on their respective article. --Vauxford (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm happy to admit I do. Its easier because what happens is it gives an idea of how consensus works. Its best to talk to the editor who reverted your article, and then get their input. It can reveal the same result as if I were to discuss it on the article itself. Either way both do work effectively as I found. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim You made Charles01 snapped and called you "Comrade Psychopath" which was wrong of him but it take a lot to frustrate someone like Charles that badly. --Vauxford (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 is a person who is trying to be difficult with his choice of images. What he needs to understand is he needs to keep his cool, and go with the flow. I think he needs to be mindful where possible. I reverted his edit. Problem is (and I've seen this in plenty of places), is that when a person gains respect too much, it means that the individual would take advantage of. Remember, Charles, be mindful with your language, even if you get heated, doesn't mean you call someone a "psychopath". I may have made bad judgements in the past and used these words. I want to improve, and thats why I'm here. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've further made a compromise with Vauxford in relation to the Outlander image [8]. What this means, is by setting up compromises, then the dispute is resolved. I am allowed to make any edits what I wish, provided I'm not violating policies and guidelines. In fact see WP:IGNORE as this will give a better outline. Also I'm very picky about background choices, rather than pixels. I don't have much an issue with the pixels, so I'm now being very careful. If its in front of a house or something, its no problems provided theres nothing in the windowsills. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban between User:EurovisionNim and User:Vauxford and topic ban for User:EurovisionNim on automobile related articles

I would like to propose a interaction ban between the two users at odds here since it seems they are both at odds and can't seem to find a common ground and at this point just seem to be yelling at each other for the sake of yelling. I also propose a topic ban for Nim on automobile related article for a short period as it seems they take other users edits and/or reverts on those articles way to seriously and is constantly getting into disputes over them. I believe the topic ban would give Nim some time to reflect and maybe find some other areas they are interested in on Wikipedia and alleviate disputes on those articles. TheMesquito^buzz 02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nom, but I would agree with @Davey2010: bellow, due to ownership issues that have popped up, I believe the TBAN should be idef due to Nim disrupting the Automobile project a ton. TheMesquito^buzz 03:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Addendum It would seems since this ANI is not going Nim's way, he is "throwing the toys out of the pram" and retiring under a cloud as per his talk page. TheMesquito^buzz 08:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

TheMesquito Be aware that this is the 5th time Nim has "retired" throughout this whole ANI, he done it first when I was considering of creating a ANI and he said he taking a Wikibreak as well as requested a self-block, this lasted only 3 days. After I created the ANI, he "retired" again follow by a "semi-retired" which lasted no longer then a day. He then stated he cannot retire follow by another Wikibreak. When things started to not go his way, he "retired" again follow by a semi-retired which only lasted 2 days. I presume this "retired" stunt would be his last, seeing as he blanked his entire user page. --Vauxford (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully he takes a month off and thinks about what he has done and addresses it (ie: no more obsessive ownership of photos and articles, and how he has been disruptive). Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It appears for all the world that EurovisionNim is following Vauxford around (example). Maybe that's harassment, maybe it's some odd sort of hero-worship or something. In any case, it's unconstructive - especially when, after all these discussions, Nim can't possibly be unaware that he shouldn't be doing so. Briefly disengaging these two editors from each other would probably be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Addendum - I support the proposal to make the topic ban indefinite. The more I look into this the more disruptive Nim appears. I'm starting to see things that look like potential WP:CIR issues, but I'd like to provide Nim the opportunity to contribute elsewhere, where this severe obsession and the resultant level of disruption will hopefully not occur. --Sable232 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure the person that is mention in the proposal is allow to have their say but this is definitely would be better for both of us and behalf of the other editors on the Automobile project, it would give us breathing space from the constant arguments and daily RfC discussion that is making all of us restless. It also mean Nim can be ween off from this obsession of the compulsive thought that there need to be someone in Australia to photograph cars like it the end of the world if otherwise and come back with (hopefully) a sound mind. --Vauxford (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I am happy to accept a topic ban for a month. This means that basically I won't be contributing on Wikipedia for this time, thus it'd alleviate breathing space for the group. However this may not be effective because I'd just be continuing uploading on Wikimedia Commons, except this time round, I'd have the time to relax and ignore Wikipedia. After all, we want the best. Also Vauxford is not the only user I'm following around, Areaseven is another user, as indicated in the Mazda MX-5 article. Users who are sanctioned are permitted to take part in these discussions. I also admit gladly that I did that with OSX, except this time we worked together and ensured we got the best. He was more interested in helping me out, so i helped him back. Its very ironic we have the same photo techniques. Unfortunately stopping a user from photographing the same way as you is not going to work out, because remember some of the top photographers people emulate their techniques. This means, the first month I can use, I can have the time to reflect. Unless someone is willing to teach me how to write, the only way I'm able to contribute is with photos, because I do not have very good writing skills, thereby pictures is the only way I can really express myself. I'm also very picky with photos, such as the car should be clean, the car must have no distractions and other stuff. I guess this way I was very picky and I do indeed apologise for the misfortune that I have caused you all, and I hope to remain a productive editor in the next month. I've also resolved plenty of disputes in the previous segments, therefore theres a good chance that I can improve. After all its 2019, but this means that I can slowly adjust to the user's preferences on quality. I had the same problem back with OSX when I first began, however by setting out compromises, thereby we achieved the best outcome possible --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your pictures 6 months ago said otherwise, they had no aspect whatsoever to be remotely similar to mine, the reason why they are now because you simply mimic off them, why couldn't you of done that when OSX was around? You didn't seem to pick up his way of photographing at all. You were "picky" because you treated the CARPIX essay that was heavily rewritten by OSX like it was the Tenth Commandment and you kept shoving it down in all of our throats, it a good reason why I find it redundant because it just far too impractical and seem to tailored specifically in that location.

You clearly are following me everywhere I go, especially when I made edits on an article completely unrelated to automobiles and yet you feel to have the urge to make a pointless edit all because I was there, you also stalk me on Wikimedia Commons and doing tasks such as categorise and changing the description on my own image when the user personally asked me to do them and having to resort to private messaging with other users because you would intervene in them almost all of them. --Vauxford (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

*Support but I'm going one step further and suggesting the IBAN and TOPCBAN should be for a year indefinetely - To be honest I want to say indef but I feel that may be slightly over the top ..., Anyway as there have been constant issues for some time between these 2 as well as with other users I feel an IBAN/TOPICBAN may be for the best for a year,

Whilst Vauxford does primarily update and replace images here (the same as Nim) as far as I can see no one's ever had an issue with Vauxford although I do object to him replacing ALL images to his own - That being said his images are much better quality than those he's replacing,

Nim on the other hand appears to have caused issues with a good few editors and doesn't seem to be listening to anyone and unfortunately at this point in time has become disruptive to the project,

I suggested to Nim a few days that he should take a break for a bit which seemingly went ignored so as such I see no other viable option than a IBAN/TOPICBAN. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Indef TBAN and 6 month IBAN - As of late I've replaced a good chunk of Australian car images with European ones (because English Wikipedia goes beyond Australia and because I believe there should be a variety of images) - Nim had reverted myself and others on almost all articles and there are clear signs of IDONTHEARTHAT in his edit summaries as well as on my talkpage (here and here) and there's certainly a lot of oWNership taking place,

It's also worth noting Nim has gone to every single Wikimedia Project and has added all of their images to these various Projects which given this and their behaviour here I would certainly say there's a very unhealthy obsession here,

Given their mass-Wikimedia image replacements as well as their behaviour here I believe they should be TOPICBANNED indefintely from automobiles and anything and everything related to them - Outside of cars Nim isn't a problem and so despite their behaviour I would consider blocking to be OTT at this present time. –Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment A year would definitely seem excessive Davey2010. Wouldn't it be better if someone who's the first time being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard get like a short period of the ban say 3-4 months. One year seems overly excessive because on the first report, I haven't been blocked for anything, except for self-requested blocks ([9]). These, however, were needed, because I was studying, and didn't want Wikipedia to distract me. Besides, I've apologized over the incidents that I've done in the past, and therefore, if I am just being restricted to non-UK cars only, then I'm not feeling any point in contributing, because there are other users from America, like Kevauto. Besides I'd probably learn my lesson in 3-4 months. I also note that a 'bit' means like up to six months, rather than 1 year. Because theres nothing really on Wikipedia that interests me, that would just be rebutted. I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014. But why are you trying to refer to Vauxford having no issues with other users. Eddaidohad objections with this image, which I was trying to tell everyone and placed options. I also specifically told everyone that if they do not like the current version of CARPIX, they are more than 100% welcome to update it to meet the new standards of other car spotters. I've been using this guideline as my bible, therefore hence I've been careful about my image selections. You want me to have a break, thats fine, but then again, i've been doing this section for the last four years, only 2018 I had the issues with Vauxford & others. Besides the previous edits, I think 2019 would be easier to improve, but I would think that maybe I'd go easier unlike before. I guess now, looking at everyone's complaints, I now understand how my behaviour has caused everyone upset and despair, but I never knew. I do indeed apologise to everyone on how I acted and I hope for 2019, I do more improvements for Wikipedia, but I can't find anything else on Wikipedia. It seems a little bit too much to resort to a topic ban for one year, but I think do a 3-4 month topic ban on the first go. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I see that EurovisionNim mentioned in one of hs rants on this page that I identified him as "Comrade Psychopath". Guilty as charged. I might choose to say I intended it not necessarily as a diagnosis but more as a throwaway remark. Ill-judged for people - and there are lots - who believe that psychcopathology carries or should carry a stigma. But there are serious issues. The fellow insists on uploading and linking mediocre pictures of cars to wiki articles on an industrial scale and reacts to disagreement by treating the wikipedia project and fellow contributors with contempt. The way he assiduously wiki-groomed Vauxford over more than a year was border-line creepy, and seems to have ended in tears. But either way, this is not what wikipedia is for. Or am I missing the point of something here? The more important issue arises where he risks degrading wikipedia by insisting on inserting own photographs most of which are not terribly good. In the process he wastes huge amounts of other folks' time as here. And there is no way to calculate the number of potential contributors who take one look at the way he behaves and wander off to do something else. He says he is very young somewhere. Maybe he is young enough to learn? He must be. But the evidence of the last few years suggests that he is a relatively slow learner. No one reading simply this page will know the sheer scale of EurovisionNim's contributions to talk pages. But wikistats can no doubt be interrogated. And this page does itself, after a couple of days, give a reasonable flavour of the sort of thing we're faced with. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Now that EurovisionNim has dragged me into this, its time to get some facts right. Back in 2014 EurovisionNim was going on a spree replace ok and good photographs with one that were of poor quality and would restore his own photographs when they were removed. It is clear that EurovisionNim doesn't take on any feedback or criticism given about his actions and behaviour. These are the reverts that I did back in 2014 and most were of vehicles not buildings; [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] and [35]. Bidgee (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Bidgee, this was four years ago, besides I've got all these images deleted. Why do you need to worry about an incident that occured more than 4 years ago? At that time, I never knew what was quality and was just plain dumb. You didn't need to do that way because that time I learnt my lesson and no longer repeated the offense afterwards rather i improved my photos based on the feedback you gave me. Thats a totally different issue altogether mate and besides at that time, I was completely new to Wikipedia so therefore I wasn't aware of the policies at the time. Since joining Wikipedia i've grown and now i tend to reduce images as opposed to flooding them. These edits I looked back were unacceptable, because they were all low quality junk and also I understood when you left me [36], afterwards I've completely halted this activity, and focused mainly on Perth. So those diffs are completely unnecessary. If I forgot to apologise, I do so indeed. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't have been raised at all if you never made the following statement, "I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014.", which wasn't truthful! What do you think I was going to do, leave it unchallenged? Though one thing to come out of it is that you haven't changed, you continue to push what image/photo you want, you can try and say its a totally different issue but its the behaviour that you have that is the problem and it hasn't changed from 2014 to present. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also going onto other people's talk pages is not a wise move. Bidgee (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I doesn't see like EurovisionNim can't let it go and is showing strong signs of having ownership issues[37]. I'm starting the lean more towards a block, if EurovisionNim refuses to recognise that he has a problem (ownership/control issues) and address it. Bidgee (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bidgee: I agree, I'm almost tempted to start a different proposal for a temporary block alongside the TBAN/IBAN, this is getting ridiculous. TheMesquito^buzz 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite interaction ban and indefinite topic ban. EurovisionNim would be welcome to request that these sanctions be overturned in six months. For that to be successful they would have to provide reasons there would not be a repeat of the obvious problems. I removed "for a short period" from the heading because longer sanctions have been proposed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per Johnuniq. Have EurovisionNim request a topic ban-lift after six months and then show willingness to collaborate. It seems like this issue needs plenty of cooling off, and my POV is that one month is going to bring it back to ANI almost for certain. RandomGnome (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN as a limited-time measure that is clearly necessary; the best way to resolve this dispute is for EurovisionNim to gain more editing experience in other areas of the project. I'd prefer an explicit 3 or 6 month TBAN, but an indef TBAN with an explicit "this can be appealed in 6 months and there is no expectation of waiting longer" is fine as well. I'm less sure about supporting an IBAN; this seems like a situation where an IBAN might be more trouble than it's worth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Article restriction

The suggestion:

If EurovisionNim wishes to use a different image for a given article, they are to start a discussion on the article's talkpage with both the currently used image and the proposed replacement for the purposes of gaining concensus. This discussion must run for a minimum period of 48 hours. Failure to engage in such a discussion will result in a one-month topic ban from automobiles, broadly construed. Repeat infractions will result in escalating topic bans of one week (ie: third infraction is one month + 2 weeks TBAN).

Would this be workable? Dax Bane 03:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea better. Its more sensible and also it's easier as of course I'd like to contribute. In fact I'd be more than happy to. Would this be indefinite or something? I'll be happy to accept this topic ban voluntarily --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Good question, would six months without infraction before you could appeal be palatable?

Side thought: if the IBAN (one way or both) above is set down in concurrency with this proposal, perhaps a limited exception allowing both to participate in the consensus forming outlined in this proposal be a good idea? Dax Bane 04:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Usually the 6 month waiting period is reserved if you have an indef block or site ban. A topic ban, i don't think specifies there, so if I wish to appeal, I could maybe do it in 2-3 months (so in March or April) :) I'm not sure. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Dax Bane Not surprised Nim prefer this proposal because it means he can continue the very thing that is causing the problem. He been doing exactly what you are proposing, and he beginning to frustrate other editors because of it, we are all fed up having to comment on every replacement edit he does. Another thing this is the 3rd time that he has said the following; "wiki-break" or "retired". He treat the retirement template like it an on and off switch when things doesn't go his own way.

I prefer TheMesquito's proposal because it far more logical, seeing as he has read everything from this discussion and the evidences I provided. The way how Nim express that he "cannot retire, there MUST be someone from Australia to take car pictures", To me this is like a obsession to him then a hobby, bringing distress rather then enjoyment and potentially can be unconstructive in that sense. Plus it mean I don't have to wake up 4am in the morning and my talk page flooded with constant request for comment whenever he want to replace a picture (mostly mine). With this topic ban for a short period of time would be better for him and ween out this obsession and be able to actually think with a sound mind. --Vauxford (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: fair points, it's just a proposal and there's no guarantees it'll be accepted by the community at large anyway. That said, if it does go ahead, and if there are violations then it can be dealt with swiftly without needing another AN/I report (at least, in theory) Dax Bane 06:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you Vauxford, he has an obsession and this has driven (no pun intended) people from the project. I have now very rarely uploaded any photographs of vehicles because of EurovisionNim unhealthy obsession and ownership that he has, so I know how you feel. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose while this a good proposal at heart, looking more into Nim's edits I feel like it would just be more of the same. I think Nim honestly needs a break from the automobile project for a bit in order to give the project time to breathe and give Nim a fresher head. Also I agree with Vauxford above, the retired template is not for when a conversation is not going your way. TheMesquito^buzz 20:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a topic ban is appropriate here. Nim's editing has been disruptive, even if in good-faith, to more editors than just Vauxford. Nim has expressed insight that some edits have been disruptive and sincerely wants to step back, but can't seem to do it, not for very long. A temporary topic ban would also extinguish the interaction between Vauxford and Nim. The auto project would progress without Nim's involvement for a while, allowing Nim to see how a (hopefully!) collaborative and much less combative approach has worked to benefit the project during the term of the ban. RandomGnome (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: The above account, RandomGnome, was created on 24 December 2018. The above is their 17th edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

not important to this thread

Yes, I have edited Wikipedia before irregularly as an IP and am somewhat familiar with a few of the policies (how could you not be, considering how one is pounced on by experienced editors citing this or that WP). If you're making a back-door accusation that I'm a sock, I guess you'll have to go in search for evidence. Although sadly, evidence apparently doesn't seem to matter too much around here when instituting indefinite bans. RandomGnome (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC) What search? The account "RandomGnome" was created on 23 December (not 24 December as I originally stated) [38], and the comment was their 17th edit [39]. I have absolutely no doubt that you, the person behind the account, have "edited Wikipedia before". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC) This is nothing but retaliation because I disagreed with your report below. As I have already stated, if you have evidence of my misconduct then it is appropriate to bring it to the attention of the relevant admins rather than follow me to unrelated threads in an attempt to discredit my edits in other areas of the project. I will likewise bring evidence of your misconduct if you persist. RandomGnome (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Whatever. You just thought it would be a great idea for you -- a brand new account less than 2 weeks old, with a mere handful of edits to your credit --to stick your nose into a discussion which revolves around whether a brand-new editor is a sock or not. No, no, that's not likely to raise any concerns, not at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC) While I'm prepared to believe your efforts to rid Wikipedia of sockpuppets is most likely coming from a good place, it is clearly now becoming a time-consuming disruption for the project. It is certainly uncivil. As evidence of this, I would cite an admin, User:IvanVector who has described your behavior as bullying, while strongly questioning your methods in bringing it to this forum with no evidence. I think this raises far more concerns than anything I have done here. Despite what you might personally believe, you don't own any of the conversations here, and you certainly don't have the power to decide who gets to 'stick their nose in'. I have very well placed concerns that an editor is being banned without due process. And I am clearly not the only one. One more time - If you would like to bring actual evidence of my misconduct to the attention of an admin, I'm sure you are very well versed in how to do that. If you persist in following me to other threads and articles with accusations bearing no evidence, I will not hesitate to use my right to report you for violating policy. On a constructive note, I would ask if an admin could consider counseling Beyond My Ken that it is actually possible for people to irregularly edit this project, and this should not be seen as evidence of sock-puppetry by itself. I would ask an uninvolved editor to please hide this discussion, as it's not constructive and is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair call, I’ll be happy to accept it but would I be able to appeal the ban say in about 4 months? Is that how it works? I’m happy to have it for around 3-4 months but up to 6 months is equally fine as this means I’ll get the chance to do anti-vandalism activities. Bidgee can step in and do the car photos for me while I work on anti-vandalism. Sounds like a fair deal —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DE-Wiki

Apparently, EurovisionNim and Vauxford have both been edit-warring in the German language Wikipedia (i.e. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]). Furthermore, I have asked EurovisionNim twice to stop replacing pics and to refrain from using the English language in the German language version of Wikipedia (de:Benutzer Diskussion:EurovisionNim). To address this, I have "issued" an "Admin-request" in the German language Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen#Benutzer:Vauxford_und_Benutzer:EurovisionNim. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian Correct me if I'm wrong but they not really edit warring examples from me and Nim, I think the worst one out of the you linked was the Kia Sportage one, the rest are hardly relatable and are 1-3 months apart. --Vauxford (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not a specifically wiki-de issue, JohMax. EurovisionNim cheerfully replaces pictures on wikipedia in every langauge with an article on the car that he is photographing. There is probably no "wiki-guideline" prohibiting this behaviour because till EurovisionNim came along no one had the self-belief (good word) or arrogance (nastier word) to behave in this way. But the overall result is even more of an excessive preponderence of pictures featuring the same trademark blindspots as to what makes a half-decent portrait of a car. Or - if you think the fellow takes excellent pictures every time he sets foot outside his home (and he does have a certain talent for "making wiki-friends", as some of the contributions to this page confirm) - the same excellent pictures. But even then, too much of a "good" thing, I suggest! Charles01 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Charles01: I just wanted to mention that there was sort of a "photo-warring" on DE-wiki and that Nim was asked to stop (he has unfortunately ignored it) – I have not seen any other non-English Wikipedian posting a similar "please stop" message on Nim's talk page yet. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote stacking issues

It would seem now that Nim is trying to stack the vote by going to other users talk pages and asking them to come the the thread. Normally I would Assume good faith and just think they where notifying an interested party but seeing as how this ANI thread is not going Nims way, this smacks of attempted vote stacking. TheMesquito^buzz 14:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that in the talk page message they sent to 1292simon, it links directly to the proposed TBAN/IBAN TheMesquito^buzz 14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is getting worse. I feel like we should now, after a hefty discussion, just direct TBAN/IBAN him, and we have the votes anyways. However, we need to fix what he’s done in all the other language Wikis. We need a steward. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oshawott 12: I would almost agree, the amount of issues across multiple wikis are going to be hard to clean up without a steward, but is his replacements in other wikis bad enough to warrant calling one?TheMesquito^buzz 00:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE

About a month ago, an editor under the IP 45.228.205.17 began adding a plethora of non-notable characters to List of Scooby-Doo characters, as can be seen in the page history. Very quickly, another editor by the name of Conner Kent o superboy began making the exact same edits to the page, continually adding trivial information and character entries. It quickly became apparent that the IP and Conner Kent were the same person. Their edits were reverted several times 1 2, yet they continued making very large additions of non-notable characters and created another account, Conner Kent69 to do so. 3 Eventually, after making literal hundreds of edits between the three accounts, they posted a message on my talk page. I suggested that they discuss their edits on the article talk page before continuing to make such trivial and controversial edits. After a short correspondence, Conner stopped replying and stopped editing for several weeks.

However, a few days ago, Conner created an entire article, List of minor Scooby-Doo characters which almost exclusively features non-notable characters that appeared in a single episode, such as "Janitor" and "Foreman and Workers." In addition, nearly all the information was copy-and-pasted from the external site Scoobypedia. As can be seen in his contributions, Conner has also begun spamming his new article on any Scooby-Doo related article he can think of. Yesterday, I posted a message on his talk page requesting again that he discussed, or I would reporting him here for his disruptive behavior. Conner did not reply and has continued making more edits as of this morning. This WP:IGNOREALLRULES and trivial style of editing is obviously not compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominated List of minor Scooby-Doo characters for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Scooby-Doo characters. SemiHypercube 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Zoinks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

...if it wasn't for those pesky page patrollers—! ——SerialNumber54129 22:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

They have also created another trivial article on Scooby Doo related material: The Hex Girls (fictional band). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and at this point it really could be sent to WP:SPI because these accounts seem like socks to me. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring, spamming, refusal to acknowledge consensus - WP:NOTHERE

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

On October 15, I noticed that an editor called TurokSwe was incorporating exclusive elements from Alien vs. Predator (franchise) and Predator (franchise) into Alien (franchise), so I sent them a notification that the pages were for their own respective franchises and that while they have a few elements - Aliens, Predators and Weyland-Yutani - intersecting, that they're still considered three separate franchises. These last few days, they stepped up the ante and began adding elements from all the pages into one another, including non-applicable navboxes for Template:Alien (franchise), Template:Predator and Template:Alien vs. Predator.

SNAAAAKE!! was the first to notice that all three navboxes were improperly present on Alien vs. Predator (arcade game) (diff) and after SNAAAAKE!! reverted the changes and TurokSwe immediately responded in kind, SNAAAAKE!! opened up a discussion about the issue at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template. *Treker also detected the issue and summarily removed the uncorrelated navboxes from List of Alien vs. Predator (franchise) comics (diff), which TurokSwe immediately reverted. After SNAAAAKE!! informed me of the dispute, I restored the pages to their previous state of navboxes, but TurokSwe reverted all of them, including Ellen Ripley (1, 2), Predator (franchise) (diff), Aliens vs. Predator (2010 video game) (diff), Aliens versus Predator (1999 video game) (diff), Aliens Versus Predator: Extinction (diff) - edit-warring, after doing the same with the other editors. At this point, I opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, as things were escalating quickly and I wanted to have a peaceful resolution. Even with very long, drawn out discussions at the navbox talk page and DNR, TurokSwe continued to revert other editors' edits, while we looked to not engage until after consensus could be reached. Walter Görlitz requested that I provide a full account of the situation, which I did yesterday, effectively sealing consensus. Though, the editor is continuing the edit war even today, saying that we should "discuss the issue" - as if we didn't already have an overdrawn, long discussion that was perpetually leading a horse to water.(1, 2)

In the meantime, there's a whole other half to this editor's misconduct on these pages. This editor has been utilizing the website AVPGalaxy.net in such a manner that it triggered spam filters, leading @Moxy: to remove mentions of it on various pages. TurokSwe replied in kind by edit-warring with them on Alien (franchise) (1, 2, 3), The Predator (film) (1, 2), Predator (franchise) (1, 2, 3), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2). Then, when it was alerted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the administrator JzG stepped in to clean up the pages, TurokSwe edit warred with them on Alien (franchise) (diff), Predator (franchise) (diff), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2) - and now avpgalaxy.net has been blacklisted for user-generated content and edit-warring.

This editor has been explained the situation in minute detail repeatedly and with the navbox dispute, we gave them ample rope. This manner of behavior got them blocked from Wikipedia repeatedly in the past - they should know better. With today's insistence on continuing, I can only assume that this is a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. I propose either a topic ban, if not an extended block. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel a site ban is way too harsh, I think a month long block and a temporary topic ban may be order.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to him and not do do again. Don't really know what's going on in other articles besides the infoboxes thing. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a site ban is too harsh, even though I agree that TurokSwe is NOTHERE. A long block is warranted though: for edit warring, for ignoring consensus and for tripping the block filters. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that blocks are not meant to be punitive, they're meant to educate the one being blocked or to protect the project. If that occurs, then the block has been successful. If it has not, a ban may be required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some people take these franchises waaaaaay too seriously. Aliens is one of my favourite films of all time, but this still baffles me. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am very much baffled that all of this even became such a big issue to begin with. Still suspect that this has all really got to with some sort of dislike towards the AVP-brand and the shared universe. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@TurokSwe: it'd not about a dislike of a brand, it's about your approach to editing. If you had stepped back and discussed without edit warring, we wouldn't be discussing this here. It took me a few years (and a few blocks) to understand that. Have you seen Wikipedia:Five pillars? Item four, "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility", includes the key to why we are here. NOTHERE (linked above) might also be an informative read for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing the history, TurokSwe actually broke 3RR twice on two separate articles on 1-2 January, quite apart from edit-warring on other articles. I am extremely unimpressed with the edit-warring coupled with edit-summaries threatening people who he is reverting ([48], [49]) The user appears to be far too invested in these articles, to the extent on repeateadly inserting material not sourced to reliable sources. A topic ban may be the best way forward, though a block is clearly indicated if any further edit-warring occurs. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I for one support this decision, I have been following this issue since it appeared at WP:DRN, and I think a topic ban would be the best course of action as long as no more edit warring occurs. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand what I've supposedly done wrong, I really don't, and I find this whole issue very odd. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

How can you not understand that you've both edit warred and ignored guidlines about how navboxes should be used? It is hard for me to grasp that you could possibly still not understand what people have already told you several times unless you're just willingly refusing to understand it. This is getting very frustrating, please at least read the navbox page and get it from the source if you trully do not get why people are telling you to stop adding all these navboxes.★Trekker (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I also support a topic ban for this user. I feel that six months editing in other topic areas might help them understand our policies better. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is just as frustrating for me, as I still cannot see what I've supposedly done wrong, especially that it would cause this much of a stir. It's insane and it makes absolutely no sense. - TurokSwe (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not understanding the issue does not excuse you from continuing with the conduct. You have been shown the rules concerning unreliable sources, edit-warring, consensus and navboxes every day - you should know this after your previous blocks for the very same reasons. And, again - I cannot believe I am saying this - you are edit-warring with others on this very day. You could literally not have chosen a worse time to do this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, you're just refusing to accept it. I have sympathy for you, I have edit warred in the past and made poor decisions. But one has to accept that they've been wrong to fix this kind of problem. Please do that or I doubt many other will show much sympathy in this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Check the user's block log. They were edit warring in other topic areas too. They eventually received an indef block in 2013 and then a second chance in 2014. I do not think a topic ban will help because the trouble will just move to another media/pop culture topic. If after 5-6 years a user can't understand not to edit war, I don't think we need to offer accommodations. Unless convinced otherwise, I intend to place an indef block. We can't let a small number of difficult editors make editing miserable for the majority of peaceful editors. @TurokSwe: do you still not understand the problem? Understanding is the first step toward changing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: I wouldn't argue with that. Even after this ANI earlier today (which they clearly read, because they replied to it, saying "I still cannot see what I've supposedly done wrong"), they went straight back to edit-warring five minutes later on at least four of the same articles. Enough is enough, I think. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Seems pretty clear cut to me. Jehochman's summary of the situatuion is entirely on point. Time for an indef. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Jehochman: I couldn't have said it better. I've been editing for twelve years, know the rules well and am not afraid of being bold, but I'm not going to edit any Alien articles until this AN/I is closed, as I'll only get exhausted with the spammy notifications about this editor edit-warring compulsively. They haven't edited in two days, but I'm guessing that's because they're intending to make this topic go stale, so they can just go back at it after it's closed. I generally assume good faith, but considering that they've stated that every action of theirs was justified, this one escapes my good will. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• @DarthBotto: - I shouldn't block them until their next incident of edit warring. For the moment I may just tell them to behave as if they are under a 1RR restriction and if they get into another edit war, I will indef them. You let me know if it happens again. I think we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: Okay, sounds like a plan. I've really been hoping to contribute to pages, but it feels like they've been tangled up in a sticky mess. So long as there's the understanding, we can close this. Thank you for your time and input. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd support that. I'm assuming Black Kite is correct in that TurokSwe broke 3RR. There was clearly no exemption, and as noted the editor themselves was faulting others for edit warring and say it's not how disputes are resolved. Then they come here and tell us they don't understand what they did wrong (and fault others for bias to boot). If an editor cannot understand such a simple basic bright line rule like 3RR after all this time, I don't see them having any hope being able to edit productively. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for intervention at Talk:Syrian Civil War

It would be great if someone intervened at Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime. User:Jim7049's arguments consist entirely of denying that sources have been provided, even though they are there for anyone to see. Ignoring him is not an option, as that leaves him free to revert my edits once every 24 hours, and I am not keen to get blocked for violating the 1RR either. I am not proposing that anyone should be blocked, and he has made useful edits elsewhere, but it would be great if an administrator stepped in and put an end to this non-discussion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

He has also been causing issues here and its corresponding article.Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a new post of his in the talk page for this article "Where the hell did you come from? This article doesn't have a 1RR. Go mind your own business rather than stalking me. Jim7049 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)" Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

He also just violated the 1RR which is in place for all articles relating to the Syrian Civil War. At this point, a block might be appropriate. Mikrobølgeovn Nevermind, he self-reverted. (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The true cause of a blocked IP?

Hey, I just want [this block looked into.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:220.245.208.179#December_2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.129.66 (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So you are evading your block to request unblock? The procedure for requesting unblock is given in your block notice. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• 220.245.208.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  The IP is not blocked. They were blocked on 13 December 2018 for deletions at Frankfurt School. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've looked into it. The IP did this [50] seven times and then did this [51]. The block was completely appropriate, which is more than I can say about 220.x's behavior. Then you left this remarkably clueless comment [52]. Does your current IP need to be blocked? Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre edits

Odd spamming of a link (as far as I can tell to) Authority control for no reason I can ascertain [[53]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am doing that so it links to wikidate (if it already exist), and it will be there if/when someone creates it. Seems like a logical idea to me.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What is wikidate?Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata - links to WorldCat, LOC, NARA and other information databases. Even if a wikidate template is not currently avaiable, I added them so that the infrasturcture will already exist when someone makes a wikidata template of, so, the 1896 US presidential election.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a fully made template, it includes links to worldcat, BNF, BNE, LCCN, among others.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So (in essence) a load of links to something that does not exist? I am not sure then this may be actionable (as it was done in good faith) but I am not sure that putting tons of non working links in articles "on the off chance" is a good idea.20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Since communication has been established, behavior explained and nothing actually actionable has been alleged, would it not be a good idea to continue the discussion in a more appropriate venue, like perhaps a talk page? Kleuske (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to explain my reasoning further - are not just links to things that don't exist yet. In many cases there are already large templates, but no one has added the link yet. In others, a template may not yet exist, but if the article is something that would be likely receive one - a library presidential election, political convention - then the link already exist once someone makes a temple. Look at this series of edits on Libraries in Spain for a typical selection of articles that I added that to. Many of them had large templates, but no one knew of this because the link wasn't there. In other cases I have provided a link for if/when one is eventually made.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5

Shahanshah5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removed a link to "History of Iran" from the History of Islam page and removed a WP:RS reference written by a renowned Iranologist (Alireza Shapour Shahbazi).[54]
• Accused other editors of "Azerbaijanophobia" at Talk:Bahmanyar.[55]
• Tried to label Brill publishers as a "non-reliable publisher" (because Brill sources were putting a halt to his agenda).[56]
• Tried to dispute/remove the Persian origin of the House of Sasan, even though it was literally sourced in the article.[57]-[58]
• Tried to label Bahmanyar, a historic Persian figure, as an "Azerbaijani". No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[59]
• Tried to label Iskander Beg Munshi, a historic Persian writer, as an Azerbaijani. No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[60]
• Tried to label the Baku Khanate as an Azerbaijani entity,[61] even though the sources at Khanates of the Caucasus make it clear that this is not WP:NPOV. I even told him this on numerous occassions.[62]-[63]
• Removed the Shirvanshahs from "Iran" and added it to "Eastern Europe".[64]
• Added anachronistic gibberish to the Antioch article.[65]
• More WP:IDHT.[66]

I issued him a WP:AA2 warning a few weeks ago, to no avail. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this editor is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment : The reported user seems to have a pro Azerbaijani agenda here, on the English Wikipedia, and also, with all due respect, some WP:CIR issues because of his inability to read and comprehend English properly : [67], [68], etc ... sounds like a typical case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim7049 reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn

Pages in question:

• Template:Syrian Civil War infobox (talk page thread)
• National Front for Liberation–Tahrir al-Sham conflict (talk page thread)

Jim7049's behavior is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE.

• He is filibustering this thread on the talk page for Template:Syrian Civil War infobox. While ample sources have been provided, he simply ignores their existence and treats the discussion like an Argument Clinic. Although a total of four users (@FunkMonk: @XavierGreen: @Applodion: @Eik Corell:) have agreed that Iraq is a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War (it conducts airstrikes against ISIS on Syrian territory with the approval of the Assad government), he simply ignores it and repeats his own denials. Due to the 1RR, he gets to game the system and effectively prevent the inclusion of well-supported content, even though there is a clear consensus backing it.
• Quote from the other talk page mentioned above: "Where the hell did you come from? This article doesn't have a 1RR. Go mind your own business rather than stalking me." (diff) On both talk pages in question, his attitude shows zero interest in achieving a dispute resolution. Accusing me of conducting original research is also a clear example of baiting.

I previously requested an intervention by an administrator to solve the first of the two issues, while specifically not requesting a block (I am now aware that this was not the right forum for that sort of request). I now propose adequate sanctions to put an end to this disruptive behavior. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all the second article you mentioned was created and heavily written by me so it's funny you accuse me of WP:NOTHERE. For the other one, you are pushing for adding Original Research, I remove it and you open a incident for that? You are the one violating the rules and then report me. Good job. You put an incident of me in here yesterday as well, and now a second one even before any moderate commented on the one yesterday. Rather than blaming me to the mods why don't you explain why you're putting up original research, I am simply removing that unsourced content you placed. You are the one cleary being a case of WP:NOTHERE. At least in the Syrian Civil War article. Jim7049 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You have proven yourself impossible to communicate with, let alone cooperate with. The "unsourced content" was supported by five or six sources (if I remember correctly), as well as consensus on the talk page. Your sole contribution to the discussion was denial at the face of hard evidence. That can work at the Argument Clinic, but not on Wikipedia. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why should it be me who is impossible to communicate to, you are the one pushing for original content. What kind of cooperation do you expect me to have. None of those sources mention the change you are trying to make, it doesn't even imply it. Also it's funny you open an incident when you are the one breaking the rules. I hope a moderator notices this incident you opened soon and gives you a lesson. And what consensus are you talking about? Consensus doesn't give you the right to make original content edits. Just delete this incident and stop being so stubborn. If you ever have an actual source, you can make the change you wish to do. Jim7049 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There are sources aplenty. You can filibuster the article in question, but it won't work in the long run - anyone can read the discussion thread and see that the "original research" is a product of your imagination (or lack of understanding of the term). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what original research is, so I'm gonna leave it to the mods. Jim7049 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, here is the "original research" he is talking about: "Iraq's military involvement in Syria is limited to airstrikes against ISIL on Syrian territory, which it has carried out in coordination with the Syrian government. It has not clashed with other belligerents in the war, including the Syrian opposition." (diff) Notice that this is completely uncontroversial, and backed by a solid number of sources as well as talk page consensus. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Source doesn't mention any coordination, it just says Syrian Gov has allowed Iraq to strike ISIS. My question is why are you so persistent on putting Iraq next to Syrian Government on the infobox. The source doesn't mention any direct support, and this is original research because "Original research ...includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." In no where is there a mention of being a belligerent on the side of Syrian Government in any of those sources, hence original research. The strikes against ISIS could help SDF as well, who is also fighting ISIS so why should Iraq be listed like Iran and Russia next to Syrian Government? Jim7049 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no point repeating the entire discussion here. This is not about a content dispute, this is about your filibustering. As of right now, there is a clear consensus behind the change that you keep reverting, so when the RfC closes, and unless the consensus changes, that's the version that will stand. You've had days to propose alternatives, but actively decided to forego that grand opportunity and instead paralyze the template by exploiting the 1RR. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of spamming, vandalism, disruption, bludgeoning, personal attacks by User:Qualitist

I would like to report User:Qualitist for making accusations of spamming, bludgeoning, vandalism, disruption, and personal attacks in this thread at my t/p. If the allegations are found to be true, may an admin take adquate measures against me. Additionally, I would like to report both myself and them for edit warring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Om Thanvi .Regards.  — fr ⁺ 09:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you really want to draw attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Om Thanvi? Your comments there are pretty much a textbook example of bludgeoning the process. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No one said that you are vandalizing. But to edit war to tag each of my comment when I had already revealed that I am the creator can be considered as forceful attempt to discredit my comments when you are edit warring over the tags by claiming that the relisting admin couldn't read the arguments constituted disruption.[69] Remarks like "welcome to Wikipedia"(to an editor editing for 5 years), " you who is out of touch with the current policies. Lastly, your assumption of bad faith" constitute personal attacks. Finally, telling an editor to try ANI when they drop a note on your talk page[70] is also inappropriate because a person has to resolve issues between themselves before coming to ANI. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that I have been overenthusiastic and am ready to be blocked for it. Using Template:uw-vand1 on my t/p as a method of discussion is I believe a non-starter. Additionally, my comments referenced by Shiv Karan are out of context. Regards. — fr ⁺ 10:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Shiv Karan, you have raised extremely important points which I was unable to reply to since I was editing via my mobile. First off, I never said that the relisting editor could not read the arguments. I was merely saying that there was a chance that the relisting admin had accidentally overlooked the fact that you were the creator of the article and could have acted differently if he had known that you were the creator. Secondly, the editor in question Orientls, has started actively editing after the User:Forceradical account was registered. Also, realistically I don't believe that I am expected to run an XTools query on each and every editor I am commenting on. Thirdly, the full context of that comment is "Lastly, if in your opinion one review of a book in a newspaper in which Om Thanvi was a former employee counts as a independent source which is enough to prove a person notable then I believe its you who is out of touch with the current policies" which was made in response to comment asking me to "familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and WP:NAUTHOR.". Lastly, using the {{uw-vand1}} as a template to open discussion on a t/p of a person with non-trivial edits to the encyclopedia is frankly insulting and demeaning. Iridescent, I agree that I have been over-enthusiastic at the AFD but that should not mean that the badgering and personal attacks by other users at the AFD should go absolutely un-noticed. Please apply policy uniformly. Reagrds. — fr ⁺ 16:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused - you are reporting Qualitist for warning you, but you're also reporting yourself for edit warring? If you're aware that you're edit-warring, step away from the page in question. Unwatch the page, take a break, go edit something fun. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That's good advice.  << FR 11:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:LumaNatic

This editor has a single purpose on Wikipedia, and that is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This outburst is just the latest. This goes all the way back to his first few edits that earned him a for edit warring "enslaver" into the first sentence of biographies of prominent early Americans. More recently, he created a seventh wikiproject even though he was politely told that he should stop. I'm not sure how active the narrow WP:WikiProject White Supremacy and WP:WikiProject Slavery will be, but they seemed to have been created more to demonstrate a point than actually attempt to collaborate with other editors. He has already had people leave messages on his talk page, and he doesn't seem to care. Natureium (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: He has had several categories brought to categories for deletion over the past few days, but doesn't care and continues to create new categories that fit the same criteria. Natureium (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a very clear agenda here; I recently tangled with them edit-warring to add Thomas Jefferson to Category:White supremacists [71]. I'm very concerned they are WP:NOTHERE/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and will end up blocked. That said, the WikiProject creation is likely ignorance of how WikiProjects work rather than malice. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have added the required notification of this discussion to their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • it was there (by Natureium), just not in its own section power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

LumaNatic states that he is a Wikipedian-in-Residence on his/her user page but I don't see her/him on the Wikimedia list. I'm paging DGG and Pharos who have also held this position to get their advice. I believe that there is systemic bias on Wikipedia that could use correction but I don't think this editor is being collaborative in their approach so the effect of their editing will be limited and I doubt all of these WikiProjects, started over a week, will last very long with only a solo contributor. My POV is that a discussion needs to happen with the editor, not a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me send a message to User:Shalor (Wiki Ed), too, to see what she thinks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

She is indeed a WIR. Shalor has extensively commented on her t/p. ∯WBG^converse 07:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment--@Natureium and Liz:--Correct me if I have gone crazy but does the link which is used to cite hers' being a WIR (over her user-page) claim that a broader class of us, editors are white-supremacists? Read the paragraph starting with A major issue that ........ ∯WBG^converse 07:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Indef. per nom; definitely NOTHERE. And, I don't give a damn about the aspects of WIR. We don't discriminate on those aspects. ∯WBG^converse 07:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, that’s what it says. Unfortunately for the institution, they didn’t seem to do any sort of checking before appointing the WiR because he had already been blocked prior to that and has been a net negative since the very beginning. (Also, per that same link, he’s male) Natureium (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  No, that's not what it says - he's saying Wikipedia replicates the broader status quo (which we do) and that the status quo is white supremacist (an opinion that's by no means outside the mainstream). But if he did, so what? We don't sanction editors for opinions expressed off-wiki. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Well we have done actually, but that's not the issue in this case - the problem is their behaviour on-wiki which is seriously sub-optimal. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  For opinions expressed off-wiki? Not personal attacks, not doxxing, but one-time expressions of opinions? Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  I think there are multiple expressions of opinions on-wiki which are troubling and so whether we should or shouldn't consider the off-wiki evidence is a bit of an unnecessary detour. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Guettarda, what led you to assume that anybody was proposing any sanction based on off-wiki evidence?

  AFAIS, I had not mentioned any causal relationship between my question to Nat/Liz and the indented sanction which specifically mentions per nom. Nor did Nat. ∯WBG^converse 08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'd rather not dig into this, but if you insist: You brought up the blog post. You added a completely sensationalist characterisation of its content. (A disproportionate and incorrect one, but I'm not alleging bad faith on your part - that's how your reacted to what you read.) You followed that up by a call for an indef - based on editing behaviour that, while not ideal, isn't something I've ever seen someone indeffed for. So yeah, it's logical to infer a causal relationship between your reaction to the blog post and your call for an indef. Guettarda (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There are a number of quite serious issues here, especially for someone who is a "Wikipedian in Residence" which may suggest they have some extra editing cachet. I think we need to hear from the user quite urgently here. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I, for one, will be watching this issue closely to see how it's dealt with. I don't know much about Wikipedians in Residence or what they do exactly, but it sounds like a fairly important or even honorific title. I'm assuming good-faith, of course, but it doesn't speak well of the project that previously blocked and/or disruptive editors are promoted to this position. RandomGnome (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• I admit that I have entirely run out of AGF with this editor. I don't think that a discussion is going to get a beneficial result. For an example of what a previous discussion with him yielded in the past, see the NPOV/N where he responded "False." repeatedly to concerns and accused editors of "manipulating the rules". If you read it, you'll see that he is the only one there defending his actions, with 11 editors attempting to inform him of why this was inappropriate. Natureium (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• No sanctions Looking at the presented edit history and I fail to see how this is anything more than a reasonable disagreement over what is due. Frankly, Jefferson was a slave-owner and white supremacism was the construct created to prop up slave-owning. There's been plenty of ink spilled with regard to Jefferson's hypocrisies on the issue of freedom and slavery. So to, for instance, insert Jefferson into that category seems more like WP:BOLD than WP:TEND. Perhaps we should be asking why others are edit-warring it back out. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Um, the issue reaches far further than just the edit-warring on the Jefferson article (and all the other slavery-related articles for which they were previously blocked). The problem is that we have a "Wikipedian In Residence" whose edits are in many cases not a net positive. Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I honestly think some people who are willing to comment on the systemic bias of Wikipedia are a net positive for the project, even if they're occasionally straying a bit far into WP:IAR territory to do it. And we have plenty of fascists left here to clean off before we start going after the anti-racists for being inconvenient. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• There's a difference between pointing out systemic bias, and describing opposition to your edits as "the digital version of Charlottesville", "a hotbed of institutional white supremacy", and other manners of accusing others of racism. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well I mean, it may be slightly incendiary, but when a policy like WP:ANYONECANEDIT means that open white supremacists just have to stop short of putting actual hate speech up to stay on the project so long as they observe WP:3RR it's not an entirely non-apropos description. I'm saying that this looks a lot like trying to punish a prominent critic of the project for being prominent and critical. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• What prominent critic are you referring to? If it's LumaNatic, there is nothing prominent about him other than his multiple appearances at noticeboards for refusal to cooperate with anyone else. And WP:ANYONECANEDIT applies regardless of political stance. Referring to other editors as "fascists" is wholly inappropriate. From your talk page, your other wikipedia disputes related to politics make your POV clear. Natureium (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am referring explicitly to my experience with editors who have acted in defense of fascism or have attempted to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to smear the enemies of fascism or to insert fascist and third-positionist talking points onto a variety of political articles, a situation I have had the misfortune of dealing with on many occasions. But if you believe that A) there are no fascists editing Wikipedia, or B) that it is a worse violation of Wikipedia's norms to speak out about the presence of fascists on the platform than to allow them to continue on the platform, you're making a pretty strong case for why LumaNatic is not a net-negative to the project. And I am saying that being a WiR is a position of some prominence, and LumaNatic using the platform of being a WiR to criticize Wikipedia seems to be a main point of contention here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Using the platform to criticise Wikipedia is one thing - if that was all that was going on here I would completely agree with you (and indeed, I would agree with LumaNatic as well). However, that's not the issue we're talking about - we're talking about an editor who ignores any good-faith advice as to their problematic edits, and simply dismisses any opposing views as "racist" or "white supremacist". This is not acceptable in any shape or form, and speaking as someone who agrees with you on most social and political points, I'm surprised that you can't see this. Incidentally - [72] ("a waste of precious time by a digital WP KKK LynchMob"). Hopefully you get the point I and others are making. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you on the amount of crap that gets posted here by racists and other bigots, but we simply cannot have a situation where someone who is edit-warring and performing other sub-par editing responds to any criticism of their editing by simply claiming that the other parties must be racists. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be more inclined to agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the conflicts so explicitly link up with LumaNatic's attempts to have Wikipedia show a more complete view of historical colonizers and the architects of a white supremacist regime that has persisted and infected global consciousness not by fabrication or WP:OR but simply by choosing not to exclude details or shy away from certain critical words to describe people who have been lionized by history. Returning to the Jefferson example, perhaps it is a bit racist (at least within the systemic construct of the word) to get upset when somebody points out the man was a white supremacist. He owned black people. He built his considerable wealth on slave labour. I mean this isn't a disputed point, this is a pretty clear historical fact. So why shouldn't it be said explicitly on our platform? I suppose what I'm saying is that if being a platform that isn't welcoming to racist narratives means an occasional breakdown in WP:AGF that's a price I'm willing to pay. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Why don't you take your political commentary on wikipedia elsewhere so we can focus on the behavior of this editor? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think I've been pretty clear with how my "political commentary" ties into my opposition to sanctions against this editor. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the evidence presented here regarding LumaNatic warrants any sort of administrator-imposed or community sanction. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• We need to confine this conversation to evidence of LumaNatic's alleged unilateral editing, and what is best to do about that, if it exists. If people want to make a case that Jefferson should be added to whatever category, then this needs to be done in the appropriate part of the encyclopedia from consensus building using reliable sources. From what I can gather, it was LumaNatic's failure to build consensus before making edits that brought this to ANI in the first place. I'm frankly a bit disturbed by the statement that we have plenty of fascists left here to clean off before we start going after the anti-racists for being inconvenient. I think any purely agenda-driven editor needs to be stopped in their tracks and back to the sources, and should be answerable to the community, just like we we all are. If they're not willing to comply, then sanctions are absolutely appropriate for either side of even the most contentious argument. Not just the 'more favorable' side. RandomGnome (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say "failure to gain consensus" so much as completely unwilling to entertain the notion that he might be wrong. And that's already how it work. People with a clear NPOV problem are blocked. Natureium (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think you have to look too hard to see concerns that this editor is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. However, in their areas of concerns there likely are places where we have not followed what reliable sources have said and others where we have not presented those reliable sources neutrally. Someone determined to write great wrongs does us no good; someone who improves areas that are incorrect in a thoughtful and scholastic manner is a different story. I would like to hope Lumanatic can move from the former to the latter. There are definitely topics they they have brought to the encyclopedia that weren't here previously and Wikipedia is better off for having. Given their professional employ as a Wikipedian I am surprised to see the over-exuberance of creating multiple WikiProjects, but I don't think that's really actionable. Their characterization of those who disagree with them also needs improvement. If people think that is worthy of INDEFF, I would be an easy convert. However, in the spirit of WP:AGF and because I think their knowledge and interest areas could benefit the encyclopedia, perhaps a strong sanction would be enough to send a message and help them course correct. I will propose such a sanction below around the area which has been the focal point of their much of their disagreements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree. It appears to me that their POV is so strong that the chances of their being a productive editor and contributing without pushing that POV are extremely slim -- AGF does not imply an expectation of behavior an editor has never shown before. I would think what would be in order is either an indef, or, less drastically, a topic ban from anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed. The latter is really the only way to determine if there's any hope of getting positive contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories topic ban

LumaNatic is banned from categories work. This includes, but is not limited to, creating new categories, placing categories on existing articles, or participating in categories for discussion. LumaNatic may place categories on any new article they make, but may not revert (0RR) if a category they place is removed.

• Support as proposer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see that this will be very helpful. His repeated creation of categories that are opposed to the category guidelines are more of a demonstration of his larger behavioral problem wherein he is clearly driven by an agenda and doesn't see any merit in seeking consensus, and even more disruptive, his persistent insulting of other editors. Natureium (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do think that your 0RR restriction could be helpful if applied to all of his edits, based on his penchant for edit warring. Natureium (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see this proposal solving anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think there's an established pattern of behavior that suggests once categories are banned, another route will be taken for agenda pushing, including disruptive editing and insulting behavior. These have already been demonstrated. The discussion above talks about a previous block. RandomGnome (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't address the main issue; the problems with categories are only a symptom of a wider problem. Black Kite (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per BK and Nat. ∯WBG^converse 08:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my previous comment that I don't see anything worthy of sanction here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot

User:RonBot task #7 seems to have gone awry (example here, "not categorized by position" cat added when already in "football defenders" cat), could the bot be shut off until the issue is fixed? S.A. Julio (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio:. As requested, I have blocked User:RonBot for 24 hours. @Ronhjones: something has gone wrong here, which needs fixing.

Other admins, please feel free to unblock when the problem is resolved.

@S.A. Julio, please put an ANI notice on User talk:Ronhjones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: @S.A.Julio: no need I have already notified Ronhjones, see here. Thank you for correcting the problem. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Inter&anthro: I see no mention there of this ANI thread.

C'mon, it's in the edit notice on this page. Not optional. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: That was because when I posted on Ronhjones's talk page, I had not yest posted here. It was only after looking at his edit history that I realised that he probably would not edit for several more hours so that's when I posted here, not noticing that S.A. Julio had already posted. I hope that clears things up, I will notify Ronhjone's of this thread. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Inter&anthro. But it shouldn't have taken an hour after the first post here and 30 mins plus two nudges after your post to give Ron an explicit link. The big orange editnotice should be enough reminder to do it promptly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, especially to Ronhjone. I guess I just got a bit too caught up in the moment, it will not happen again. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'd already left a message regarding the issue, this wasn't as much a "discussion about an editor" but rather request for quick assistance (though notice now added). S.A. Julio (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem a bit snippy about this, @S.A. Julio and Inter&anthro. I know that this was brought to ANI only to find a way of stopping the bot pending a fix to its code, not as a call to do-something-about-a-rogue-editor. Neither of you suggested or implied any misconduct.

However, I have seen many times how once an issue is raised at ANI, it can spiral in unexpected directions. So it's best to make sure that the editor involved receives a prompt and prominent notice which clearly says ANI. That way they can respond quickly to any escalation of concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello a bot called RonBot, has been recently adding Category:Association footballers not categorized by position where the category of the footballer's position is already present. See 1, 2 and 3 for examples. This has the potential to be disruptive and the bot seems to be running away on this edit spree, so if an admin could shut it off temporarily that would be appreciated. I have contacted the user who runs the bot in question. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Done (and sections merged). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the bot's edits need to be rollbacked ASAP. GiantSnowman 08:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I want to think this is just a great self-deprecating joke by someone who's acutely self-aware and has a good sense of humor.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  09:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gallows humour. GiantSnowman 09:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(Though, it does need sorting...) GiantSnowman 09:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I imagine once the bot is "fixed", Ronhjones can re-run it to remove the categories where necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Now investigating. Bot code has not been changed (a rewrite is planned, as it's a bit slow) I suspect that for some reason the bot failed to get one (or part of one) of the lists (the bot compares two large lists). Thanks to BrownHairedGirl for stopping the run. I see S.A. Julio tried to disable it, but the disable only works at the start of the run. I suspect if re-run it would sort everything out. Therefore my plan will be to re-run, with edit lines disabled and check if it will correct all errors, if so then run and fix the errors. Then work out some plan to try to add some extra checks for future runs. Note that these dummy run and real run (if OK) will take us to midnight. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:Still not working correctly. Kante4 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, still broken - so I have re-blocked. Ron you should NOT have unblocked. GiantSnowman 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. Had two windows open and saved wrong version. Aborted when I realised. Dummy run then ran for 4 hours and I stopped to examine the debug files. Bot is planning to remove the category from a lot of files. There's not enough time to run bot now - it won't start the removal process until well past bedtime! Doing a second dummy run to see the full run time - the plan will then be to check again the debug files, and if OK we will start a new run tomorrow, I can then be around to watch the edits. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I am not comfortable with you repeatedly unblocking your own bot. Not sure what @BrownHairedGirl: thinks? GiantSnowman 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocks of bot accounts are a means to stop an automated task, not a sanction. An administrator should remain free to unblock the bot accounts they operate, unless this was done as part of a sanction or would specifically overturn an action agreed by consensus elsewhere and intended to be permanent. --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute becoming a BLP issue

Began as a content dispute at footballer Vinny Faherty, which had suffered from content disputes in the past, e.g. thread. An editor added the player's most recent (quite obscure) club, sourced to that country's football association website. I added their source inline, and generally tidied up the article [73]. A few days later, an anon removed mention of that club, claiming proof of site's inaccuracy would appear soon; after 3 days I restored sourced content [74]. Two weeks later, same again, only I reverted rather quicker [75]. Next day, same again [76], so I took to talk page with sources for player being at the obscure club: thread.

The point of this posting is that the anon then replied suggesting that the player registration process was flawed and offering to email me supporting documentation,[77] which takes the issue way above my pay grade. Where do we go from here?

I've notified the last IP address used by the latest anon, which is likely a dynamic one, and left a note at the article talk page, and also notified a registered editor who removed the content again in the last few hours. Thanks for your time, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Any information that is required I have access to and can send in a private manner. The player himself has stated his only club in Cyprus was PAEEK. Any documentation that is required can be forwarded on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.42.88 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. We need verifiability, which means published sources; not correspondence and private documents. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention we're not inclined to provide our personal email addresses to an IP editor on an extremely public page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio, apparently not listing; I think a block might be the only way to stop it

Wikiims (talk · contribs)

This user has had a CCI request open on them for months,[78] by which time Caknuck (talk · contribs) said the problem had already persisted for months. Wikiims has never responded to or acknowledged the talk page warnings, and in fact has never edited the user talk namespace at all.[79] Recently this[80][81] happened.

I don't think the user is capable of understanding our copyright policy, and will just need to be blocked to prevent this from continuing. Perhaps the Black Ink Crew: Chicago (season 5) should be speedied as well, given that Wikiims is the only significant contributor and the page has contained plagiarized text since its creation; unfortunately I cannot figure out whether this edit was also copy-pasted from somewhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So, is copyvio not "sexy" anymore? Or did everyone think, given the timing in relation to my other edits and this section title, that I had opened this ANI thread about one of the "untouchable" (in the MC Hammer sense) editors and decided to stay the hell away for their own sanity? Because the former excuse makes no sense, and the latter, while understandable, I can assure you that it is not the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have indefinitely (not necessarily permanently) blocked Wikiims until they address these concerns, as they have failed to do so for six years. You don't need to start on conspiracy theories just because your post wasn't addressed within 24 hours. We are volunteers, not your skivvies. Fish+Karate 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I was joking, and you have to admit it is pretty good material for humour when an open-and-shut case like this is not replied to in the time that no less than six new threads are opened, and then closed. (The "conspiracy theory" stuff is ... well, it's not entirely unreasonable, since there are definitely "unblockable" editors -- see for example this discussion that had overwhelming community support for an indefinite TBAN, and ended with a supervote for an undiscussed fixed-term TBAN that definitely did not solve the problem and led to more disruption months and years later.)

All that being said, thank you for addressing this. I'll be happy if that's the end of it. I'll try to see about cleaning up some of the prior copyvio later.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Promotional SPA

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

---

Please block (or whatever is appropriate) User:Techusmani. The account is an SPA whose only contribution so far (diff) is to add a URL which points to a domain called 'Techusmanii dot com'. Their username itself fails WP:PROMONAME. Thanks, Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not the policy ..I apologize for sharing URL. I saw many URLs attached that's why I attached..forgive ne Techusmani (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC) *_{(for clarity, I moved this from my talk page so I could reply to it here. Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC))}

I'd have probably warned you about advertising and left it at that, but there's zero evidence you are here to make an encyclopedia . Also your username matches the base page of the link you posted, which is kinda damning and problematic. In addition, the complaint you made to your talk page (here) was 13 minutes before you made your only registered edit to article space; so that leaves me wondering what other deleted (presumably reverted) edits you are referring to? Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Techusmani per the username policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Political objections to the Baha'i Faith

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

---

There are, at the moment, 2 un-cooperative "cultist" WP editors (no disrespect) who systematically prevent other uninvolved, established, neutral, editors to edit and any make sourced additions or well intended small modifications to this above article (& related article set) - for months! This has to stop immediately. Peace & Love to all! 66.87.9.102 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Confused

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

---

I edited some text and add URL then I got messages from wikipedia of policy violation.I apologize all the things are done by mistakes..forgive me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techusmani (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Please stop the vandalism and removal of academic sources

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

---

I keep on having someone vandalize [82] [83] the article Pilaf by removing academic sources. Can someone please stop this? The username of the one who is vandalizing it is Highpeaks35. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is more vandalism here [84]. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

None of this vandalism; you have a content dispute. You both have sources that support origin in different cultures; you should engage in discussion on the talk page to decide how to incorporate them all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) This isn't vandalism, this is a content dispute. You made some bold changes which were reverted. Now it's time to discuss your changes on the talk page and come to a consensus before you add those changes back in. Please follow WP:BRD and WP:3RR. You're right up to the edge on 3RR and could be blocked if you continue to edit war. Mysticdan (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Finally, you failed to notify Highpeaks35 of this discussion; I'll do it for you Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Four brand-new accounts that obviously aren't here to build an encyclopaedia (and merit a CU-check...)

Between 16:58 and 17:07 UTC today four new, and quite probably related, utterly suspicious user accounts were created, all showing clear signs of not having been created to build an encyclopaedia, but do something they shouldn't be doing here, since all four of them have made ten utterly meaningless edits (adding a letter and then in the next edit removing it again, repeated five times), and then stopped editing, a common pattern among people who want to become autoconfirmed as quickly as possible.

The accounts are:

1. MelbourneStormtrooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. BetsyBoohoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. TheClapIsBack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. EatMyCrabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So could someone check if they're related, and also if there are more of them? Or just simply block them, and get it over with... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Confirmed - all 4 blocked, plus a bunch of others. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Thanks. A full dozen, not bad. Anyone I know? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not that I can say conclusively, no, but I'm not done looking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The master is WikiHogan654 (talk · contribs · count). I'll probably open an SPI because of the number of socks, unless Ivanvector, who blocked the majority, wishes to.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead, I'm having a slow day. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. I can go eat lunch. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

For those who keep their eyes on such things: The sockmaster has been on my radar for edit-warring to include, in articles regarding women who have accused men of sexual assault (e.g. McKayla Maroney, Christine Blasey Ford), very expansive, arguable WP:SYNTH interpretations of sources clearly intended to subtly disparage the accusers. I suspect more mischief will be forthcoming. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

LOLT2

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

---

• LOLT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks to me like a vandalism-only account that is past-ripe for an indef. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, but vandalism reports are usually responded to faster at WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I know that, but I felt this was something that goes beyond vandalism after a fourth warning. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:24.59.245.106 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

This IP changed owner names on TV station articles without seeking consensus. I would have to revert all of their edits, which would be time-consuming. Could someone use a bot or something? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done (Non-administrator comment) I have rollbacked all of the edits to TV station articles except one, which was a good edit. IWI (chat) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Tsumikiria SPA pushing obvious NPOV violations on Gab article, as well as Antifa article.

The title says it all, folks. This user has spent several months smearing Gab and defending their precious Antifa page. Strangely enough, on their own profile, they "support" Antifa. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Nonetheless, they continue to push their POV onto each article. They bring in their friends and establish a consensus, and whenever someone disagrees, this user pushes to get them indeff'ed off the site. Unfortunately, it has worked every single time. This time, they are targeting me for even daring to disagree with their POV. 50.107.81.26 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Furthermore, when they were disagreed with, and other users were reverting their edits, they submitted a page protection thingy so that nobody else could oppose their POV. Sad 50.107.81.26 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and ECP'd Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for two days to slow down the disruption. Feel free to remove or modify protection as you see fit. No idea which version is best. Hopefully we can work this out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The IP is clearly the SPA, there's no evidence that Tsumikiria is given the variety of articles they've edited. And a userbox saying that they support Antifa doesn't excuse "You're an antifa member (aka terrorist)" as a response to Tsummikiria's warning. I've been involved with the article so am not taking any action, but WP:Boomerang may be in order. I know that we've had at least one sock editing this article.User:HappenedAnd88 and an SPA site banned.[85]. A third was blocked for vandalism. That's every editor currently blocked in the last 500 edits. User:Dlohcierekim has now applied ECP. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Note "terrorist" . ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

<ec>There's nothing wrong with requesting a page protection thingy, and the OP is on the edge of being blocked, based on this [86] behavior. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

<ec>>::Highly tempted to block OP and let the regulars sort it out. Showed up out of the blue to go to work on article in question and slinging mud in partisan manner. Looks like a sock to me. Looks NOTHERE to me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@50.107.81.26: Sorry, but you are the sad one. Page protection is done to stop disruption and allow discussion to seek consensus. Apparently you re not amenable to discussion. I propose another remedy.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well now I know to add the gab page to my regular watchlist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

50.107.81.26 is an IP sock. I'd rather not go into any further detail because it's based on CU evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)