Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

@TheMesquito: @Oshawott 12: It isn't as bad as you think it is, what seem to have happen, since Nim have a tendency of mimicking almost anything I do, at one point I did do some replacement edits on different language Wikipedia articles which hasn't been updated for as long as 10 years. I did do some replacement edits on active Wikis such as German and Polish and my rule of thumb of doing it; "If the folks over there rejects my replacement, then that's that" and don't interfere with Wikis such as Ukrainian and Italian as users on there are doing it there own way which I respect.

I like to think my intention of doing these edits are in good faith however the problem is, when Nim found out I been doing it, he began doing the same thing, attempting to replacing BMW X5, Kia Sportage, Mercedes-Benz GLC etc, from my assumption he doing this like it a game of "Who pictures appear on the most Wikis" which safely admit this when he said "but the only reason I want mine to appear is because I want these to be in news articles". --Vauxford (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Socks?

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

---

I'm I the only one who think it strange this IP user came in to suddenly make bold edits and reverts almost less than a day since Nim's "retirement"? There was a recent discussion I created about putting the country where the photo was taken in the captions. This is useful for certain models that are sold different countries like Toyota or Honda, the rest I find unesscary as readers can easily find out what rebadge model or special edition on the Infobox or in the paragraph. This user that hopped onto 3 IP users just done a mass revert on everything I done with the same summary of a quote by Mr.chopper. The IP info doesn't match to where Nim's based in but the behaviour of taking what someone said quite literally is similar.

Current IPs:

• 125.160.209.22
• 202.58.170.123
• 120.188.65.92
• 120.188.33.160

--Vauxford (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block/ban

Given the IPs above quacking up a storm, I propose an indefinite block of EurovisionNim and associated IPs. Nim is clearly incapable of understanding the issues raised here and believes that by ducking behind a curtain that sanctions will be avoided (or, possibly, simply not here to build an encyclopedia). IP socks are being used to, essentially, violate the topic ban before even being enacted; there's no reason to believe it will be heeded once put into place. Easier to block the account and the IPs now and be done with it. --Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support I don't really want to see him blocked, but with the use of sock puppets and other issues, Nim clearly needs some time away from the project. Hopefully he will be given the standard offer and can return eventually. TheMesquito^buzz 05:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't hear quacking. There's no shortage of problematic IP editors in this space (as I recall from investigating Carmaker1 threads here) and the 4 IPs presented are obviously not all the same person; 120.188.65.92 reverted 125.160.209.22 at Toyota Sienta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 11 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).[48]
• Accused other editors of "Azerbaijanophobia" at Talk:Bahmanyar.[49]
• Tried to label Brill publishers as a "non-reliable publisher" (because Brill sources were putting a halt to his agenda).[50]
• Tried to dispute/remove the Persian origin of the House of Sasan, even though it was literally sourced in the article.[51]-[52]
• Tried to label Bahmanyar, a historic Persian figure, as an "Azerbaijani". No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[53]
• 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.[54]
• Tried to label the Baku Khanate as an Azerbaijani entity,[55] 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.[56]-[57]
• Removed the Shirvanshahs from "Iran" and added it to "Eastern Europe".[58]
• Added anachronistic gibberish to the Antioch article.[59]
• More WP:IDHT.[60]

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 : [61], [62], etc ... sounds like a typical case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A problem with this editor was also reported on my talk page in December: see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Another concern. If WP:CIR is the verdict then a conventional block might be considered. On the other hand, if it turns out that POV-pushing is the greater problem, a topic ban from WP:AA2 can be an option. The user was notified of this discussion on 6 January and gave a point-by-point response. Unfortunately all his statements were removed by another editor who didn't like the interlinear edits. I'll leave a further note for Shahanshah5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(The "another concern" thread has been archived to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_46#Another_concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: IMO, and with all due respect for the reported user, i think he has WP:CIR issues and is a POV-pusher. Saying, like he did in his point-by-point answer, that he has tried to add "Azerbaijani" to some articles because he was not experienced enough does not sound like a good faith answer. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This comment shows, one more time, his inability to speak English and his battleground mentality.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, I think Shahanshah5 views WP like a fighting video game. e.g. some users revert and reject his edits but he believes he must win. So he decides to continue his problematic edits or targets some specific topics. Even if we consider his edits as good faith ones, there are some serious issues that can't be ignored: Weak command of English, ignoring WP guidelines and other editors' comments, lack of interest in collaboration, and Obvious nationalistic/irredentist/anachronistic POV. So do you think giving him the second chance would solve those issues? Everything about him proves this case is WP:NOTHERE. But if he promises to change his behavior, then I support a final warning or 6-month block. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also it seems he does not care about his account. Dropped an inappropriate reply on 2019-01-06[63] and didn't try to rewrite it again or write a proper reply. Seriously what is this?![64] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Query If he made a point-by-point rebuttal it might be helpful to see it. Is there a link that I missed? Can it be copied here?19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link you asked for.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:LumaNatic

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

---

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 [65]. 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)

  Infer, not assume. Guettarda (talk) 15:08, 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 - [66] ("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)
• Natureium, I think you're pretending that this Wikipedia environment is colorblind and transparent; telling one editor to take "[their] political commentary elsewhere" in a conversation about the intersection between political statements and Wikipedia editing is--well, I won't use the language that LumaNatic used, but it's pretty indicative of a serious blind spot. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's indicative of me attempting to focus this discussion on the behavior of the editor. Natureium (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• You're just proving my point. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 9 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)

As I stated an indef might be correct. But this user has done editing in the area of race, racism, etc that has benefitted the project and been productive. From what I have seen much, though not all, of their new article work in this area falls into that category. This editor has been highly disruptive but not exclusively so. 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's determined that an indef is not warranted, I think that the suggested topic ban from anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed is the best way to halt the continuing disruption. Natureium (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories topic ban

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

---

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)
• Oppose but only just: there's clearly a problem here but I don't think a ban on editing categories is going to hit the right target. A broad topic ban such as Beyond My Ken proposed above would be a more logical solution, although I also feel that this editor is is on a fast NOTHERE track. But there's lots they could do on Wikipedia that doesn't have to do with their ideology where they can demonstrate they're interested in making a proper encyclopedia rather than making something akin to the opposite of Rightpedia, which is not Wikipedia's place. As much as I or any of us might feel obliged to acknowledge their POV, it has no place here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Topic ban

Since LumaNatic has been editing wikipedia since this thread opened and has ignored the talk pages messages and pings, I think we need to go forward with trying to come up with a solution to this. I'm open to other suggestions, but I think that the topic ban suggested by Beyond My Ken above is a good one. Thus I am proposing a topic ban from anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. He has proven that he can not edit in these areas in a collegial manner and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Natureium (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Not mentioned above (that I can see), but I have seen what I would classify as disruptive behavior (creation of seven new WikiProjects, some point-y, all with just a single participant) in the Wikipedia:WikiProject space as well, most related to the areas covered by the proposed topic ban, including one Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom colonies for which there is not yet a mainspace article (though the the user has a userspace draft for it, here, so it is coming). I did userfy that project, so it is now red. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support The complete lack of willingness to communicate or cooperate with the community, before and after the issue was posted here, merits Beyond My Ken's solution. RandomGnome (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support it would have been good if LumaNatic had come here to discuss the issues, but since they have been editing and have ignored this, then I don't see another option. OK, so they did turn up and comment, only to confirm that a sanction is necessary. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per tone-deaf reaction below. Kleuske (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I don't think the project needs the ongoing disruption, and the obliviousness displayed below promises no change. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per tone-deaf reaction below (thanks Kleuske!). Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per actions current and previous, and per the amazing demonstration below of inability (or lack of desire) to work within a community. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Obvious outcome is obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Yes, this is clearly required at this time. Fish+Karate 12:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Speaking as someone who has placed many topic bans (mainly in the ipa area, also some in American politics), I have doubts about such a wide topic ban (very broadly construed, yet) with such porous borders. It seems like an invitation to innocent mistakes, and also to testing/pushing the envelope. I would prefer an indefinite block, with the option to appeal in six months. But if there is no appetite for that, as seems to be the case, I will support the proposed topic ban. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC).
  • I would be all for an indefinite block if there was support for it. Especially after reading his response below. Natureium (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support in lieu of indef as proposed by Bishonen. Crying "racism" in order to not accept criticism is not compatible with a collaborative environment. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the Bishonen angle on this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, I see problems, esp. with the categories (including the Thomas Jefferson kerfuffle). What I don't see is some sort of serious problem. They were blocked in August, but not since then; the talk page reveals no efforts by anyone except for Shalor and Magnolia677 to actually talk to the editor. And it certainly does not reveal that there is some widespread problem with the user's edits that a lot of editors have latched on to, a problem so widespread and serious that it impedes article improvement, etc. A ban from categories is a much more decent option than an indefinite block. No, what I see mostly here is an editor about to get blocked because of some incendiary comments and a few minor content disagreements, disagreements brought here and blown up (in my opinion) mostly by one single editor. Surely we have thicker skin than what we're showing here. User:Dlohcierekim, I'll just name you since you're right up here and I love you like a brother, so what if they cry "racism"--lots of editors have done so in the past, in various article areas, and the project is still running. If LumaNatic adds "Category:White supremacists" to the Jefferson article again, block them for disruption/edit warring, that's fine--but really, is this one strongly-opinionated editor such a huge problem? I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you name checked Dlohcierekim let me echo their point above say that the cries of racism are being used to not hear criticism. There is a lack of understanding of Wikipedia if they honestly thought that Simonm223's comments resolved the concerns of multiple editors. And this is coming from someone who see value in some of what he does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I know, Barkeep49, and I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but for the utterly ludicrous reply that they made to this post which is collapsed below, which completely convinced me that if we don't do anything this time, we'll simply be back here very shortly indeed. Yes, I know that their block was five months ago, but that reply (and their comments on the CFD discussions) told me that the person who referred to people who disagree with them as "a digital WP KKK LynchMob" and "the digital version of Charlottesville" still has absolutely no self-awareness about how to edit in a collaborative environment. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Black Kite, I'm feeling you, and I think that comment was ridiculous. But at least that one was a while ago; I wonder if we'd be here if the user had been warned and/or blocked at that time, I don't know. And their comment here didn't help. And yet I have two considerations that lead me to say "no"--first, we would block on comments made (and not a lot of comments!) more than on article edits; that's fine, and I've blocked plenty of editors for that, but we don't always drop indefinite blocks for a few comments, unless they are just really way over the top, racist, sexist, whatnot. We'd block and say "think about what you said"; come back next week. You know we have plenty of editors who have caused others problems, and an indef block is not usually the first solution. Look at the block log of someone like Ihardlythinkso (who got unblocked recently, for which I am glad).

Second, I am a bit concerned that we'd do so in a pretty antagonistic environment (the editor is of course partly guilty) without much of a prelude; typically we don't drop these kinds of blocks unless things have been discussed at length, or at least attempts have been made to discuss things at length. I don't want to absolve this editor of everything, but yeah I'll break a lance for them. BTW I find it not easy to disagree with you, or Mike, or Bishonen, but in this case I do. Thanks Black Kite, Drmies (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, but me you find it easy to disagree with? What, I'm such a zhlub? Oy vay iz mir! <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Editor has demonstrated a lack of desire to work within the parameters established by the community. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support in lieu of indef as proposed by Bishonen. Seems to be the best option to me. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I support the general idea here, but I'm concerned about the details. I'm unclear what exactly this ban would cover - and if I am, you can be pretty sure the editor subject to the ban will slip up sooner or later. Would this cover all things Trump-related, bearing in mind a number of commentators have called him a white supremacist in the past few days? Would this cover China? Tibet? Ottoman Empire? Franco-Prussian War? Cyprus? South Sudan? Partition of India? Reconquista? Brexit? World War II? Diocletian? The Exodus? Those are only a random selection of really obvious ones that come to mind; I'm sure there are much more subtle cases of very wide-ranging topics that would seem to be caught up in this ban. GoldenRing (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would assume those would be covered if he's editing them in a way related to any of the subjects mentioned in the topic ban. Although an article like China may have topics that he is banned from, editing the tourism industry related section would be fine. Clearly any article where the topic itself falls under the ban would not be allowed. If this is too complex, there are several people in support of an indef. Either way, this topic ban proposal has been open for 2 days with nearly unanimous support, so unless someone wants to propose an indef instead (or in addition to), someone should probably close it. Natureium (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with @Natureium:: We'll know it when we see it. As will LumaNatic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in deference to Drmies' effort to explain things to the user on their talk page. Perhaps we should be making more of an effort to incubate/mentor/whatever users who clearly want to participate but aren't fitting in with how things work here, although I usually endorse blocks for this sort of behaviour because we just don't have enough community energy to mentor everybody and shouldn't be expected to. I will say the diatribe below is not encouraging, but let's see what happens. Should that not be productive then I support Bishonen's indef block alternative, because we also really don't have the energy to police such a broad ban, though I hope that if it comes to that then there might be some indication that we can shorten the six months appeal restriction. We'll know it when we see it, as they say. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  He shouldn't be topic banned... because Drmies gave him advice? He's been given advice in the past and ignored all of it. Enforcing a topic ban is going to be less energy than all the cleaning up and discussion and attempting to persuade that we've been doing so far. Natureium (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• No rush. LumaNatic has not edited since posting to ANI; there is no ongoing damage to the encyclopedia or other emergency requiring action immediately. 48 hours is not a long time (it has been often said that not everyone can log in every day, and those who can shouldn't hold it against those who can't). LumaNatic indicated in his post below that he would have trouble answering within 48 hours ("It has barely been 48 hours!"). Since then, multiple editors have engaged on LumaNatic's talk page, and LumaNatic has engaged back, specifically stating that he is having a busy week ("This week is quite hectic for me..."). Let's give LumaNatic time to see if he has taken on board the community's concerns here. It's true, we'll know it when we see it, so let's wait and see rather than rush to close this thread. As long as the editor doesn't go back to their prior pattern of editing before addressing the concerns here, why not give it a couple more days, even through the weekend, when editors may have more time? Levivich (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, everyone: This incident has already been resolved per Simonm223's "No sanctions" Tendentious argument

Tendentious argument
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It has barely been 48 hours! And per Simonm223's ... 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) and I have been swamped with work. Hold your ropes - give a brotha/hermano/Jo-sda-da-hnv-tli some time before you string him up, in the year of (y)our dear lord! (Is the ice broken, yet?!). In any event, I've now responded: I defer to my betters: the No Sanctions admin has said everything I could say, but much better of course: "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) Which says it better than I could, as well as: "...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)" 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) and of course I agree this sums up the reason for this whole she-bang in the very first place: * 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?....-Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC) and of course, this: 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) With that said, the Columbia University Oral History blogpost that seemed to cause so much unwarranted angst and confusion is the result of a developing WikiProject (Oral History) with my Masters program, as are the other WikiProjects listed on my userpage, with various on-campus departments, institutions, organizations - but are in development so I can't say any more about them, just yet - stay tuned. WikiHBCU/IO and Freedom Colonies developed from WikiCon presentations, and are also in development... I have no agenda to push, or any of these other unsubstantiated accusations that have already been dismantled, rebutted and refuted by those with much greater insight than I. I stand by their decision of No Sanctions. Sure, I'm WP:BOLD and I do avoid the pettiness that doesn't contribute to building an encyclopedia like the plague- I learned that lesson in my early months that some seem to have dug up in trying to find.... something, I guess. But its all in good faith despite my relative newness (or just plain grad work overload!). I don't know how many other ways this can be said. Anything else just seems like a vendetta intent on some sort of punishing, as the Admin so eloquently stated, and well, you know - that's no bueno, and maybe needs an Interaction Block if this continues. Happy WikiDay! (in 4 days!)~ LumaNatic (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Simonm223 is not an admin. 86.147.97.63 (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Jefferson was a white supremacist" is a fairly common viewpoint these days, especially after Charlottesville. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] The problem is, instead of adding these sources and this viewpoint to Thomas Jefferson (which doesn't yet mention "white supremacy"), Thomas Jefferson and slavery (ditto), or even Notes on the State of Virginia (which does mention white supremacy), the editor added Jefferson to the American white supremacist category, was reverted (months ago), then came back a few weeks ago and tried it again three times in a day [75] [76] [77]. Doing the hard work of adding neutrally-worded, reliably-sourced content about the white supremacist viewpoint to the Jefferson articles would be using sources out in the world to improve the Jefferson articles at Wikipedia; that would be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. However, trying to add Jefferson to the Wikipedia white supremacist category before the article content supports that categorization suggests the editor may be trying to use the encyclopedia to fix the world; that would be WP:NOTHERE. I hope the editor can make the adjustments the community is looking for. Levivich (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC) I am really not an admin. Nor do I particularly want the mop. But thanks for the vote of confidence. Simonm223 (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Malfunctioning bot

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

---

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)

@all: you've kind of raised a good point: now that admins can't technically unblock themselves, should admins be prevented from unblocking accounts they operate (by policy or best practice, not by technical means)? FWIW I have no problem with Ronhjones debugging and unblocking this bot, but what if PEIsquirrelBot suddenly starts replacing all instances of Category:Politicians in Prince Edward Island with Category:Edible nuts and seeds and is blocked? Is it a good idea for me (its operator) to unblock it if I assert that I've checked and repaired the code, or should it be up to BRFA (or whoever else) to re-certify and unblock the bot? How do we know if a bot is blocked because it's malfunctioning or because it's malicious and should remain blocked? I guess we would block its operator if it was intentional? Just thinking out loud I guess, there seems to be a lot of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake in this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Good questions, @Ivanvector & @GiantSnowman.

My take on this is that @Ronhjones's first unblocking was fine. A technical glitch in an approved task was halted by a block, as a technical measure rather than as a sanction ... and the bot owner unblocked when they believed the problem was fixed. Fine by me.

The second block should not have been needed. Ron should have been running the bot in some sort of testing mode, either by making no edits or by doing a slow-paced, limited test run. Ron should have been watching the test edits carefully, and halted it at any sign of trouble.

The first block was because of something unfortunate. The second was due to, well, carelessness.

If the bot runs amok for a third time, it would look like recklessness. At that stage I'd be warning Ron not to self-unblock.

In this case, the error was of a type which is easily revertable at any time. No matter how many subsequent edits have been made, a category can be neatly removed.

Other bot tasks are less easily reverted, and are more likely to become tangled up in subsequent edits. So I'd take a firmer line on those.

So I'd not want a total ban on unblocking one's own bot, and nor would I want any sort of formulaic threshold. Different circumstances require different responses.

If it did get to the point where a bot owner was repeatedly unblocking their malfunctioning bot and the situation didn't seem to be improving and/or the bot was doing things which were not easily reverted, then we would still have the option of blocking the owner pending suspension of the bot flag.

We're a good way off that point here ... but still, it would now be very unwise for Ron to simply made more code tweaks and let the bot start an unattended long run. I hope that Ron will now ensure that any deficiencies in the bot are dealt with by Ron, without any need for anyone to intervene. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The task that was having issues is disabled from writing and is still on debug. The unblock was to allow the other 10+ tasks to run, as they are not being an issue. Maybe we need one bot account per task, but that's quite a change. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:, ec with my comment above. But I do hope that you will now treat task #7 as being in testing mode, and will not let it loose again on an unattended long run until you have done a lot of testing. If there is a third episode of someone else having to block the bot, then I would stringly advise you against a self-unblock. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl Agreed. It's is still testing (no writes), when I am happy it is doing the right thing, I will start it at a time, which will enable me to watch the edits live. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl, S.A. Julio, Inter&anthro, and GiantSnowman: Dummy testing run looked OK, enabled the "remove" template part only for now and ran that - bot has cleared up the error additions. Will enable the "addition" part (probably tomorrow) when I've checked a selection of indicated pages that need the template. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like you got it under control, Ron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Request for blocking user User:84.211.38.17

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

---

The vast majority (if not all) of his contributions (Special:Contributions/84.211.38.17) are disruptive and have been reverted by multiple various editors. He has been warned in his talk page and continues this behaviour. His edits in Mike Oldfield and Steve Aoki are particularly bad because of their quantity and repetition:

• Mike Oldfield
  1. [78] reverted in [79]
  2. [80] reverted in [81] (it was an edit with the same content as the previous
  3. [82] reverted in [83] (same content)

• Steve Aoki
  1. [84] and [85] reverted in [86]
  2. [87] reverted in [88]
  3. [89] and [90] reverted in [91]
  4. [92] reverted in [93]

Aisteco (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a vandalism only account to me. looking at his edit history hes been doing similar things to a bunch of pages. For instance [[94]] [[95]], which is reverted here [[96]] and then does it again. [[97]] which i reverted just now here [[98]] Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock requested

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

---

• 106.198.165.224
• 106.199.32.152

These two IPs have been creating the same edits to several articles relating to India. Perhaps a rangeblock would prevent this from happening again. -INeedSupport- ^:3 02:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't notified the IPs due to WP:DENY. I have been warned not to do it at an earlier instance. -INeedSupport- ^:3 02:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them both. It's a very big range to block (106.128.0.0/16) and it looks like there are other addresses available to that provider (it's an Indian mobile phone company) outside that range. I have posted elsewhere to see if we can take an alternative route. It may also be possible to semi-protect articles if the same ones are being hit all of the time. Black Kite (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor at Talk:Pikmin 2

This is a slightly complicated case. There is an editor at Pikmin 2, Leitmotiv, that has been engaged in edit warring over several months over the phrase "underground cave". They believe that this phrase is redundant and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Their edits were contested in the summer, and then they reasserted their edits a few days ago without attempting to reach a consensus, I posted about edit warring on the noticeboard here [[99]], they were warned.

They have been told multiple times to open an rfc if they believe their position is right, but they refuse to do so. My complaint is two-fold, first is that they took the incredibly inappropriate step of making comments represented as my own here. [[100]].

Second, they have stated that they are erasing the phrase "underground cave" from wikipedia [[101]], as they believe they are an expert and have judged the term redundant[[102]], as they believe all caves are underground. Others have shown the person that the definitions of caves includes caves in the sides of hills and that the distinction is not entirely redundant. I see from their contribution history, that they appear to be blindly removing the word underground from all articles including the phrase. In some instances, this changes the meaning of the sentence and I believe this is a pattern of disruptive editing and editing with an agenda. For example, this article specified that the owls burrow in caves underground, while the average reader would probably assume an owl would burrow in a hillside cave if the word underground were removed [[103]]. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally an agenda. I am free to answer any questions, but the consensus I wrote on the talk page of Pikmin 2 was clearly my own interpretation of the discussion when Basil refused to answer my simple question. And no, I'm not avoiding an RfC, all things when I'm ready to do so. I'm not operating on Basil's schedule. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Battling to change "underground cave" to "cave" in an article about a game is pretty, umm, lame. Find something substantive to work on and forget that article. Perhaps people are dumb and do not understand your point, but it doesn't matter so forgetting about it would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I love a good argument, that I can't deny - so maybe it is lame from that perspective but you could say any mundane task here on wikipedia is lame and that's really not fair to those folks. Honestly, it's really a tempest in a teapot. I'm not arguing for much because my edits would equally be understandable. But the resistance to it is irrational. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing tautology improves the project, so I understand Leitmotiv's motives. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv was warned for long-term edit warring about the word 'underground' at Pikmin 2 per a complaint at WP:AN3 which was closed on 8 January. I have explained to him how RfCs work, though he has yet to explore that option. The AN3 seems to be an exchange of complaints that the other party isn't discussing properly. Anybody who knows how to open an ANI should also know how to do an RfC, so the way is open for the real discussion. Since both parties know what the real next step ought to be, I suggest this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, this ANI isn’t about the edit warring, I provided it here for context. This ANI is 1. About the conduct of misrepresenting comments as my own. No editor has the right to speak for or as another editor. And 2. A pattern of disruptive editing at all articles with the phrase “underground cave” based on a personal agenda. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that removing tautology insn't improving the project, that it is a personal agenda? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I am saying I don’t agree with their assessment of “underground cave” as a redundancy. Early in this debate in the summer, another editor pointed out that the definion of caves include hillside caves, making a distinction between hillside and underground not redundant. In the example above, the owls burrow in underground caves, while without the term I think the average reader would assume a hillside cave. I disagree that their specific agenda is improving the project. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 17:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You may disagree with my reasoning on my edits regarding redundancy, but that hardly makes my edits disruptive nor an agenda - I'm improving Wikipedia in my own way, that's the only "agenda" I'm guilty of. If there is a special case needing closer examination, I'm happy to discuss the need for clarification/distinguishing certain types of caves in those instances, should they arise. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, it is an unacceptable use of english, but wont comment further. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This may be a good place to discuss the tautology of "underground cave" since Basilsauridae refuses to answer some fundamental questions I asked her at Pikmin 2, even though I know this thread is more about perceived slights. It's okay to use hillside cave as that is descriptive of it's locale, if there is a need for it. But a hillside cave is still underground. I've never deleted a "hillside cave" for redundancy. If there is a need to label a cave as "cave in a field" that too is fine, but it still remains that both a hillside cave and a cave in a field are both underground. The very thing that Basilsauridae cannot answer is why there is a need for distinction on Pikmin 2, nor any other editor on that talk page. There is nothing special about the cave at Pikmin 2, which contradict's Basilsauridae's concern for confusion on other pages, because she has repeatedly dodged answering why a distinction is important at Pikmin 2. For what it's worth - Cave den or cave burrow would also suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have answered the question several times, you just don’t like the answer. 1. It leads to an underground cave level. It describes the kind of level as well as location. 2. I disagree that it is a redundant phrase. And no, this is not the place for the Pikmin 2 debate, as you’ve been repeatedly told: the appropriate venue for that is an RfC. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's okay for you to discuss it prior to my comments. You're still dodging why this cave needs a distinction when "cave" would suffice. Are there other types of caves in the game that could confuse the reader/player as to which cave we're talking about? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I will not be engaging in this debate with you here or outside of an RfC. I have expressed my opinion fully and reasonably on the talk page, and summarized here for anyone interested. That is not the purpose of this ANI and you are aware of the appropriate venue. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

On the question of tautologies (or not): sea cave, glacier cave, etc. --JBL (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis A sea cave is always underground, even if it is also underwater. A glacier cave could be a particular exception in some cases, I suppose. Anything lying on the ground, could be considered a part of the ground, including the mineral ice. However, I could see some exceptions as a small possibility if somehow a reader was confusing a dirt ground with one of ice, though off the top of my head I can't think of any. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

As always, ANI isn't the place for content disputes so not sure that the above discussion is helpful. IMO it's fine for an editor to change one or a few articles per WP:BOLD, and then participate in a discussion to defend that change if they are reverted. I would suggest that changing a large number of articles enmasse is likely to be disruptive unless there is an RfC or some other wider discussion that establishes the term is clearly wrong or unneeded. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Nainanike

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

I've let this go on long enough, but it's clear in my mind that this user is WP:HOUNDing me. To the point of I now expect them to follow me around. They make only a few edits a day, but the numbers that follow an edit I make is increasing. In September I asked them to stop this, which was reverted. At the time, I asked NinjaRobotPirate for some help/advice on this, and he posted this on their talkpage. It was reverted. He then started to post constantly on my talkpage, which I asked him to stop. The stalking continued, and again I asked them to stop. I've pointed out to them multiple times that there are tens of thousands of articles relating to cricket to edit/improve, but it's amazing at the high percentage of edits that follow me around.

I started a log of "highlights" here. The other problem is that this user logs out and edits as an IP from multiple ranges. These are listed via same link, and can be seen below the hounding info. Note how many blocks and rangeblocks have been applied. Any further help with this would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban to prevent Nainanike from editing an article or participating in a talk page discussion where Lugnuts has been active. Actually, if someone cares to do a bit more checking, I would also support an indefinite block because the creepiness has been ongoing for months—the NinjaRobotPirate warning was 26 September 2018. I checked Nainanike's most recent nine edits and they clearly are following Lugnuts. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure a traditional one-way IBAN is going to be effective here. The number of talk-page interactions are minimal and the chunk of edits I looked through in the interaction analyzer didn't contain many (any?) reverts - it is substantially more common for Lugnuts to revert Nainanike than vice versa.
  Looking through the results of the editor interaction timeline since September, there are a very uncomfortable number of Nainanike's edits where Lugnuts made the previous edit. And the old interaction tool's results are rather worrying (though I seem to have overloaded the tool and broken it for the moment) - out of the top 24 articles where they have both edited, I think I'm right to say there is only one where Nainanike edited first (and that in the past few days - the tool itself seems to get this wrong sometimes, though, and you have to go look at the timeline to see who was first). By my calculation, 1999 of Nainanike's 2,543 edits are to pages also edited by Lugnuts, nearly 80%.
  It seems pretty clear that Nainanike is following Lugnuts around; it is less clear to me what the intent is. As noted, there has been very minimal interaction on talk pages or through reverts; it's clear that Lugnuts is finding the attention uncomfortable and unnerving. It seems on a glance that Naianike's edits are generally useful (ie they are not a vandal-only or harassment-only account) though I haven't looked at this aspect in great detail.
  So what to do? A block seems over-the-top for an editor whose edits are generally useful (if I've got that right, of course); can we ban someone from editing pages that have been edited by another user in the last X days? Is that likely to improve the situation? GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe there's zero interaction via talkpages (I'm happy to be proved wrong on that, of course). The issue that this has been going on for months and shows no signs of stopping, and has been told on multiple occasions, including once by an admin, to stop doing this. A block can always be lifted if they acknowledge this issue in their unblock request, and promise not to continue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I was including the 'User talk' namespace under 'talk pages'. GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Today's first edit. Sigh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

On top of what seems to be WP:HOUNDING, I'd like to point out that the user is also violating WP:TALKO by deleting other's comments on his talk page. here [104] and here [105] Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not a talk-page violation. With certain exceptions that are not relevant, there is no problem from removing comments posted on your own talk page. The issue should be simple: I think two admins have semi-warned Nainanike and all that is needed is a block when unexplained stalking recurs. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ontop of this, this editor also has a bad habit of updating things way before they actually happen, such as this. For thos of you not familar with the world of cricket, this edit shows that the ground in New Zealand had hosted a match on 11th Jan, with the edit made on the 10th Jan, some 7 hours+ before the game actually started. This isn't just a one-off and happens across similar articles. There's always a chance a game might not take place due to rain, and at worst, this is adding incorrect information into WP. I see it in the same light as an IP vandal who changes a DOB by one day, for example. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Nainanike has ignored requests to participate here and has instead carried on editing cricket-related articles also edited by Lugnuts. I have therefore blocked for three days in the hope it will encourage them to participate here. Any admin who feels the situation has been resolved to their satisfaction is welcome to unblock without checking with me, especially as I won't be around a lot over the weekend. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinated editing attack on University of Management and Technology (United States)

can an admin here take a look at what i suspect is a coordinated editing attack on this page? There are a bunch of editors who i suspect are sockpuppets and have for decades reverted totally legit edits that I and other editors have made on the article. If this is not the proper place to file this request then please let me know; as i understand there is a sockpuppet investigation place where it could also go under. My mistake in advance if there is anything wrong with this notice as this is the first time i have requested help here. Flickotown (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flickotown: No, p Per WP:UNIGUIDE, I have removed the spamcruft from that page; please do they should not restore it. If you they think there is any benefit to the encyclopaedia in using the page as a brochure for that institution, you they should take your their concerns to the talk page and discuss elements for inclusion. ——SerialNumber54129 11:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I don't think Flickotown is using it as a brochure - see here. It's Bikerun and Mgtguru.

University of Management and Technology (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is worth a look.

These are two accounts that are nearly a decade old - so it looks less like sockpuppetry, perhaps a bit of tag team at worst. But these accounts are restoring a policy incompliant version of the page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Apologies, I misread the diffs, and you are of course right. Many apologies to Flickotown, and I havce struckedn / adjusted my previous remarks and would now simply note that they should now be read as being directed at users Mgtguru and Bikerun, whom I agree are almost cerainly not socks...just faculty members / alumni. ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:, what do you think? ——SerialNumber54129 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:SPI if have evidence, pure vandal go WP:AIV. urgent case that not suitable for both go here.

BTW, I are not sure your username is too similar to Fenix down or not. Matthew hk (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not similar at all. Fish+Karate 11:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• User:Serial Number 54129, I think a real CU should look at this, following an SPI for the two, with the new account User:Superbedit thrown in as well--with a fairly close examination of behavioral evidence (I'm talking about idiosyncrasies and things like that). FWIW I endorse CU for this future case. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• The following accounts are  Confirmed, blocked and tagged:
  • Superbedit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mgtguru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Bikerun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • PolishedRaven (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• --Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 v. Hijiri88 and Curly Turkey

Darkknight2149 was TBANned for six months from editing comics-related articles following two rounds at ANI, with a large number of participants:

Hijiri88, Drmies, Softlavender, Twitbookspacetube, NinjaRobotPirate, Mr rnddude, Jbhunley, Paul August, Mifter, JJBers, Adamfinmo, Someguy1221, User:I JethroBT, Aircorn

Ever since, Darkknight2149 has been slandering and harassing myself and several others (in particular Hijiri88, Twitbookspacetube, Drmies, and Softlavender, whom DarkKnight2149 fantasizes as a sort of cabal conspiring against him). Examples:

• a drive-by retaliatory attack comment against Hijiri88, which led to a discussion about possible hounding on Drmies talk page; not long after, he started another discussion there accusing Hijiri88 of hounding him—not asking for help, but accusing Drmies of collusion and threatening to have ArbCom examine it
• "one step away from being reported to the Arbitration Committee"
• more accusations of collusion between myself, Hijiri88, Softlavender, and Twitbookspacetube, in a discussion I wasn't even part of, with more threats of an upcoming ArbCom case
• accusations of WP:FACTION and WP:SANCTIONGAMING against the same group, with a reiteration of a "final warning" and more threats of a pending ArbCom case; this while trading information with a now-indeffed sockmaster who was attacking me
• Even showing up at my talk page in a discussion unrelated to him, again talking about "bookmarking diffs" for this supposed ArbCom case (and reiterating his supposed "final warning")

The last straw was this, where he even pinged me in a discussion totally unrelated to me just to let me know he was slandering me again, and reitering the ArbCom threat out of the blue. EDIT: in reaction to this, I told him to drop it or I'd file this report; he responded with not only more of the same, but with a "disruptive editing" template and block threat on my talk page.

I've told him any number of times to put up or shut up with his constant threats to bring me and my "cohorts" to ANI, but it's become obvious the threats are empty and meant only to harass me.

At the very least, I'd like to request the community to ban Darkknight2149 from talking about me, since he does so only to harass me; I'll otherwise leave it to the community to decide how to deal with his wider behavioural issues, and to his other targets to speak for themselves. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Don't use the word slander or any of its forms to describe another editor's conduct/statements on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd honestly support any sanction the community sees as appropriate to deal with this disruption, but this time it should be indefinite (as I believe community consensus favoured last time; six months was essentially Drmies casting a supervote - I don't begrudge him that, but I think subsequent history proves it was not the right call) to prevent comments like this. And yes, slimey, empty threats meant only to harass and intimidate, like the latter part of that diff, are pretty characteristic. This time the community needs to be clear that his behaviour is unacceptable, and he shouldn't be allowed just wait it out while denying all wrongdoing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The diffs above are spread over nearly two years. This is not exactly high-intensity disruption. But given that it's been going on that long, perhaps an indefinite community IBAN between DK on the one hand and CT and Hijiri88 on the other is in order? GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• The interaction ban, should there be one, needs to be two-way. While DarkKnight2149 reacted really badly to it, it was Hijiri88 (a frequent flyer here at ANI) who brought DK2149 up first, wholly unnecessarily, in an unrelated thread a few sections up (perma-diff here). And then DarkKnight2149 for no reason decided the absolute best thing to do would be throw around terms such as " dishonest, passive-aggressive" and to unnecessarily tag someone else he'd been arguing with (Curly Turkey). And then Curly Turkey decided the best thing to do would be to unnecessarily go in all guns blazing, managing an impressive 7 uses of the word "fuck" in one and a bit lines. It's all very personality-driven and exactly what an interaction ban is for. You'll notice I used the word "unnecessarily" a lot, which is exactly what this all is. Fish+Karate 15:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  I will add that this templated warning from DarkKnight2149 is really unnecessary, and inflammatory. If DK2149 can't understand when a templated warning is not a good idea, perhaps extending this incipient ban to also bar DK2149 from using templated warnings for a while wouldn't be the worst thing. Fish+Karate 15:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with F+K's iBan note. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Concur with Fish and karate's reading. A lot of escalation from all sides. AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• I've recently noticed Hijiri88 often seems to bring up editors they've had disputes with in unrelated discussions to make a point. Many of these editors are either under a site ban or indef, or have otherwise left, and yes, we do sometimes bring up such editors for various reasons but I have sometimes wondered whether Hijiri88 is overdoing it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree I could have reacted in a more measured manner; I don't believe that doing so would have lessened the harassment—it began without me, and the evidence shows DK has no intention of dropping this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That's right you could and should have, "sticks and stones" and so forth. That said, I do think that DarkKnight2149 bears a grudge against you (and others) and needs to be restrained. Paul August ☎ 23:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• As further evidence of that: "stay the Hell off my Talk Page, Curly. Your/Hijiri's frequent spammings from Feb 2017 are single-handedly why I abandoned my Archive box."—in response to the required ANI notice that I left with no comment (and which DK is well aware I'm required to leave). Here's the list of edits I've made to his talk page that he characterizes as "frequent spamming". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Drive by comments, after reading the diffs presented, I agree with F+K and think an IBan between the parties would solve the issue.--v/r - TP 00:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• (pinging the admins who have commented: Drmies, Fish and karate, GoldenRing, TParis, Paul August, Bbb23)—surely Darkknight's changing of the discussion title[106][107][108] from "Harassment by Darkknight2149" to "Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 v. Darkknight2149" is not the sort of thing ANI tolerates? That and the edit comments are more evidence to add to what I initially provided. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry User:Curly Turkey, but I'm actually OK with that--it's more neutral. That something was "harassment", for instance, wasn't proven; in fact, that's why you're here. "Charge of harassment" is different. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Drmies: The subject of the report, for which the evidence was presented, is an accusation of harassment, not an accusation of "X v. Y". Virtually every header at ANI is an "unproven" accusation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Curly: I, personally, don't think the title is important. Not the hill to die on.--v/r - TP 00:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"A rose by any other name ..." Paul August ☎ 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say an ANI thread would smell like a rose, this would probably be a better comparison. SemiHypercube

TParis, Paul August: Were this a neutral third party with legitimate concerns about neutrality, I'd have nothing to say; but this is accused turning the header around to emphasize the accusers over the accused—not in the slightest an NPOV thing to do. Would ANI tolerate it if I were to reverse the title to "Darkknight2149 v. Curly Turkey and Hijiri88"? That would better reflect the evidence provided and nature of the accusation, but I'm pretty sure it'd result in an instant block. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not DarkKnight vs. the entire community. I've changed many a header on ANI and on talk pages; they do actually need to be neutral. No need to ping me in this thread. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

How could any comment made in this discussion (or the header) be construed as "DarkKnight vs. the entire community"? This is a non sequitur.

"Curly Turkey and Hijiri88" is not neutral—Hijiri and I are not a duo, Hijiri was not involved in the filing of the report (nor in the original disputes), and Darkknight's attacks have been directed at a larger "cabal".

I still believe the header should reflect the content of the report, but would you object to "Darkkight2149 v. Curly Turkey and others"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Either suggested name sounds OK, but why do some people insist on ANI threads being titled like a legal case? SemiHypercube 02:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a simple comma replacing "and" would suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I did not consent to or support CT in opening this ANI discussion, and I did not (as implied above) bring up DK out of nowhere "unnecessarily" -- I was asked (in a not-so-polite fashion -- Ctrl+F "conspiracy theories") why I thought there were "unblockable" editors and linked to the best example that came to mind, but I could have mentioned any of about a dozen others. I was then subjected to a harassing comment out of nowhere, by an editor who was clearly monitoring me very closely (he and I hadn't interacted in almost seven months), to which I remained completely silent. I have had almost no agency in this matter, and see no reason why I should be named in the thread title. Therefore I would politely ask the community to give strong consideration to CT's requested title, and to leave me out of this. I said my piece above, and had every intention at that time of just leaving the matter to the community at that point. For the love of the encyclopedia, please just let me go about writing articles without subjecting me to yet more of this drahma. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

So, because the original named subject of this thread wanted to add me as a party, because forcing me to waste time on ANI fulfills his agenda of deliberately and repeatedly harassing me (again, how did he even know about the above, as he hadn't edited ANI in eight months?) he is allowed to? If he wanted to file an ANI report on me, he should have done so. He didn't. Curly Turkey filed an ANI report on DK, mentioned me, and then DK decided to add my name to the title. How on earth is that "more neutral"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems a decent idea. As an alternative if people still object, how about Curly Turkey, Darkknight2149 and Hijiri88? Alphabetical order, no vs. just the three editors this thread is mostly concerned about. Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri's not a filing party, nor the subject of the report. Why not stick the names of DK's other targets in there? This is how DK's disruptive tactics are taking root and a reason why the subject of the report should never be allowed to mess with the header. But whatever—could we deal with the harassment? The was a strong consensus against DK in the last ANI, and the only consensus here against me seems to be that I say "fuck" a lot—I sure as fudge haven't been following DK around to prod and threaten him, and nobody here has accused me of anything like that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

How is Hijiri not involved when people are proposing to i-ban them below as a result of what has arisen in this thread? AFAIK you're an experienced editor, so you should know ANI discussions are not restricted in scope to the people named in the original report, but in fact the actions of anyone involved in the dispute are likely to be considered in the interest of fairness. If the actions of anyone else start to be considered in detail, then sure, name then in the title. So far this has not happened. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And how much has that been influenced by DK's manipulating the header? I am an experienced editor, and in my 13+ years experience at WP I've never come across a case where the subject of an ANI report was allowed to manipulate the report header. As the opposers below note, the evidence provided against Hijiri is next to nonexistent. How about providing some substantial evidence before Hijiri gets named in the header? That was a minimum requirement for me to name Darkknight2149, after all—a whole list of diffs. If a header r any content is to be changed, it should always be by a neutral third party. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'll take the most measured stance I can since this is a continuation of now years-long drama. The bare minimum action that should be taken here is the imposition of two two-way IBANs between CT and DK and Hijiri88 and DK. As to the above inane section title dispute, legal cases are, to the best of my knowledge, titled plaintiff vs defendant. DK is not the plaintiff, so it makes no sense to put their name first. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not going to spend too much time here, because I'm filing an Arbcom case request over the weekend on this extensive matter (Hijiri and Curly seem to have mistaken my exasperation and reluctance to get around to it for "empty threats". I don't really care what they think. Before, it was "It'll never get accepted!" Now, it's "He'll never do it." Wait and watch.). I'd also much prefer to keep watching Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 hang themselves by their lies, with no ammunition to spin from me replying. I mean, is anyone actually looking at their so-called "evidence"? Some of it is just laughable. For instance, I changed the title of this dispute from the blatant lie Harassment by Darkknight2149 to a more neutral Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 v. Darkknight2149, and he actually attempted to argue that I strategically placed his name in front of mine to avoid drawing attention to myself. I just rolled my eyes and reshuffled the names. Now, he's trying to get it changed to Darkknight2149 v. Others to make it seem as close to Darkknight2149 v. The Community as he can possibly get. A more hilarious example is in Hijiri88's recent diff, where he tried to claim that I said "9,000 people hate you, Hijiri!" (when, what was actually said was "I don't know anything about this, I'm too busy to be involved in this, but I don't know about the 9,000 other users you pinged"). You can see their dishonesty on full display. Hijiri88 and Curly also have a habit of accusing me of exactly what they've been doing, so there's that as well. I'm not about to go through and refute every line of accusation they threw at me, because they would just try to twist my words around and this is going to ArbCom anyway. I have also collated quite a bit of genuine evidence against them, all of which will be exhibited there. In the meantime, they can continue their Wilson Fisk act.

Likewise, I'm not exactly sure why Curly Turkey is still acting like his frequent WP:FACTIONing with Hijiri88 is some sort of secret. It has been out of the bag for a while now:

• Curly Turkey's talk page is practically a forum between the two of the them (I have even seen Curly post a new message on his own talk page, addressed to no one in particular, knowing that Hijiri will automatically know it's for him)
• Hijiri88 has canvassed Curly Turkey to get around his editing restrictions, which included Curly making multiple reverts for him while he was under WP:1RR ([109], [110], [111], [112], [113])
• Hijiri88 and Curly often show up at discussions where only one of them is involved to support each other. If fact, they always support each other or have similar positions in disputes.
• Hijiri88 even admitted to bias at the lastest ANI report, saying "I'm probably not going to post here again... I'm gonna recuse myself from !voting in any of the below proposals because my past interactions with both CT and DK are a matter of public record and if I was accused of bias ... well, the accuser would probably correct"... Yet he actually did go on to vote, post regularly, make biased one-sided proposals in Curly's favour, and be one of the driving forces behind the dispute (later denying the bias altogether).

The persistent meat-puppetry between Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 is a matter of public record, yet administrators have been completely unwilling to address their behaviour. I highly doubt the Arbitration Committee will feel the same.

The TBAN that Curly Turkey is so fond of using as his "shining example" also isn't valid at this point, which will be a key point at ArbCom. Not only was the entire ban built on false pretenses, but it was largely driven by the tag-teaming of Curly Turkey, Hijiri88, and Twitbookspacetube — a confirmed troll, liar, and supposed "clean start" account who lied about not having open sanctions (among many other things), and was later blocked for all the things I warned everyone he was doing at that ANI dispute. To make matters worse, several of Curly's "likeminded supporters" migrated from WP:COMICS specifically to defend him at ANI, and the dispute was largely regarded by the community as a trainwreck. And worst of all, the ban solved absolutely nothing, given that Curly continued his behaviour at WP:COMICS, being royally uncivil and starting fights with other users over the same discussion where he claimed I was the problem.

That being said, if you have already made up your mind like Paul August and drank the Kool-Aid on Curly's bullshit, I doubt any amount of evidence or the truth is going to change your mind. But I think I can safely say that I'm not the one holding a WP:GRUDGE. Hijiri88 in particular has an extensive history of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour (which has earned him multiple blocks), he has admitted to holding a grudge against me over a Talk:Mr. Freeze disagreement from 2016 (even though he also admits that I did nothing disruptive there, but he still brings it up). Back in June, Hijiri88 began stalking my contribution history and WP:HOUNDing me out-of-nowhere, as soon as he saw that I was unblocked for something that wasn't related to him in any way, shape, or form. Hijiri lost it, and immediately started reverting my most recent contributions on random articles ([114], [115], [116]). He then promptly messaged every administrator involved in the unblock individually and accused me of "Wiki-lawyering" (an accusation that the unblocking administrator completely shut down). He then began smearing and gossiping me to other users, which he is still randomly doing nine months later. Now, he's exhibiting clear WP:DIVA behaviour by posting more lies about me on his user page and threatening to retire. Paul, do you actually think I want any of this?

Observers should also draw attention to this brilliant exchange, where Curly Turkey tried his usual bullying tactics on an administrator:

• Fish and Karate: "Do not restore the reverted content again."
• Curly Turkey: "It's all going straight back up again tomorrow regardless, so you're not accomplishing anything but aggravating people with this behaviour. You still have the option to revert and hat, like I requested—unless threatening victims of harassment with blocks is more your style."
• Fish and Karate: "And then you'll get blocked."
• Curly Turkey: "CAN I AT LEAST HAT IT?!"

And by the way, I never claimed that there was a massive secret "cabal", although I have pointed out Curly Turkey's tendency to WP:FACTION with other users. The term "cabal" was coined by Curly, and recently, Hijiri88 parroted it by saying I'm part of some exclusive group of "unblockable users". DarkKnight2149 20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

DarkKnight2149 and Curly Turkey are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions. DarkKnight2149 and Hijiri88 are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions.

• Support as proposer. Also, the next party to continue the lame edit-war over the title of this section is gagging for an EW block. GoldenRing (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  GoldenRing: Darkknight2149 has gone and done just that, despite your warning. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I had not seen GoldenRing's comment when I made that revert. Still, you did not gain consensus before changing it to Darkknight249 v. Curly Turkey, even though everyone (including administrators) told you it was fine the way it was. DarkKnight2149 21:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support both the two-way interactions bans (DK<>CT and DK<>H88), per my above. I have asked DK2149 for the rationale behind posting a templated warning to Curly Turkey's talk page, and he said that this rationale will be provided here. That'll be something that may influence whether I think the interaction bans are sufficient at this time. Fish+Karate 10:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have done nothing wrong here, and do not accept an involuntary sanction for disruption caused by another editor who was hounding me. I know an IBAN would theoretically prevent him from hounding me, but experience has taught me that that is not how it would work out. GoldenRing is well aware of this experience -- I opposed his RFA because he had expressed the opinion that I should be blocked as a result of another editor hounding me and me complaining about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  This "it's never me it's always them" attitude is exactly why an interaction ban is warranted. Hijiri88, it was you who brought up DarkKnight2149, for no reason whatsoever, in a completely unrelated thread. One could argue you "hounded" him there, but it doesn't matter; a two-way fault-free interaction ban stops you all endlessly sniping and chipping away at one another and allows everyone else to have some respite from this nonsense. Fish+Karate 12:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And you appear to be implying GoldenRing is suggesting this interaction ban in bad faith because you opposed his RFA. I am sure this was not your intention, so I suggest you tweak your wording there. Fish+Karate 12:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment According to his user page, Hijiri88 has now retired, but I feel that this should not preclude an interaction ban being imposed, both to avoid DK2149 continuing in this way in Hijiri88's absence, and just in case Hijiri88 opts to return at a later date. Fish+Karate 13:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Should the ban go into effect, Hijiri88 needs to change the text on his userpage. Much of it is talking about me, and not in a flattering light (the whole "hounding" situation was a spat that took place back in June). DarkKnight2149 22:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Fish+Karate 09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "hounding" refers to a couple of cases (two off the top of my head) where editors were sanctioned for having hounded Hijiri. I don't know if it's appropriate to name them here, but the cases are on the public record. What evidence does DK have that it would be about him? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Clearly, from the oppose above, users are incapable of interacting constructively and clearly there is a lack of self awareness as to how unacceptable this behavior is. I have little doubt we'll be back here with this issue in less than 6 months, but it's worth trying.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support per Dlohcierekim and replies, and the title squabble isn't helping anyone's case. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a reasonable tool to prevent problems in the future from returning. One-way interaction bans aren't useful anyways, the unsanctioned user has no reason to interact with someone who is prevented from responding. IBANS are a good no-fault way of stopping problems; to say the users cannot interact with one another doesn't mean they are equally at fault, but it does mean that there won't be problems going forward between them. --Jayron32 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose two-way IBANS, and Support some sanction for DarkKnight2149. I've seen enough from DarkKnight2149 to convince me that some sanction is necessary, an IBAN, at a minimum. I believe that this editor bears a grudge against several editors, and is unwilling or (as I suspect) unable to burry the hatchet. But, I'm unconvinced that any sanctions—even supposedly "no-fault" ones—are warranted, for the other two editors, diffs anyone? Yes, I understand the "plague on both your houses" mentality, but still. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Paul August: You could start with the one I provided, above, showing Hijiri88 bringing DarkKnight2149 up for no perceivable reason in a wholly unrelated thread. Fish+Karate 09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Per my previous comment above. An IBAN would certainly keep them from continuing to lie about me, indiscriminately smearing my name across Wikipedia, stalking and harassing me out-of-nowhere, randomly showing up where they're uninvolved and attacking me for having an opposing viewpoint (which is how this all started to begin with), ETC. Though keep in mind that I'm filing the Arbcom case request over the weekend regardless. Between the lying and WP:GAMEing, the frequent meatpuppetry between Curly and Hijiri, WP:BLUDGEONING, canvassing of specific administrators, ETC, this isn't an issue that's going to get solved at ANI. And yes, I fully intend on filing the case request. If Curly wants to accuse me of bluffing, I really don't care. When it's up, it's up. DarkKnight2149 20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

parsed -- Dlohcierekim (talk)

I should also mention that while two-way IBANs would specifically end the conflict between me, and Curly and Hijiri88, it would not solve their larger behavioural issues. They would just continue to do the same things on other discussions with other editors, as they have been doing. And given the persistent meat-puppetry, I'd say that Curly and Hijiri need to be banned from interacting with each other, but that's a proposal for ArbCom. DarkKnight2149 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per Goldenring. Hijiri88's comment above seals the deal for me that he should also be subjected to it.--v/r - TP 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  TParis: a word or two seems to be missing from your rationale, rendering it unparsable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  It parsed just fine. Or finely cut parsley.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  "Hijiri's seal the deal"? I'm sorry, but I don't speak this dialect of Gibberish. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  My mistake. Folks brought up in my RfA back in '07 that I tend to type faster than I think, and I fubar my comments. I wish I could say things have improved.--v/r - TP 00:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Paul August. The one diff offered in evidence, supposedly "showing Hijiri88 bringing DarkKnight2149 up for no perceivable reason", does not even mention any names. The fact that DK inexplicably noticed immediately is just further damning evidence against DK. User:Fish and karate's pissy attitude towards Hijiri ("We are volunteers, not your skivvies", apparently) suggests he is less than neutral here. zzz (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  You don't need to ping a name for the user to be mentioned. It's clear who Hijiri88 is discussing. And the - ahem - pissy attitude was for Hijiri88 complaining because an admin had not responded to his ANI post. You will note I did actually address the problem (the problematic editor was blocked). Fish+Karate 10:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No complaining: he was making a joke. This was pretty obvious, but in any case, he immediately said so. I don't really see why you are still defending it. I notice you also accused him of making up "conspiracy theories" - hardly surprising that he would mention something he thought would counter that accusation. zzz (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A jokey complaint is still a complaint. I do admit I have a bee in my bonnet about users complaining when administrative processes take too long, and I do get more defensive about it than I should. I'll bear it in mind. Fish+Karate 12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's disappointing how little effort the supporters appear to be putting into examining the evidence and context. The same thing happened initially at the ANI that got DK TBANned—there was even an early proposal to TBAN myself, until people started looking at the actual evidence and started interacting with DK. Very soon, the community turned on DK, with community consensus for both a block and a TBAN (though only the TBAN was enacted). Look how quick DK is to attack those such as Paul August who have also called for people to slow down and examine the evidence—that alone should be setting bells off. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Article: Malta convoys

• Malta convoys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After this and this, & perfect willingness to discuss both times, I've effectively been told by User:Keith-264 there's nothing to discuss, because he's right. I expect another false accusation of vandalism any minute now from an editor who seems to believe he owns the page (judging by his numerous edits every day & refusal to acknowledge he even has to defend any of them). I also expect another Admin to look at my edits, & this notice, claim I'm just gaming the system, & do fuck all, just like last time. So this is probably a complete waste of time & effort, if not an open opportunity (yet another!) to block me for "incivility", which so many seem to be looking for. Funny, the edits I made from around 20 Sept (& which I can't find again in the history, as usual...) were perfectly okay when made by somebody else (take a look at the page now & day before yesterday, & compare). AGF? That's getting harder to do, when I keep seeing other people managing to do what I just attract rv & complaints of vandalism & indifference & accusations of "gaming the system" for. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If two of you are discussing and can't come to a consensus you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution and not ANI to resolve the dispute. That said, I'm highly concerned about the false accusations for vandalism by Keith-264. If they continue, they IMO should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll allow I've broken 3RR. So has he. And Nil, you've seen two more false claims in the space of 2 minutes. (I am pleased to see somebody cares about that.) He's also not responded here, tho notified. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Incidentally, because of their false accusation, Keith-264 has just broken 3RR. (Since they aren't reverting vandalism the exemption doesn't apply.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I only broke it after he effectively said he had no intention of discussing. It appears to me the vandalism claims are an attempt to circumvent 3RR. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a resumption of the previous edit war from September 2017. Insofar as there was a consensus then, it supported Keith-264, though the closing comment of a relevant RfC specifically noted "no prejudice against further discussion about what else specifically could be removed." Discussion is the operative word here; Trekphiler, you should discuss the removals on the talk page, and try to establish consensus for all or some of them, instead of attempting to edit-war them in. If Keith-264 isn't willing to discuss your changes anymore, clearly that means he's a no on them and any support for them needs to come from other directions.
Keith-264, please refrain from edit warring and from false accusations of vandalism. While you are right that the context is relevant, in no way does it make Trekphiler's edits vandalism; vandalism means deliberately disruptive edits made in bad faith. Sideways713 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Trek made an unwarranted inference and yet again made a capricious mass removal of material, which broke consensus and is what I reverted ages ago becuase he was the one who stopped talking. Trek's edits in the context of earlier discussions and the long silence since, were clearly vandalism if not sabotage. If you take the trouble to look at the talk page you will see that I refused to accept Trek's framing and his tactics, not the principle of consensus seeking. I am willing to discuss the material he wants out but not from the position that he removes the material and requires persuasion to put it back in since this won't be forthcoming. My next suggestion was to be an exploration of the use of the note as a way of moving contentious material rather than removing it according to one editor's demands; trouble is, I've got Manflu so it will have to wait. Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

PS what happened to my comment here earlier today?Keith-264 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Guys, get a room. This is a content dispute and is best solved by discussing on the Talk page with references to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Discuss & get consensus"? With somebody who refused to even answer any of my remarks the first time & called it vandalism, & this time said he had no position he had to defend & wasn't "beholden to me", effectively refusing to discuss this time, too. Discuss what? And I see false accusations of vandalism are perfectly okay, provided I'm the one being accused. And I see somebody else making the very same edits I did is perfectly okay. Did I start over with the same edit as a year ago? I must certainly did. I believed it warranted then, & I do now. I also knew this was going to be a wsste of time. Go ahead, block me for being "incivil", again. At this point, I just don't give a damn. Trying to improve anything here is like trying to hold back the tide. Canute ^{I can see Shannon!} 16:03 23:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Two editors at loggerheads do not a consensus make. If the discussions here and on the article talk page aren't enough to make additional editors weigh in, you can try pinging the users involved in the previous discussion on this topic (given that they generally took Keith-264's side last time, no one could possibly consider it canvassing); or you could post a neutrally worded note somewhere like the talk page of the Military history WikiProject, requesting the input and views of uninvolved users interested in the subject.
If you can't establish that the consensus now supports your edits, don't push the matter too far, and remember that there are many other articles for you to improve. Sideways713 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

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

---

diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked IP one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Bbb23 and User:Joshua Jonathan. FYI, I note that this IP is doing the same edits [117] as was done by the blocked sock Special:Contributions/Damian_Bronson of WP:LTA User:Wikiexplorer13. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 16:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: could be, but it's a dynamic IP on a busy range so we probably wouldn't do much more than block it for a week anyway. If they start up again afterwards it would be worthwhile to report the IP to SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and balance issues at Mitch McConnell

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

---

I would like an administrator to review this discussion and weigh in on User:Snooganssnoogans' interventions in the article itself as well as the Talk page. It is my opinion that the user blatantly disregards the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia and makes it impossible for well-intentioned editors to enhance the article. Though I am requesting review of the user's actions on this page in particular, a review of the user's other contributions will reveal a disturbing pattern. I believe that the remedial measures required to correct this user's behavior are out of my league, and would appreciate the help of experienced users/administrators. Please note that the user in question has created an entry at the Neutral point of view Noticeboard regarding the sentence in the article that gave rise to the current skirmish, but, as I said, the issue is much bigger than just that sentence. Of course, by requesting review of this user's conduct I am fully aware that I will subject my own conduct to administrator scrutiny, which I welcome. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Rajulbat (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

• @Rajulbat: My first impression is that you ought to follow the advice already given, which is to now justify your actions at the article talk page and seek consensus for the change. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oh,and have you partaken in the NPOV discussion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  The NPOV discussion started after the one on the article talk page and before any discussion had even started there on the topic. It's premature to take to NPOV.--v/r - TP 22:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand why Snoo is still editing in ARBPOL articles. Since the drive-by mass inclusion of undue material into biographies AE case, their behavior has been brought up multiple times and each time it's determined to be just under the threshold for action to be taken. They're playing the line well.--v/r - TP 22:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly. Snoogans has single-handedly driven more than a few editors away from american political articles due to their relentless reverting. See their talk page and history for more edit warring warnings than I've ever seen on one person's talk page. Natureium (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Natureium, I'm getting the feeling that you're all over ANI trying to get people blocked and banned. Now, here's a thing: you either prove that "single-handedly driven more than a few editors away from american political articles" or just shut up: it is an awful accusation, it should not be made lightly, and as far as I'm concerned it's a pretty foul personal attack, an uncollegial low blow. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't remember ever having a disagreement with you before, so I really can't figure why you're greatly exaggerating and making accusations against me in both of the only two threads at ANI that I've commented on. (Not quite "all over ANI", now is it?) The only two editors I've mentioned both have an indisputable record of edit warring. Why are you trying to turn this on me? Natureium (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• This seems like an edit war over sentence construction, because unless I'm missing something, both versions are basically saying the same thing. I see it now, (thanks to MastCell) - attributing the material directly to just one source and deleting the other sources. Nope, can't do that without following: If you're the one making the change, then you have to gain consensus from the community via the talk page.RandomGnome (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• As best I can tell, the question revolves around this material in Mitch McConnell's biography. Snooganssnoogans has repeatedly inserted it, citing several reliable sources which back the wording in question. Rajulbat has repeatedly removed the material, replacing it with an statement directly attributed to the New York Times.

  From a content policy perspective, Rajulbat's actions are pretty questionable. He is repeatedly reverting the text to suggest that it is the Times, and only the Times, which contends that McConnell's reputation suffered. To address this issue, Snooganssnoogans added several other reliable sources making the same point—thus demonstrating that it is not solely supported the Times. Nonetheless, Rajulbat keeps removing the additional reliable sources and adding back language attributing the conclusion solely to the Times ([118], [119]). That's poor editing on Rajulbat's part; he is insisting that the wording be attributed only to the Times, and at the same time deleting other reliable sources demonstrating wider support for the material.

  From a technical standpoint, both Rajulbat and Snooganssnoogans are edit-warring. From a practical standpoint, I'm not inclined to take any administrative action other than warning both editors to stop. I would add that if I were handing out sanctions, I would look less favorably on Rajulbat because his role here seems questionable for the reasons described one paragraph up.

  As for Snooganssnoogans's pattern of behavior, I'm not particularly familiar with him and not in a position to judge, but if that is a serious concern then it should be raised with appropriate supporting data either here or at WP:AE. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  The link I have above is an AE case. I agreed to let it close w/o action after a commitment by Snoo to improve. I don't see much of that.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell's comment in full. Neutrality^talk 22:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I too am concerned by Rajulbat's behavior. It seems clear from coverage in a range of reliable sources that McConnell's reputation as a master tactician suffered because of the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act as he had promised. It is not productive to focus on the wording of the New York Times headline and it ought to be simple to agree on wording less colloquial than "takes a hit". The discussion at Talk: Mitch McConnell has taken on a bizarre tone, with Rajulbat commenting, "There are many blog websites where Snoogans can express Snoogans' opinions for free. There are also web hosting services, like GoDaddy (no affiliation), where Snoogans can obtain Snoogans' very own domain in exchange for a minimal monetary investment. For example, "snooganssnoogans.com" is available to register for $2.99." To me, it seems quite creepy that Rajulbat is researching domain names for Snooganssnoogans, and then accusing them of trying to "smear" McConnell. I encourage Rajulbat to back off. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm amazed. This dispute is not about the sentence in question. The issue is chronic. When I look at Snoo's edit history, the page that User:TParis linked above, and this page, I see that the problem has been remarkably well documented. When I initiated this notice, I accidentally linked to the entry on the POV Noticeboard when I meant to link to the Talk page of the article. If you guys have thoroughly reviewed the foregoing links and don't see a POV problem, then I will take User:Cullen328's advice and back off. But I'm definitely not the first to notice.--Rajulbat (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

Rajulbat, can you explain why you researched the availability of a domain name for the other editor and accused them of "smearing" McConnell? Can you explain why you removed the other sources besides the NYT? Don't you see how problematic your own behavior has been here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain. I checked the availability of the domain name and reported its availabilityto emphasize my point that Snoo's edits are, in my opinion, extremely biased. The point I was making is that it is not necessary for Snoo to push their POV on Wikipedia articles; that instead of expressing their own POV in the voice of Wikipedia, Snoo should take advantage of other fora meant for personal opinions. This way, the value of Wikipedia as a nonpartisan resource for factual information could be preserved. The reason I accused Snoo of smearing McConnell is because they are intent on packing the article full of literature that casts McConnell in a bad light without the slightest attempt at neutrality. The reason I removed the other sources was because from my point of view they were added exclusively for the purpose of saving the sentence. I removed it in the first place because it was expressed in the voice of Wikipedia (i.e., [Wikipedia says that] McConnell's reputation dimmed when...) and because of the reasons I explained very verbosely on the McConnell talk page. CTRL + F "-because of its not being supported by the linked article text, its disproportionate placement, its presentation as a fact despite being derived solely from a headline, the unverifiability of its assertion, the lack of logical grounds for the assertion, and the reverting editor's failure to explain why the sentence should be included". To be perfectly clear, this is not about McConnell. Frankly, I'm not a fan. But who cares? What I'm trying to convey is that the issue is with Snoo's effecting the opposite of neutrality through hisedits in multiple articles about American political figures.--Rajulbat (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

Snoo has taken a very deliberate and direct approach to edit purely negative material into BLPs of political beliefs he disagrees with. It's well documented in my link above. Why is that not considered, here?--v/r - TP 23:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Because the negative content is well supported by RS. This is starting to take on the appearance of nothere behavior on the OP's part-- as if he is trying to whitewash the McConnell page. And the assertion that Snoo is the one with an agenda seems a bit preemptive. Snoo's no saint and the past problems make him a soft target for this sort of attack. I have not read through OP's edits, but wonder what sort of pattern might emerge if one did. Perhaps some sort of TBAN is needed?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Your not going to impose sanctions without looking at the user's edits I hope? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dlohcierekim: I think we're very far from NOTHERE for Rajulbat. We're talking about the different between a content issue, which can be talked about on the article talk page, and a persistant bias and behavioral issue on Snoo's part that is well documented (by me) over a long period of time. A deliberate effort to skew a topic area. Yes, his edits are cited. But his efforts are focused on adding negative material to conservative BLPs solely. That sustained and deliberate effort skews the topic area as a whole. And, despite a long term persistant SPA (with minor token edits outside of the topic area) being involved, you're ready to throw the book at the OP for arguing that only one citation is needed (a content issues)? I don't think that's a fair evaluation of this long term issue.--v/r - TP 00:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In what little familiarity I have with Snoo, they have demonstrated a left bias, I don't know if it's anything actionable, but let's look at the issue more closely and not rush a boomerang. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to review them. I'm just a law school student from Houston who is a big fan of Wikipedia. I contribute where and when I can. My motivation is thoroughly documenting facts and making knowledge freely available. I began editing McConnell's page a few days ago when I went to look him up (he's been in the news, ya know) and was astonished by the bias. Fortunately, I was on Winter break (until Monday) and was able to dedicate some time to improving the article. Unfortunately, I ran into Snoo who aggressively made that impossible.--Rajulbat (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

If the original sentence is supported by RS, then on the face of it I'm not seeing the 'neutrality' issue raised by Rajulbat (though yes, the RS broadly have a dim view of McConnell, rightly or wrongly, and this is naturally reflected in the article and that sentence, how could it not be?). If they want to make changes, then it has to be hammered out on the article's talk page and not done unilaterally for the sake of the perceived neutrality of one editor on a crusade to cudgel bias out of the project. I think sanctions against Rajulbat are inappropriate, though. I would point to Snooganssnoogan's less than cordial opening approach, labeling the changes as 'bizarre' and 'poorly worded'. Hardly the greatest way to prevent an edit-war. RandomGnome (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: I don't see anything wrong with saying that the domain name is available. He's essentially saying, in a pointed way, that there are other more appropriate venues for someone to spread their political beliefs. It's not creepy at all. It's just a dramatic way to do it. I think your concern, there, is making a mountain out of a mole hill.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• TParis, I agree with you that it is dramatic and pointed, and I also think that it is creepy and counterproductive. I operate two websites myself and if some Wikipedia editor set out to research the price and availability of a third website domain for me, I would be seriously creeped out. It is bizarre behavior in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know what we're doing here. Snooganssnoogan makes an edit which obviously improves the article: nothing on Wikipedia should start with "The New York Times published an article called..." That's terrible writing, and it actually misunderstands what Wikipedia does, which is to represent what secondary sources say, not write that secondary sources said something, and prefacing that with "however" which makes it both original research and editorial commentary. ("McConnell has a reputation as a skilled strategist, but the NYT published something whose title said his reputation was damaged, so..........draw your own conclusion"?)

  "Left bias" or not, changing "However, the New York Times published an article in 2017 entitled "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" after efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which McConnell supported, were unsuccessful" to "However, this reputation took a hit..." is simply an improvement. And even if it weren't, that one edit isn't a good reason to start an ANI thread. And if the editor has a pattern of disruption (which has yet to be established), then AE is the proper venue. So, yeah, the very facts here suggest that the person filing the complaint needs to reconsider what they were doing here. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • As I said, I took it to AE and I was supportive of it closing due to Snoo's commitment to improve. That hasn't happened. He's willing to operate within the firm rules only after he's brought through the ringer as clearly demonstrated with diffs. But, if he can get away with it, he will.

    He's been involved in a persistent effort to edit purely negative information into Conservative BLPs. With the exception of token edits outside of the topic area, it's primarily his single purpose. Perhaps a new AE case is warranted. It's long-term civil POV pushing. There is no smoking gun, you have to look at his behavior over time.--v/r - TP 01:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

    • @TParis: I'll file a new AE case. Fortunately, you did a lot of the heavy lifting in your first one, so I stand on the shoulders of giants. Thanks.--Rajulbat (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

This looks to me like a content dispute that probably shouldn't be on ANI, but is now turning into TParis V Snoo, I'm no admin, but I suggest closing this unless someone presents clear diffs of alleged wrongdoing. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Concur.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: This is not a content issue. The notice at the top of this page says it is for chronic misconduct, so it looked like the right place when I created the notice. The issue is that Snoo is here on a mission that is diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's mission. Namely, he's here (IMHO and in that of many others who have run into this user, which I will prove) to make sure that if a person looks up a conservative politician or mouthpiece (which, again, I'm no fan; it's the principle) they get nothing but negative stories plus his interpretation of them; mostly following a pattern of, more or less, "Even though these three top-tiered irrefutable experts have established that X, John Doe falsely claimed Y." He backs it up with sources, yes, but that doesn't solve the obvious neutrality issues caused by his deliberate framing and cherrypicking. And this is despite other editors, and some admins, on other pages warning him of this very same thing. As TP very aptly described it, he plays the line very well; he'll engage just enough so that he's not in clear violation of WP policies. Meaning that anyone who wants anything done about it has to study his edit history as well as WP rules of civil procedure (or something) in preparation for an AE complaint. I've never done one before. But that's fine; I'll do one.--Rajulbat (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

Jumping back to the searching for a website gaff, I feel that was a bit of hyperbole that came off badly. I don't believe the OP meant anything more than to say "Snooganssnoogans needs to be more neutral as this is not Snooganssnooganspedia and if they want to make their own POV a priority they should get their own web site." Jumping back to the beginning, I think this is a content dispute that has been blown out of proportion and that (once again) the content should be discussed on the article talk page and consensus should be obtained for any change that is the source of contention.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: re: the domain name, your interpretation is correct.--Rajulbat (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

It is a case of personalising a dispute, and it's a rather creepy personalisation that feels very stalkery. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the choices, this isn't great content

However, the New York Times published an article in 2017 entitled "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" after efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which McConnell supported, were unsuccessful.

1. The point being made here is "the New York Times published an article". Why should we care that they published an article?
2. This edit doesn't use the NYT article as a source except to verify the fact that the source exists.

Wikipedia articles should report on what reliable sources consider worth saying, not on the fact that sources say things. There's an implicit commentary on the source - albeit one that will mean different things to different people. Anything that plays off people's preconceptions (NYT is good, NYT is bad) runs afoul of NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree but content considerations should go on Talk:Mitch McConnell. I think this ANI should be closed - no much appetite for action against Snoogansnoogans and consensus seems largely this is a content dispute - there also appears to be a consensus against the OP's text per WP:NPOVN and this ANI - which would seem contrary to claims that Snoogansnoogans is pushing a POV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editor Cpt.Macktavish

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

---

Hi, the above user is repeatedly adding "Azerbaijani" to several articles without any sources and consensus with misleading edit summaries like "added content" : [120], [121], [122]. I warned him, but he refuses to get the point : [123]. I think that admin intervention is required here. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not here, non collegial, and now blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

'twas Ad Orientem wot done the deed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim, by the way, since it's not too late for that yet, happy new year to you and yours. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, thanks to him too.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Peterjack1

Here we have a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT:

• Ignoring guidelines set at WP:USRD/STDS and claiming they don't exist, even though they are visible in the hidden editor text
• Repeatedly adding WP:POV & WP:ORIGINAL research
• Ignoring multiple requests ( [124] [125] [126] ) from other users to stop adding and reverting various edits
• Blanking multiple talk page warnings

Cards84664 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The individual does have a 'heavy' revert button. I had some disagreements with him a few weeks ago at the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections article. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• User is within his rights to remove warnings from own talk page per WP:BLANKING. Lorstaking (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging Dough4872 and Imzadi1979. Cards84664 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above, this user makes numerous poor edits (such as adding multiple junctions for one town in one entry in the infobox even if the junctions aren't connected, which is misleading) and constantly reverts edits. Dough4872 14:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This user has now switched to an ip address, 74.71.22.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Cards84664 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

AB10002, WP:SPA?

AB10002 (talk · contribs) has not had any edits stick, and they've all been made to one article: Julie Payette, the current Governor General of Canada. @Ian.thomson: started the ball rolling by suggesting on 10 August 2017 that AB10002 might be in a CoI and later, that the account was shared. @Seagull123: also commented on that discussion. @Ivar the Boneful: then commented on removal of content on 6 October 2017 and @Anarchyte: notified the editor of an ANI discussion (archive in 967 as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive967#AB10002 - paid editing + potential legal threat) that was not acted upon. On 13 October 2017, @Drm310: supplied an WP:OWN warning and then silence for about 14 months. Earlier today, 10 January 2019, Ivar the Boneful dropped a paid editing warning and I followed that up with a clear and simple explanation that the editor appears to be in a CoI position and an explanation should be made or a larger discussion about a topic ban or block would ensue. The editor has had a chance to see those notices but has elected to continue editing without trying to explain their position. Requesting a topic ban at he very least or a block since the editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz. The one and only time this editor attempted to engage other editors was at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 August 10#Someone is changing a biographical page with negative unsubstantiated edits. The advice they received was ignored, and they have continued their WP:COI and WP:OWN habits. They have also not responded to legitimate concerns about WP:NOSHARING and WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we avoid the word "grooming" if possible, as it usually means something markedly different to what I think Walter's intention was. Fish+Karate 10:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to second Fish and karate's request - I saw it and was half way to typing out the emergency email address while I scrolled down Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please could you post 2 or 3 diffs of problematic edits from the last 2-3 months? They don't need to explain themselves, but they do need to edit within policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=prev&oldid=791873201
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=prev&oldid=804191907
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=877668973&oldid=877665306

Does this help? I mean, with only 36 edits to the article in question over eight distinct sessions, you could look at all of them, but I understand the need for examples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they look problematic. Support topic ban. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Pilaf

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

---

There is a violation of WP:DE rules going on in the article Pilaf. A small group of editors are repeatedly removing sourced content [127], [128], [129] and are working hard to distort the content of the references. They have been warned here [130] about not doing so. They have threatened me for violating copyright rules [131], when in reality an admin user:Galobtter said no such rule was broken [132] in what seems to be an attempt to divert and distort. They also claim Oxford and Cambridge references are Junk references and could not find a mention [133] when everything is referenced and quoted, which shows their lack of respect for proper process and which was noted by another user as being false and misleading in the talk page [134]. This group is also making stuff up, such as that the dish has a mixed West Asian and South Asian origin [135] which none of the sources say, while removing the sources in the history section. This seems to be a very organized attempt at conducting WP:DE where they flood the history section with edits that are not referenced, unsourced, unverified, made-up, false, and wrong. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There's some forum shopping going on here. I'm sure I saw this complaint at the Edit Warring noticeboard yesterday or the day before. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute with an edit summary of "Guys, please calm down. When there is a dispute, the page should remain at WP:STATUSQUO. It will be put back in a week or so once everyone agrees in the talk page." Advice I heartily endorse. I've fully protected it for now while the regulars sort and sift.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Except you've protected it in the non-status quo version :) AFAICS that would be the 18 December version. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, turned back-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Being informed that the English spelling is influenced by the Modern Greek piláfi, which comes from the Turkish pilav, which in turn comes from Persian polow, Hindi: pulāo, from Sanskrit pulāka (meaning "a ball of rice"), which in turn, is probably of Dravidian origin, the competent reader is supposed to deduce by herself that pilaf is a way to cook rice, and by extension some other cereals. Sanskrit & Dravidian seem to contradict most likely originating from Iran despite the 11 quotations given, but who cares since the competent reader has most likely swapped for a better lecture about this recipe. Pldx1 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Speedy Question Mark

User:Speedy Question Mark has repeatedly edited the All Elite Wrestling logo to change the background color from black to white. He claims this is to make it look better or fit into the page better or something, but regardless, the logo is black and it's unclear why he thinks he can just decide to make it a different color. After he finally dropped this and accepted using the proper logo, he then created a duplicate logo, with the apparent intent of hiding his edit/revert history. I reverted this change and marked the duplicate for speedy deletion, but he quickly undid both edits, apparently because he thinks we need to have a "discussion." He refuses to listen to other editors and this is all just horribly unproductive, I was hoping the admins could set him straight. Thanks! Wicka wicka (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If it helps anything, it appears the extra revisions are soon to be deleted. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel a lot of the users on here are quite rude, aggressive and possessive when it comes to certain articles and it's a real turn off when trying to help out and edit articles, all I did was upload a version of the logo without a background which is usually done with many brand logo's on Wikipedia (the one I uploaded had the letters outlined so it could stand out from the white background) but for some reason on this very article It's being treated as if I'm vandalising it which isn't the case, the other users keeping making up this story that I'm apparently trying to hide something which I honestly don't even know what they think I'm trying to hide because there is nothing to hide. I have huge OCD so the reason I wanted to upload a new version is because the old image was full of reverts and it looked irritating. I've explained my side of the story many times but I honestly feel like I'm being ignored and pushed into a corner. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral issue, you kept reverting the image despite several people making comments. Piece of advice, if an edit is reverted do the folowing: Stop, understand the reasoning behind the revert, discuss a difference of oppinion instead of just reverting again. (And yes I admit I don't always do that myself) MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

a little late for Xmas, but a gift of the Magi for EEng-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Many brand logos have the background removed because it is not part of the logo. That is not the case here. The logo is black, it is not white. You were not removing the background, you were changing the color of a company's logo. You need to understand that. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, pro wrestling. The gift that keeps on giving. EEng 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I know, ain't it great? Considering how much time you have spent on a DYK related to a wrestling hall of famer I know you are a true fan. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And believe it or not we're on the verge of wrapping up. You might want to drop in and opine. EEng 02:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• • And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cena Augustus... --Shirt58 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Many media sites have used the AEW logo without the background so it gave off the impression that is wasn't part of the logo. Sorry my mistake. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the revision history, both side seem break 3RR by upload their own version 4 times, within a day. So, before the wrestling, would it better to use the talk page, dispute resolution chamber and/or page protection first? However, if both side willing to discuss the matter, then it is not that urgent to discuss in ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I could delete the one's after the last stable version. Pretty sure the current version is missing its license.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe I restored the last good version of the file and the appropriate page history leading up to it.--v/r - TP 19:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what's happened here, it looks like you've reverted it back to the original high-res, uncropped version. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think you wanted to cropped version, but I can restore that instead.--v/r - TP 20:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. I'd have restored the uncropped version too.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:D.Lazard reverting continuously my edits without proper discussion in the talk page

This user is continually reverting my edits to Function (mathematics). I have also had to revert some of his edits and reverts. I have added corresponding sections one and two in the talk page of the article explaining what are the error that his edits/reverts would introduce/reinstate. Note, the lack of participation in the discussions. Only reverts after reverts. Cactus0192837465 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• You have 5 reverts in the last 24 hours [136][137][138][139][140] and a history of revert warring on the article [141][142][143]. I strongly advise you to revert yourself and commit to use the talk page instead of the undo button before the next sysop gets here. Otherwise you have a WP:3RR or WP:EW block.--v/r - TP 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Have notified D.Lazard (talk · contribs) of this thread. Neither has edited since this thread began. Both have 3RR warned the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) What is the procedure when edits introduce errors, I revert and add corresponding sections in the talk page explaining why the edits introduce errors, but the editors simply revert or re-add the erroneous information without visiting the discussion in the talk page? Cactus0192837465 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. Stop reverting, attempt discussion, failing that, seek dispute resolution. At the heart of each and every content dispute are at least two editors convinced they are right and the other editor is wrong. Each of you has 3RR warned the other. Time to discuss. If an edit changes the status quo, the onus is on the person making said edit to justify the change. TParis gave you an ultimatum. I'd hate to be the one to execute it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, you can start a request for comment on the article talk page and request feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

• Here is the recent history of this edit war: the three first reverts by Cactus0192837465 have been reverted by three different editors, including myself. More properly, they were not reverted, but edited, as these editors and two others proposed improvements of the disputed sentence. In each case, Cactus reverted to his preferred formulation without any tentative toward a consensus. Thus, after his fourth revert, I have warned him to his talk page, with the {{uw-3rr}} template [144], to which I have added On January 10, you did four times the same revert. It is possible that, before this warning, you ignored the WP:3RR rule of Wikipedia. Now this rule has been notified to you. So, the next time you will break it, I'll report your behavior to WP:ANI for an edit block. Then I have edited the disputed sentence [145], by changing a single word. The reaction of cactus was almost immediate: he answered first first on his talk page [146], with personal attacks ("your lack of understanding of proper grammar"). Then he made his fifth revert, and posted a long comment in the article talk page [147] (this diff contains also the answer by another editor, which is better than any answer that I could write). He also opened this discussion.

These are the yesterday evening events. I have discovered Cactus's reaction this morning, just when I was for opening a thread here. IMHO, this is a typical case for WP:BOOMERANG. D.Lazard (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am just noticing that this is not WP:ANI/3RR. As it is WP:ANI/I, I should mention that Cactus uses to attack personally people who disagree with him by treating them of incompetent (see above quote), and by qualifying as wrong everything to which he disagrees. This is a problem of disruptive editing, which is not yet blatant enough for opening a thread here. In fact, this disruptive editing is mixed with technical matters, and is, therefore, difficult, for non-specialists, to distinguish from normal dispute content. This is the reason for which I have not yet opened a thread here. But administrators must be informed that this is a problem that can be, later, the object of a notice here. D.Lazard (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by Bka123456987

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

---

By new account Bka123456987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At User talk:Bka123456987/sandbox: "If you are going to take down the edit, then be prepared for legal battle." Editor's unsourced changes to the ideology of the Democratic Party of the United States at Politics of the United States have been reverted several times. General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked.--v/r - TP 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• good block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• good sysop. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Repeated abuse by Swedish moderators

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

---

±Good evening. I would like point out to moderator abuse by swedish moderators Yger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Adville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The abuse has taken place on the article https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omvänd_rasism

In the case of Adville:

The moderator in question has repeatedly reverted my changes without commenting on why. When questioned, he then accused me of instigating an editing war. You can see that this is a blatantly false accusation since I did in fact document and motivate my changes.

Furthermore, in the discussion page of said article, Adville motivates his action of locking the page by referring to an effort by a swedish nationalist/white power group and insinuates that I am a part of said groups efforts. That unfounded accusation alone is profoundly against the etiquette code moderators are to follow.

In the case of "Yger":

I have repeatedly provided proper sources to my additions, yet Yger keeps removing them. When questioned, he states the sources go against "consensus" but fails to prove that that personal opinions of the moderators trumps scientific, proper sources. In my attempt at communicating with "Yger" he simply removed my question and refused to answer. When questioned by a different editor, Yger simply states that he refuses to discuss the issue. Lastly, he seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on the nature of Wikipedia as he motivates what can and can't be written by how "liked" additions are, rather by how well-sourced they are. Not only does Wikipedia lack any sort of "like/dislike" voting system, but it does not support Ygers claim as stated in the five pillars of Wikipedia ("All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.") Kind regard, Horiwari (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. We cannot help you what-so-ever on the Swedish-language Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Horiwari: If there is an issue with a Swedish admin, please take the case to sv:Wikipedia:Skiljedomskommitté, the Swedish arbitration committee. This should only be done if discussion in other, Swedish, venues does not lead to a resolution. Thanks! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mopping up after closure of a Swedish WP Arbcom case [148]. EEng 21:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is worth pointing out that editing against consensus, misrepresenting sources/using unreliable sources, and using POV language in articles (as the OP has been doing) is not acceptable at en.wiki either, so the responses would have been the same they got at sv.wiki. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Haha, those Swedish moderators! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A Møøse once bit my sister. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Midwestman1986 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Midwestman1986 has only been on Wikipedia for a few weeks; now he's trying to take it over. He's been changing lead paragraphs on Kansas City TV station articles the way he sees fit. [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] I change them back and he keeps changing them back, saying they unsourced when they don't have to be sourced. He also keeps misspelling on edits and edit summaries. Now he has the nerve to cuss me out. I heard of "biting the newcomers"; this newcomer is biting me! He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It might help if you could show us a diff of him "cussing you out". Alephb (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Two edit summaries: [158] [159] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I started a section on the article's Talk page after reviewing each of your edits, you might want to discuss it there rather than here (since both of you were edit warring). Schazjmd (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I specifically left a reference showing the location of the TV station being in Fairway, Kansas. Yet he insists on leaving the location as Kansas City Missouri which was before 2005. it said it broadcasted to Kansas City Missouri and Kansas City kansas. I replaced that with Kansas City metropolitan area. Kansas City Kansas is smaller than cities like Overland Park, Kansas which also gets broadcasted by the news station too so I added Kansas City metropolitan area. Here is the link for its location in fairway, Kansas and phone number is (913) which is a Kansas area code. Most of this page is unsourced so I removed a few sentences and added sourced information. By all means I wouldn’t remove stuff if it was sourced. He keeps removing sourced information I added and just did it again. And now the location still says Kansas City Missouri, which is not correct At all.[160] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kansas City MO is KCTV's city of license; its studios were located there before moving across the state line in 1983. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would debate the notion that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Troublesome and most likely unaware of our policies and guidelines but I am assuming good faith at this stage. The user should be made aware of both our edit war and personal attack policies. In any case, this is more of a content dispute. IWI (chat) 01:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Now Midwestman1986 is ranting on his talk page, misspelling "Missouri" and making a certain Adam Sandler quote. [161] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC

No, you literally just logged out and put that message on my page, stop being a little liar and trying to frame me. I put on the KCTV page that it is located in fairway Kansas and liscensed by Kansas City , Missouri. I’m going to change it back in a day or so and you better leave it. Saying it’s location is in Kansas City Missouri is a lie. Why do you keep putting Kansas City, Kansas? It also serves Overland Park, Kansas, which has more people than Kansas City, Kansas. You’re clearly just doing what you want. Kansas City metropolitan area is much more accurate.

It wasn't me; I'm still logged in. I really thought you did it, and I'm sorry. As for KCTV, it's in Kansas City MO because it's their FCC-assigned city of license (not Fairway, not Overland Park). Their studios are in Fairway. Cities of license and studio locations are different. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure you didn’t do it... anyways I get that it’s liscensed in Kansas City, Missouri but that doesn’t change the location. That’s why I wrote” it is located in fairway, Kansas and liscnesed by Kansas City, Missouri. Their front office is in Fairway, Kansas, their phone number is a Kansas phone number, and their studios are in Kansas. They are in fairway Kansas and broadcast to the Kansas City metropolitan area. And they are liscnesed by Kansas City Mo. it’s that Simple I’m changing the location to fairway Kansas tommorow. It’s where it is, it’s what their phone number is and it’s where their office is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I warned you six days before that you're in the wrong place. This goes on 3RR if it had gotten out of control, not here, and all I'm seeing is you templating and being hostile to an editor because they don't know how WP:TVS edits articles and infoboxes, and not explaining anything. Once again, read the warnings listed above the edit box about what is appropriate to post on ANI. This certainly doesn't meet that. Learn to use user talk pages before wandering into WP: space.

Midwestman1986, we usually only list the major cities served that are part of a metro area's official name in the infobox from an official source, rather than suburbs that may be unfamiliar to a reader just coming in. I know there are definitely cases where...let's say Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, or Bloomington, Minnesota both have considerable populations in the Twin Cities. But we only usually list Minneapolis and St. Paul because a basic reader will know those are definitely the major cities in the Twin Cities. Here, yes, Overland Park is about a quarter larger in population than KCK, but it's mainly a suburb only known within the Kansas City area. People are more familiar with KCK and KCMO than they are Overland Park, which isn't really written about beyond the basic suburban sense as a suburb of the Kansas Cities. I know it's definitely a very annoying Rodney Dangerfield/"no respect" issue for Overland Park or Fairway, but in these articles, we can't overload an infobox with all of the largest cities a station serves or their studio location (which is best left in the lede, or top paragraph of the article), we have to list what's officially named to define a metro area, with the only leeway otherwise given for a city of license like KMCI's Lawrence, Kansas. I hope this explains a bit why the infoboxes and ledes are written the way they are, and I apologize if your introduction to editing wasn't positive. Nate • (chatter) 03:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And I've restored this from blanking, @Mvcg66b3r:. You don't get to blank a discussion just because others disagree with you. You brought the report, you invite just as much scrutiny for your actions as who you're reporting. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, the allegations of logging out to frame this IP address are concerning but realistic, Mvcg66b3r. IWI (chat) 09:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against Mvcg66b3r here with checkuser request. IWI (chat) 09:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Don’t know what to do, but...

Dan the Plumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

broke 3RR on Angela Nagle, and he is trying to prove some point using primary references, one of which is a blog and another a satire news (?). When I reverted and told him that it was primary, he pointed me to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD (which is not a policy), as you can see in this diff. I only know that he edit warred and broke 3RR, but I don’t know about the content or his POV that he wants to push (?). Anyone willing to help and figure out? If I was wrong about the content part, I only know that he used a primary source, broke 3RR and NPOV, and edit warred. Need more input. Thanks. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably better at WP:AN/EW. IWI (chat) 09:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Or, less confrontationally, get third party input into the sourcing issue at WP:RS/N --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wouldn’t want to piss him off by giving him another notice. Could we just do it here because it gains more traction? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

He has at least now opened a discussion on the talkpage, which is a step in the right direction. I also reverted the content, mostly because it's disputed (and so he should argue for its inclusion rather than just reinserting it), but also because it's so poorly written that's it pretty difficult to make out what he's trying to say. Grandpallama (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism edits

The down IP Address make in a short time five vandalism edits with no background just to disturb. Can this be stopped.

• IP Adress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.156.48.34

• Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashrita_Furman&action=history

--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Section 27

• The link which was inserted in the Iranian identity which was nonsense, but if it wasn't nonsense User talk:LouisAragon could restore the link. But he didn't it, probably, to use it against me one day :) What about that reference, as I already wrote in my edit summary[1], the source that I deleted doesn't mention about Iranian identity, so I deleted it. If my these edits weren't in Wiki policy, it must be proved me by my pro-Iranian colleagues who wish to see me blocked :(
• I never accused anyone on Bahmanyar talk page, but I noticed Azerbaijanophobia to colleaggue's message where modern Azerbaijani irrendist political ideology is using as an argument on historical person's talkin page. @LouisAragon:, Let's have a some flashbacks from it:

"Non-RS nonsense. These are the same "historians" who claim that Iran and Armenia are "ancient Turkic lands", and that anything from Derbent to Urmia, Zanjan, to Kars etc is part of "Bütöv Azərbaycan" that used to exist "since times immemorial". No self respecting Western historian takes these "books" serious. Azerbaijani (SSR and post 1991) and Tsarist/Soviet Russian sources are mostly packed with agenda-loaded propaganda, refuted/debunked by leading scholars in the West. Here's an example.[3] The same thing goes for many Armenian and Georgian sources of the Soviet era. They should all be avoided."

I gave him an answer on the same way, which now I think wasn't needed to me and to the encyclopedia. But I think it's ok, because at that time I wasn't experienced.

• I'm curious that why User talk:LouisAragon says that I labelled Brill as non-reliable while I said that it's not high reliable source[1]. In addition, I gave there two publisher rankings which proves my words about Brill's source.
• My edits on Bahmanyar and Iskander Beg Munshi pages were one of my first edits which weren't experienced.
• Baku Khanate ethnically is an Azerbaijani khanate which house was Bakhikanovs of, but unfortunately I forgot saying it to Louis Aragon when we had a discussion on my talk page.
• Before answering to the accusing I demand User talk:LouisAragon to prove to me that my this edit was wrong.
• My edits on Antioch and Quba Khanate pages weren't carefully, I understand it. Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)