Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Complaints with EurovisionNim

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

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

Evidence to support this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kia_Picanto&diff=863719283&oldid=862152307
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Volvo_XC40&diff=855593190&oldid=855502294
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Porsche_Cayenne&diff=861579492&oldid=860432902
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_Hilux&diff=next&oldid=874126177

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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 for a short period

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. 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)

• 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 - 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)

• 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)

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) [37], and the comment was their 17th edit [38]. 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. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]). 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)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Mountain157

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be signs of a problem. To get to the bottom of it, file a concise enforcement request at WP:AE and include diffs of exemplary edits. Jehochman ^Talk

---

Pages:Frontier Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
,Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
,Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mar4d made multiple reversions of properly sourced edits that I made to the articles,Taliban, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and Frontier Corps. I want to refrain from reversing the edits out of fear that it can turn into an edit-war. Examples of the user's reverts are:

1. [47] "Rv addition of poorly sourced content back to good version"] (Deciding what he HIMSELF considers "poorly sourced content")
2. [48] "Restore stable version and trimmed off unreliable references"] (Making my additions look bad and forcing his edit through)
3. [49] "Remove unreliable source added by apparent POV account"] (Making unproven accusations which violates WP:NPA)

Can someone look into Mar4d? Mountain157 (talk 10:12 28 December 2018

• NO -- your complaint fails because you didn't include proper diffs to succinctly demonstrate a problem. Look at the 3-tier diff and link help articles I've posted on the top right of this thread. A nebulous complaint leads to a long and wasteful thread. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Lots of commentary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be a misunderstanding. This is a place to request an administrator to solve a problem. It's not a place to continue fighting about editorial disagreements. Jehochman ^Talk

---

Mountain157 - There are guidelines and past discussions that have decided exactly which sources are considered reliable and which are not. If you haven't gone through and made sure to understand Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, I highly recommend that you do so. You also did not notify Mar4d of this ANI discussion involving him as required and stated in the notice on the top of this page. I've done this for you. :-)

I'll also add a comment and state for the record that Mar4d is indefinitely topic banned from "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed", and that he was "warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning" (diff of notice, enforcement log entry). Whether or not these edits are attempting to push that edge is yet to be determined, but Mar4d should know by know that extreme caution and care should be taken regarding edits in these topics. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Taliban and Frontier Corps certainly skirt the topic ban. It is well known and documented in the article that Pakistani intelligence agencies have supported the Taliban for decades while India has opposed the Taliban vigorously. Similarly, the Frontier Corps is a Pakistani paramilitary group operating on its frontier with Afghanistan and is functionally equivalent to the paramilitary Pakistan Rangers who operate on the Eastern frontier with India. If this editor continues to test the boundaries of their topic ban, then perhaps it is time to expand the topic ban to "all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan", broadly construed. If necessary to prevent disruption, we could add Islam and Hinduism to the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Thank for for commenting here. I'm no expert or professional in regards to these topics or conflicts between India and Pakistan, so this was extremely helpful. I appreciate it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Removals made on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Frontier Corps are almost same. I am mostly concerned this edit which involved contributions by three editors.[50][51][52] At the time when Mar4d reverted this, it was neutrally written and used TOLOnews as a source which is not an unreliable source. Mar4d's removal of the edit and explanation: "Remove unreliable source added by apparent POV account" shows poor knowledge of WP:RS and WP:PA, the same behavior that resulted in topic ban on him from conflicts between India and Pakistan.[53]
  As for the testing of boundaries of topic ban, I would note that Mar4d made this edit this month, where he added "Kashmir=yes" into Wikiproject and since Kashmir is the major concern in "conflict between India and Pakistan" Mar4d could avoid this edit. Another example would be these edits[54][55] because Pakistan continues to allege India of being involved in Insurgency in Balochistan by funding the Balochistan militants. Sections on Balochistan Liberation Army#Foreign involvement and Insurgency in Balochistan#India describes this and India has at least morally supported the Balochistan fighters. I would also remind that Mar4d was already blocked once for topic ban violation and unblocked after he promised not to violate the topic ban again.[56]
  The edit on Al-Qaeda is also concerning where Mar4d claims that he thoroughly checked the whole edit. Here Mar4d removed the part "by the Pakistani ISI to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and later on against India" and this part concerns "conflict between India and Pakistan". The added source from NYTimes was even more explicit with saying "or against India in the disputed territory of Kashmir". Lorstaking (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have reverted other contributions from User:Mountain157 before User:Mar4d did such as [57] [58] [59] [60] and I have explained it vigorously here Talk:Haqqani_network#Original_Research Talk:2017–18_North_Korea_crisis#Original_Research Talk:Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)#Original_Research. I've assumed good faith since the OP is a new user and I have invested time and explained to him Wikipedia policies extensively in his talk page and endured him accusing me of being "sponsored by Pakistan" etc etc.. until someone came along, decided it wasn't worth it, and reported him for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive381#User:Mountain157_reported_by_User:TheTimesAreAChanging_(Result:_48h) and got him blocked for 48 hours for gaming the system. I urged him to make amendments instead of confirming controversial claims and to discuss before reverting. To be fair, he did stop edit warring on those articles. However, I am concerned of the POV style editing the OP is using mainly relying on WP:OR and WP:FRINGE to make "sourced" contributions. He has also opened a sockpuppet investigation on an IP address who was also reverting some of his controversial changes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/5.36.68.92. This seems to me like revenge directed moves and amounts to OP shooting himself in the foot. Just my two cents. I am not interested in taking part of this ANI so please ping me for any questions, will be happy to answer. Wikiemirati (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Wikiemirati: You are absolutely right about Mountain157, who engaged in POV editing but has stopped a bit since the block. I don't think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/5.36.68.92 was a revenge move because it concerns a block evader. You should see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhishek9779/Archive and even Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy/Archive. Same IPs (5.36..) have been also reported there and were range blocked for socking in this same subject. Mountain157 don't know this because he is a newbie. I have also commented there. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'm not familiar with those topics so I don't know who edit them or who was blocked or w/e. I don't know if OP knows that or not, but he did open an ANI on someone who reverted him Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#User:Anonymous17771 who turned out to be Abhishek9779 sock (from a separate investigation though). Worth to mention too, that he opened an ANI after the sock opened his own ANI on OP Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#User:_Mountain157 but got banned before he could take it anywhere. The sock is banned like he should be. However, all of this screams to me like someone who's revenge targeting people who reverted him. I am not familiar with those users or the user mentioned here, but I can't help but also scrutinize OP edits and behavior. WP:BOOMERANG. Wikiemirati (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Revenge targeting people"? I actually can't help but notice alot of double standards coming from you. In fact you were targeting me at first and now you are coming on here and trying to make me look like the "bad one". I simply reported the sock and Mar4d because they happened to be engaging in behavior that defines edit-warring.-Mountain157 talk 3:50 29 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

He has just opened an edit warring notice against me now [61]. While I acknowledge everyone's right to an opinion, I don't think this behavior is very appropriate and amounts to outright battle behavior WP:BATTLE. Wikiemirati (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Hello all. I'll try to keep this in summary form. I was first notified of the issues regarding Mountain157's edits only after someone posted a message on my talk drawing attention, and I'll basically second what Wikiemirati and several other users [62] [63] (TheTimesAreAChanging etc.) who have posted on Mountain157's talk and elsewhere have recently said about their edits. I am convinced this user is not here to build the encyclopedia, and the sourcing issues that I found are unfortunately the tip of the iceberg. Let's leave the sources for a minute. As per the admin Black Kite who [64] blocked Mountain157 for disruptive editing only days after he created his account, it is both alarming and concerning when the user isn't able to distinguish between what reliable, mainstream academic sources are, and what opinion editorials, and speculation pieces are, to add highly contentious claims as facts across not a few but dozens of articles and sections.

I don't think this user has developed quite a grasp yet, or shown intent to develop an understanding ever since the endless notices left by others on their talk page, about core guidelines like WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and I can back my statement with convincing evidence. I hope they will read this. This is one of many examples. Now on to the Frontier Corps page, Mountain157 made their first edit on 16 December [65]; here, he first added a section "support for terrorism", which is an issue itself since the text he adds immediately below it is reporting about an allegation being made; secondly, the text added by the user conclusively states the FC is involved in "backing ISIS" which is akin to stating in fact whilst reporting that same allegation, and thirdly, their choice of source is none other than an Afghan government official. The matter doesn't end here as the user went on to claim that the FC is involved militarily in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), on the basis of this single source, which is itself problematic given in Wikipedia's language, "exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources". I did not see that being fulfilled in any of his edits, to be frank.

On the Taliban page, Mountain157 added Pakistan in the "ally" section, again improperly sourced to a news article reporting an Afghan official's statements. Again, the user needs to display a more prominent understanding of how to source claims which require impartial, reliable references. On to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, the user made several additions again improperly sourced to primary references and opinion pieces, adding multiple countries as "allies" without verification, which had to be reverted by another user here. And again, the same glaring issues with sourcing are there i.e. primary refs, statements by government officials, editorial pieces [66], and improper attribution to allegations. I'm happy to answer further questions, but that being said I will certainly like to draw attention to the issues with the edits concerned, as I believe the user needs to show more understanding of some core guidelines.

Finally, Lorstaking's involvement here and defense of Mountain157's edits is also a cause for concern and needs to be reviewed impartially; he for instance misleadingly claims that Mountain157 "stopped a bit" with regard to their "POV editing" since the block, but his only edits ever since the block got lifted have been this, this fresh ANI section, or an SPI. All this from an apparent "newbie" who we are all supposed to believe first edited Wikipedia on 13 December 2018. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I will repeat what multiple other editors have been saying. You are engaging in talking about the actions of others.There are serious concerns by the other editors about you making POV edits on topics that have to do with India and Pakistan. In fact you yourself are banned indefinetely from, "all edits and pages related to India and Pakistan, broadly construed". Oh and by the way multiple sources from ToloNews document Pakistani Frontier Corps forces backing ISIS in Afghanistan. Same thing goes for the Taliban, numerous sources for decades have pointed to Pakistani support. Lastly I find it very mean spirited for you to go after Lorstaking for simply defending me which any editor on Wikipedia has the right to do.-Mountain157 (talk) 10:40 29 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d's explanations only discuss actions of others including the OP who is currently not engaging in any blockable offense. Mar4d has ignored the concerns about his edits raised by at least 4 editors, 2 of them are uninvolved admins. The edit on Al-Qaeda was obviously a topic ban violation as evidenced above. Since Mar4d didn't even cared enough about addressing these obvious topic ban violation/s, I think we certainly have no option except to "expand the topic ban to "all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan", broadly construed", like Cullen238 has suggested here. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about Mar4d's edits, his TBAN, or any violations and I am not heavily involved in Pakistan-India topics nor do I know him, but I have made a similar, yet not identical, revert in Al Qaeda page [67] as well as two other users [68] and [69] who all reverted the OP. This is just my opinion. As it seems I am no longer a neutral party to this discussion (Thanks to OP opening another notice board against me). I think it's best I leave this ANI discussion. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

People are concerned that why Mar4d is reverting Mountain157 in these topic areas when he is already aware that these reverts constitute violation of his present topic ban. His failure to address these concerns pretty much speaks it all. I know that there must be issues with the editing of Mountain157 and there are no objections to your reverts, but given he is a newbie some rope is essentially warranted. Where as if we evaluate Mar4d's conduct, then I would also support expansion of topic ban to cover the whole WP:ARBIPA(Afghanistan, India, Pakistan). Orientls (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Mountain157 opened a edit warring claim against Wikiemirati; I pointed out to them that it might be best to withdraw it given that they had reverted more times than the editor they were reporting; they have done so. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, and they also chose to paste that same report onto WP:ANI like this thread, right after you advised them to withdraw from AN3. WP:STICKs galore :) Mar4d (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• As always, the topic ban has been misrepresented, extrapolated, and used out of context for articles which have no relation to the original restrictions. For neutral users, I would request reading the text of the TBAN, and what very specific set of articles were defined in that ruling. As for Accesscrawl, Lorstaking and Orientls, keeping in mind their history, these editors had no recent activity on ANI, nor any interaction with this user, let alone significant involvement or edits to the articles in question. Yet all three turned up within hours to essentially repeat each others' allegations. I don't understand how this is really different to another user who tried to unfairly weaponize the TBAN in an unrelated content dispute, and was met with sanctions. I'll leave it for others to decide whether the conduct of these three editors constitutes a similar WP:BATTLE approach, and why they should not be viewed in the same light.

That being said, I was and am absolutely clear on what the TBAN is for, and have abided by it, and if there is content that is covered by it, I genuinely and in good faith follow the recommendations; the articles and source material in question here (Taliban, ISIS, the Frontier Corps unit etc.) are not related to Pakistan's conflict with India in any distant manner. The TBAN in question does not prohibit Pakistan articles, general or otherwise, which is my usual editing area, nor does it cover Afghanistan and all other articles. To claim that a TBAN violation has occurred on articles which neither the ban covers, nor the scope has been touched, and neither the very specific subject of 'conflict with India' has been approached, is baseless. In fact, I'd also like to point to admin BU Rob13, who had elaborately clarified for me and others the actual restrictions the last time the TBAN was weaponised (quote): You are restricted from edits or pages about the conflict, which is actually narrower than a usual topic ban. This page is not about the topic, and neither was your edit, so even if the discussion broaches on the topic, you're very technically fine."

As for the reverts on these three articles, I am quite convinced that the material added by Mountain157 was not fully compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I am not the only user who shares these concerns, as at least six different editors have reverted the user's recent additions across these pages, and some have left notices on their talk. Why and based on what intent this ANI came out of is beyond me, but the WP:BRD process needs to be followed in such cases, and I do believe the reasons I put forth regarding the problems identified with Mountain157's sources and content continue to remain valid, and many others would concur. Thanks all, Mar4d (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You just violated your topic ban again by talking about a topic ban of other editor which happens to be same as your own topic ban. You are not allowed to discuss a topic ban of other editor when it happens to be same as your own topic ban. Not to forget that your mention of those unrelated events is not addressing your own problematic conduct.

I would also like to debunk your misleading claim that "Accesscrawl, Lorstaking and Orientls....had no recent activity on ANI", because I edited ANI on 23 December and anyone can see a thread opened by Orientls below here on 06:22 29 December. Finally no one has to edit ANI everyday to discuss your obviously problematic conduct.

You violated your topic ban by removing "later on against India" on Al-Qaeda. Why you are still ignoring these concerns? To me this is a clear WP:CIR issue and your battleground mentality speaks volumes. Right now you will only get away with an indef topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan but if you continued this uncollaborative approach and bad faith accusations then people will only think about issuing harsher sanctions. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl:Thank you for explaining things properly about what is going on. In fact, not only has Mar4d violated the topic ban but he has also committed WP:VANDAL by deleting 2 whole paragraphs regarding alleged Pakistani and Chinese support for Al-Qaeda. Here is the before and after.[[70]] [[71]].-Mountain157 (talk)

• Cullen328's comments strike me as an unreasonably broad reading of the topic ban, which is specifically from the military conflict between Pakistan and India, not other conflicts those two countries are tangentially involved with, nor from a military unit that is functionally equivalent to but distinct from one which might be considered covered by the ban, nor from other organizations which the two countries have taken opposing political stances toward. At least as far as the original complaint, this should not be viewed as a topic ban violation. As for the rest, I find it curious that the original post is from a two-week-old account that waded into one of Wikipedia's most contentious topic areas with their first edits, are already filing reports against previously sanctioned editors repeatedly, and that several of Mar4d's Wikipedia adversaries have again swarmed this thread to agitate for further sanctions for previous infractions. I dislike that I have to say again to Mar4d that they ought to know to be more careful because this group are watching their every move in a way clearly meant to cause distress and/or impede their work which we would call abusive if someone behaved this way toward an editor who wasn't subject to a topic ban. I don't know what the right course of action is here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why this report should not examine the topic ban violation by Mar4d? Mar4d is topic banned from "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed", and that he was "warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning" [72]" (like Oshwah noted). We need to read things as they are and we will find that Cullen328 has been correct with his assessment. Frontier Corps have been directly involved in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1999. While Taliban has involvement in conflicts between India and Pakistan, the source removed by Mar4d discussed both Pakistan and India.[73]

You need to read my comment which includes evidence of Mar4d's poor knowledge of WP:RS and WP:PA.[74] I have also shown that while many of his edits test the edges of topic ban[75][76][77] there are edits where he has clearly violated the topic ban.[78] Now here is another modification from 18 December, where he changed the [[PAF Base Nur Khan|airfield]] to [[PAF Base Nur Khan|airbase]]. PAF Base Nur Khan has been involved in multiple wars between India and Pakistan.

He is discussing topic ban of other editor when he is himself topic banned from that very same topic. He is also requesting topic ban on 3 different editors from conflicts between India and Pakistan by saying "whether the conduct of these three editors .... should not be viewed in the same light", and that too is a textbook violation of his topic ban. Lorstaking (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Setting aside for the moment the suspicious nature of the account making this report, it's unfortunate but unsurprising that this thread has degenerated into the usual mudslinging, with scarcely any independent commentary. Cullen328, I too am concerned by the breadth of your interpretation of the t-ban. The ban as formulated is about the conflict between India and Pakistan. Other editors who received an identical sanction have edited, without being challenged, pages more closely related to this conflict, including the conflict between India and China, Indian weapons purchases, the relative military might of Pakistan, and various Indian and Pakistani politicians. At the AE discussion which resulted in this ban, I recommended a broader IPA t-ban precisely because I was worried the conflict would spill over in this manner; but since a narrower ban was what was chosen, I think it ought not to be selectively broadened.
  Mar4d should know better than to skirt the edges of his tban, but that's about all he's doing; there's no clear cut violation. Posting about his own ban, here, when other users are demanding that he be sanctioned for violating said ban, is not a t-ban violation; it's covered by "necessary dispute resolution", and is permitted explicitly by WP:BANEX. His comments about other editors' behavior are not discussing content edits but conduct here, and do not constitute a topic-ban either. Lorstaking, you were warned about this sort of thing in the same discussion in which Mar4d was t-banned. Dial it back a little, please. Vanamonde (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was never even notified of that discussion about which I learned after weeks, let alone getting a warning. That never happened.[79] I don't have to dial it back, though you should really work on your understanding of sanctions and topic ban scope. The "conflict between India and China, Indian weapons purchases... Indian and Pakistani politicians" are neither more closely related nor they constitute topic ban violation. Mar4d is discussing topic ban of other editor and that is outside the scope of "his own ban". You should also consider replying the question asked below. Lorstaking (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban can be broadened for any user who is frequently failing to understand it and here Mar4d is the only editor who is guilty of that. I just read WP:BANEX and I can see that it does not allow topic banned editor to discuss same topic ban of others and/or ask same topic ban for others. I think you have missed the diff from Al-Qaeda because Mar4d removed the content that read "Harkat- ul- Mujahideen was set up in the 1980's by the Pakistani ISI to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and later on against India". You would need a lot better explanation to claim how it is unrelated to the conflict and not a violation of topic ban. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Shashank5988, you are misunderstanding me. Of course topic-bans can be expanded if necessary; what is inappropriate is a block under a greatly expanded interpretation of the original topic ban. That diff is unimpressive; it's a massive revert which happened to include a tangential reference to this conflict. It's not ideal, because as I said before, Mar4d is skirting his tban, and really should be staying far away from such topics: but it'd hardly sanction-worthy in and of itself. Lorstaking, the AE discussion was closed with the comment "Lorstaking [...] should note that some have found their participation on noticeboards [...] to be disruptive and I advise them to go careful in the future." That it wasn't logged doesn't make it something you should ignore. Vanamonde (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• A "comment" and "warning" are two really different concepts. Why Mar4d should stay "far away" from these subjects when he is never going to get sanctioned and we are going to keep ignoring the original sanction which allows blocks/tban for skirting the tban?Thanks for accepting that there was a topic ban violation but this user has already responded several times and rejected this as violation as non-violation and pledged to continue these edits. Together with the provided edit summary,[80] the violation of a broadly construed topic ban is not justifiable. If we are saying that Mar4d was editing without reading then issue is clearly more serious than simply violating a topic ban. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: limited interaction bans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing the discussion, per withdrawal by Ivan. Anybody may feel free to float V93's idea over a separate thread. Thankfully, ∯WBG^converse 14:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

---

What should have been a simple thread about evaluating a topic ban question has been derailed again by the same set of editors insisting on dredging out all manner of supposed wrongdoing and exotic definitions of the original sanction. As demonstrated here, if they fail to get sanctions in one venue, they will try again later or on some other noticeboard. It's been noted by many users that these same editors keep repeating this behaviour whenever the sanction is discussed, they have been warned that it is disruptive, and they continue to refuse to acknowledge the warnings. I therefore propose that Lorstaking and Accesscrawl be banned from commenting on any aspect of the original sanction and from commenting on any discussion of the conduct of any of the editors who have been sanctioned under it. This is to ensure the smooth operation of the project (so that when these discussions are necessary they can reach a clear and rational conclusion without their obfuscating interference) and to relieve the sanctioned editors from the burden of editing under continuous disruptive scrutiny by battleground editors, which has been an ongoing undesireable side-effect of this sanction. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not wage war against our enemies.

The original arbitration enforcement restriction is documented here.

Lorstaking was warned in the close of that discussion that their behaviour towards the sanctioned editors was viewed as disruptive.

Accesscrawl was separately warned here for, among a laundry list of complaints, "endless bludgeoning" and "battleground, ownership, and other disruptive behaviours"; they challenged the warning but it was upheld on review. Not satisfied with that, they challenged the concept of logging a warning at all (Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#WP:ER/UC).

Examples of users noting this pattern of disruption: [81] [82] - these examples are difficult to pin down as they occur in discussions which are not about these two users, but discussions about other users they've jumped into.

• Support as proposer. Note that several other editors have been warned about similar behaviour related to this sanction and WP:ARBIPA in general but have not continued, showing that it is possible for an editor not to behave this way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as bad faith distraction. No diffs provided for allegations either. I note that Ivanvector has been tirelessly defending banned disruptive editors of this area such as NadirAli, Nauriya, Son of Kolachi, and others. It has been a battleground mentality of Ivanvector to side disruption of "one side" while seek baseless sanctions on "other side". This includes a spurious ARE report filed by Ivanvector against one editor of "other side", and now this spurious proposal.

Even if you want to say that it is not a case then why in place of seeking sanction for obvious topic ban violation and long term disruption by Mar4d, why you are you asking us to WP:CENSOR the observers who made this case look more clear? I recommend you to withdraw this. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as non-issue and in the light of more appropriate proposal which resolves the actual concern of the thread. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector: This is a good idea (the amount of mudslinging on the admin noticeboards has become quite ridiculous) but I think your proposal is a little too complicated, and would be too difficult to administer. I think this nonsense may be best dealt with by preventing these users (and I include Mar4d in this) from participating in ANI discussions about each other; or, at best, by allowing them to report violations, but not to discuss them. Unfortunately this thread has been so swamped by pointless argument that the possibility of any sanction arising from it is miniscule. Vanamonde (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Seems factually misleading. It is not wikihounding if editors are presenting concrete evidence of disruption. It is considered as wikihounding when a person disrupts the articles and discussions only to disrupt contributions of other editor. Similarly, proposing interaction ban while asking users to stop commenting on others conduct are two really different concepts. I can tell how you are seeing the things because of your deep involvement in the past similar discussions but unless you have evidence that someone is falsifying diffs, then only something can be considered. At this moment I am not seeing any problem  but that valid concerns have been raised by these users. Why we should not expect a few editors to show up when the reported editor is editing for nearly 10 years? We should. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support to stop this "disruptive scrutiny by battleground editors" as long as it does not include Mar4d. He has done nothing wrong by keeping a check on Mountain157 who is probably someone's sock.— Bukhari (Talk!) 10:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the i-ban on the two editors named by Ivanvector, for displaying WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:NOTHERE behaviour.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose First, I do not see any notification to the two editors that they are subject of a sanction discussion. There's a soft peddled notice that there is an ANI thread they may be involved in. They may have commented in this thread, but there's no guarantee they are still following it, or will recognize that they are not the targets. Second, per Vanamonde, the proposed sanction could be too complex to administer. If the editors are on notice, and were disruptive, just block them and be done with it. If they agree to stop acting this way, unblock them. Blocks are logged. These interaction bans aren't logged where anybody can find them easily. Finally, before everybody starts voting on sanctions, wouldn't you like to hear what the two accused editors have to say? Give them a chance to respond before jumping to conclusions. I think everybody will be better off starting a fresh thread and doing it properly. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see the proposed restriction being difficult to enforce, we already have enforced a "don't discuss other topic banned users" pseudo-restriction (see BU Rob13's actions ([83]) in last summer's NadirAli topic ban discussion, and actions some users have tried to use to entrap Mar4d above). I found that decision unusual since this is a topic ban, not an interaction ban, but it has cut down on the partisan mudslinging and so I retrospectively endorse it. The problem is that while that sanction applies to users subject to the ban, other users like many who commented then and who have commented here have simply taken up that same disruptive back-and-forth, and this proposal was meant to address that. But maybe we need to rethink the sanctions applying here generally, rather than single out and discuss one or two users at a time after incidents have already occurred.

Anyway, this is clearly not going anywhere, which I interpret as lack of community will to entertain more editorial violence from one of Wikipedia's most animous conflicts rather than lack of will to do something about it (see Vanamonde93's comment) but I suggest that someone uninvolved close this in the interest of moving on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Especially as this isn't the first time we've seen this antagonistic pattern of behaviour from the named editors. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Response by Accesscrawl

I agree with what Jehochman said. I don't see how the proposed sanction made any sense since my comments on this noticeboard and reports[84][85] have been always or mostly happened to bring successful results. There are better ways to express disagree with my comments but proposing sanction to suppress the disagreement is obviously not one. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Response by Lorstaking

Since no one has explicitly mentioned any actual problem, therefore I would only say that when the problem exists with the conduct of an editor then one should welcome more output to deal with it. I only participate where my analysis is undoubtedly accurate. Unless you find misrepresentation in my comments, I would instead recommend dealing with the valid concerns raised that I have raised appropriately. Lorstaking (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Indef block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is unseemly. We do not take votes to decide whether to block a user. Moreover, there is no consensus for this sanction. Jehochman ^Talk

---

Everything from a temporary block to an indefinite block and topic ban has been already tried on Mar4d (talk · contribs). But still, we are frequently observing that Mar4d strongly refuses to understand the problems with his behavior and continues to enter into indef block territory.

Mar4d's history has been a combination of WP:RGW,[86][87][88][89][90] anti-Indian POV pushing,[91][92][93][94][95] 7 years of sock puppetry,[96][97] and reckless proxying for banned socks,[98][99][100] among other long-term issues.

Back in March 2018, I recommended a topic ban on Mar4d,[101] and I still think that things would be much better if he was topic banned at that time because right after that reported he poisoned the well to the degree that some admins believed that everyone should be banned from the area. Mar4d was also topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan and warned that any further disruption or violation of topic ban or testing edges of topic ban will lead to topic ban from WP:ARBIPA or "indefinite block" without a warning.[102]

Since his topic ban from May 2018, Mar4d has continued to display behavioral and competence issues regardless of many warnings. Even after the topic ban, he continues to describe non-vandalism as being "vandalism",[103][104] misrepresents sources[105][106][107](also see next edit), proxies for banned editors (by wikihounding contributions of others),[108][109][110] violates topic ban,[111] violates copyrights,[112] and refuses to acknowledge any of these issues.[113][114][115]

Topic ban violation, problematic editing and testing of boundaries had been pointed out in the above thread. However, Mar4d has again refused to understand the concerns and instead decided to attack other contributors especially Mountain157, and misrepresented histories of other contributors. After careful consideration, I am proposing an indef block as the appropriate solution for this cumulative behavior. This is proposal is totally in line with the warning he had received.[116] Since he can't agree to follow relevant policies, and his own topic ban, he needs to be shown the door. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per concise evidence presented above. Anonymous17771 (talk · contribs) was blocked for block evasion on 24 December and his edits were reverted per "Reverting a blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE".[117] This sock requested Mar4d to edit war with Mountain157 (talk · contribs)[118] and Mar4d went ahead to proxy for this blocked sock when he made this edit. Mar4d recommended the sock to report the Mountain157 in place of condemning the block evasion.[119] Moreover, these incidents came after Mar4d had been recently warned and satisfactorily clarified about proxy editing for banned editors per User talk:Mar4d/Archive 18#Mass restorations of sock edits. Orientls (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, over-reaction. The t-ban contains most of this; an interaction ban may be necessary; I'm open to expanding the topic-ban; but a site-ban is far too much. Vanamonde (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector's comment. As stated the topic ban was specifically regarding "the military conflict between Pakistan and India" hence no violation occurred.— Bukhari (Talk!) 09:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• @BukhariSaeed: Ban was "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed"[120] To say ban was only about "military conflict" is a misrepresentation of the topic ban. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don't see evidence of Mar4d productively editing outside ARBIPA. The highlighted issues don't concern particular subject but overall conduct problems. Editor editing for 10 years and still can't recognize basic policies? Mar4d's history does not show that he is interested in contributing outside WP:ARBIPA, hence a ban from ARBIPA would be same as issuing indefinite block for second time. When a person still does not understand what has been told to him and pledges to keep violating his sanction by telling that "I was and am absolutely clear on what the TBAN is for, and have abided by it", then he is surely a net-negative. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I tend to strongly agree with the clear and reasonable evidence provided here. Mar4d's own behavior justifies this per WP:CIR. Devopam (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is just more of the same type of hounding that Ivanvector mentioned above. With most of it stale, none of the evidence is actionable in and of itself.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Can you substantiate? Recent topic ban violations occurred on 26 December and after. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 

• Oppose blocking a contributing editor based on reverting a POV based editor is concerning and should not hold merit. It's very questionable that a 20 day old account is making a controversial changes and opening ANI's on users and it is disappointing that the community is ganging up on someone based on the OP original edits. The lack of neutral editors is also concerning which makes me question that this is in fact may be a battle behavior.If Tban violation did occur, at most, an extended ban should be proposed not a site block. Wikiemirati (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose; indeed, I suspect a lot of these efforts would be better focused on looking at Mountain157, an editor who started their Wiki-career on 13 December, and quickly showed that they were pretty familiar with how Wikipedia works. They immediately started edit-warring on a number of contentious PIA articles, and persistently tried to edit-war in additions like this with unreliable sources (or sources. like this one, that didn't even support the text). They were was blocked for it eventually (by me, on 25 December for 48 hours). Since that block has expired they have started, as mentioned above, an EW incident case despite the fact that they'd reverted more times than the editor they reported, followed by this ANI. Concerning this ANI, they've badgered an admin to take action against Mar4d [121] and canvassed another editor about Mar4d's edits [122]. Black Kite (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A certainly heavy-handed and probably mistargeted response. ——SerialNumber54129 13:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Mwright1469

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

---

It appears to me that User:Mwright1469 is a sock, given their editing history:

• Account created 13 April 2013 [123]
• 3 edits on that date, including one [124] to PERMISSION requesting to have the account confirmed;
• editor was told simply to edit to get it confirmed [125]
• no more edits were made until 8 December 2018, when they added text to their user page
• then today, 29 December, a spate of 33 edits to controversial subjects (Turning Point USA, Planned Parenthood, Ben Carson) in which have attempted to use primary sources to skew articles to be more positive about right-wing subjects, and mor enegative about left-wing subjects
• editor's edit summaries [126], and talk page comment [127] shows strong familiarity of Wikipedia policies (although they're not actually following them)

This is a classic pattern for a sleeper sock, created and put aside for a useful time. Yes, I know that SPI is "that way", but you cannot file an SPI report without naming a master, and I have no master to name, only the obvious signs of sockpuppet editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ken for that introduction. Unfortunately medical education tends be lengthy but I'm happy I have time now on my holidays to contribute to Wikipedia. I can see you have taken this quite personally. As I said before, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the appropriate use of primary sources. It only took me a few youtube videos to get a hang of it.

It's important to replacing a secondary source that misquotes an organization's mission statement, with a primary source. I see you have been following my edits. I did not know Ben Carson's family was a right-wing subject or that abortion market share mathematics were a left-wing subject. Please kindly refrain from personal insults.

Mwright1469 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, ANI does not deal with content disputes, that happens on article talk pages. Your edits on Turning Point USA and Planned Parenthood have been disputed, so -- as you are aware -- you need to get a consensus for those edits on those article's talk pages.

In the meantime, ANI does deal with behavioral issues, which, in this case, is the high probability that you are a sock of a blocked or banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken So it took me a little googling to find what a "sock" is. I'm sorry you're taking this a little personally Ken. If you are not willing to have a constructive discussion on the talk pages and would rather speak in threats and personal insults, admin may have to deal with you on this. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So ... you're intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policy on primary and secondary sources, on your fourth edit you know to go to WP:PERMISSIONS to try to get confirmed in advance, but you've never heard of a "sock", you had to Google it?

Yeah, I totally believe that, it makes complete sense.

Hey, dude, you've overplayed your part. Many of those reading this thread who had been thinking "BMK really should wait until he has enough evidence to file an SPI" just changed their minds to "No way is this person such a clueless newbie that they don't know what a sockpuppet is."

Just a matter of time, Mike. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, another good indication that your only purpose here is to push a POV: you just attempted to pass off Live Action - an anti-abortion site - as a reliable secondary source, [128] citing this polemic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Another data point: Clueless newbie knows what the BLP policy is. [129]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I restored the two comments above, which were deleted by Mwright1469 in this edit. He then added the comment below. I assume he will say this was an unfortunate error of some kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So this all started with me editing interesting medical genetics pages and editing Dr. Carson's page, and then it quickly evolved to me meeting some very interesting people. Now I'm learning new acronyms, heck of a learning curve. I didn't know people edited wikipedia articles as a full time job. -Mwright1469 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My friend, if you want to play Sherlock, be my guest. As for your acronyms, BLP in my world is blood pressure, SPI is what the MRI techs can't ever get right, and ANI is what the lab uses to know if you have gonnorhoeae ;) have fun wasting your time. I think we're done here. -Mwright1469 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My prognosis is that Mwright1469 is a gonnor. EEng 08:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Until his next sock appears. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken you need to stop harassing me. You have stalked me all over wikipedia and have maliciously undone my legitimate edits. I know you think you know me but you don't. I've been editing wikipedia pages as a hobby for two days and you're actually starting to really bug me. I'm politely asking you to back off and to stop stalking me. -Mwright1469 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious.--Jorm (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, I'm just wondering, is anyone in this thread going to put up any evidence of sockpuppetry, or is being a new user and knowing how to read the fucking manual a blockable offence now? As an experienced SPI clerk, had I seen this reported in a proper case I would have summarily closed it for lacking evidence and I may have blocked the filer for biting the newbie. Mwright1469 has accurately defined this as bullying.

That being said, Mwright1469, you are off to an awfully bad start here. You've already made several patronizing comments about your fellow editors which makes it seem you've a superiority complex which will not be compatible with editing here. There may be jargon relevant to your field which may require you to explain things in more general terms from time to time, but you must find a way to do so without also implying that others lack intelligence. You are also clearly editing with an agenda in the topic of abortion, and that is not allowed. You should find some topics to edit which are not so controversial until you build more experience. You've been advised about the discretionary sanctions in this topic already although you blanked that notice from your talk page, so you ought to know now that an uninvolved administrator such as myself may place editing restrictions such as a topic ban to ensure smooth operation of the project. I am choosing not to do so at this time only because I dislike the way in which this came about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: What your comment really boils down to is that multiple admins and experienced editors -- you, me, Black Kite, Ian Thompson, and others -- have all looked at Mwright's editing history and have found it to be suspicious, but because of the way our CU policy is written, there's nothing substantive that can be done about it. That's precisely why I didn't file an SPI report - because I knew it would be rejected - and why I instead brought the problems with this editor's history here instead, so the community would be aware of this probable danger.

That highlights a problem with our CU policy on en.wiki -- and it's my understanding that it's our problem, not the WMF's because -- again, my understanding -- other language wikis have looser restrictions on CU without falling afoul of those imposed by the foundation. So, that's a problem which leaves dealing with editors like Mwright1469 to this kind of report: presenting enough evidence to hopefully stay away from a WP:Casting aspersions block when there's not enough evidence to file an effective SPI report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, thank you for your support. I understand that some users here have had negative experiences with others in the past and are taking it out on me with bullying. Things got a little heated with Ken and I, and it bugged me how I was being treated by him. I was not expecting to be treated with harsh accusations on my second day here and I will try to be kinder in the future and avoid using language that my accusers may not take kindly to. Obviously two wrongs don't make a right.

With that said, I think it'd be best if Ken and I avoid contact, this whole experience got far too out of hand and has not been very professional.

Thank you again to Ivan, and thank you TelosCricket for your message. -Mwright1469 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Here, they are intentionally emphasising "second day" as they are aware of the community's thoughts regarding WP:BITE. Again, they wouldn’t know this unless they have had more experience. IWI (chat) 03:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• As Dicklyon points out in this comment on Mwright1469's talk page (which Mwright1469 deleted as "Harrassment" [130]) concerning Mwright1469's edits to Exploitation of women in mass media, Mwight1469's POV edits are not only pro-right-wing, they are also anti-women.
  It's also concerning that they made edits to Pregnancy (mammals) [131], and Gestation [132], in which the only thing they chose to add from a journal article which studied differences in gestation periods between White, Black and Asian cohort populations, was that the "average length of gestation being 5 days shorter in black populations than in white populations". The abstract for the study [133] reports that "This research suggests that normal gestational length is shorter in Black and Asian women compared with white European women and that fetal maturation may occur earlier" (emphasis added), however Mwright1469 only added the difference between blacks and whites, and writes as if it has been proven. The choice to emphasize the difference between blacks and whites, while not mentioning Asians, is disturbing if it indicates another of the POV prejudices with which Mwright1469 is editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This kind of POV pushing is a clear indication of WP:NOTHERE. I speculate that this user was blocked on another account for this, or a similar, reason. IWI (chat) 05:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"The average length of gestation is about 5 days shorter in black populations than in white populations." is the first sentence of the abstract for this study. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but that study was not cited as a source. Why was it so darn important to note the 5-day difference between back and white gestation periods that Mwright1469 felt compelled to add it to two articles (later removed from one) without the proper citational support?

In any event, I have a hard time believing that 5 days is outside of the margin of error, or is so darned important that it has to be noted in either article. Do differences in ethnicity have more of an effect than differences in access to medical care, differences in access to proper nutrition, differences in familial support, differences in wealth? I very much doubt it, and the existence of two studies proves nothing. They shouldn't be cited at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok Ken I'm going to have to stop you right there and draw a line that you're not going to cross. You have gone WAY too far with your accusations. You can either familiarize yourself with the epidemiological literature I posted or you can try and find well-designed research on ethnic differences of gestation period - I'll save you a whole course on medical embryology and inform you that barely any exist because for starters, measuring gestation accurately is a fundamental problem. Looking through your contributions I think you should focus on editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial. As they say WP:DROPTHESTICK my friend.

@Levivich I was going to use that study but I wanted to wait until I found a better study. But you know what? I'm just going to include this one for now, I think our friend Ken needs a break from his online investigations ;) -Mwright1469 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Referencing a lesser known essay as well that you just happened to familiarise yourself with in two days? This is a content dispute anyway, not here. IWI (chat) 06:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Mwright1469, what are you suggesting when you say "Looking through your contributions I think you should focus on editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial"? IWI (chat) 06:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What essay? It's a research study. -Mwright1469 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean WP:DROPTHESTICK, it’s an essay. Please answer the last question as well. IWI (chat) 06:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

An editor recently mentioned DROPTHESTICK on Mwright's talk page. [134] Levivich (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cullen328 has just blocked him for 2 weeks. IWI (chat) 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time identifying what rule this editor broke that merits a two-week block without warning in the middle of an ANI discussion in which the proposed indef block is almost snow-opposed. Most of their edits, while of a certain POV flavor, seemed sourced and accurate, and the entire basis of the sock allegations appears to be newbie proficiency. Seems like a content dispute not a conduct dispute at all. Levivich (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve taken it up with Cullen. If everyone seems to disagree then he’ll probably retract it. IWI (chat) 06:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Cullen made the wrong call or that no sanction is warranted. I agree with Cullen it appears it could be trolling, and I note to Cullen's credit the block said any disagreeing admin is free to unblock. But I want to point out that this editor has been accused, on their first and second active days, at ANI, at their user talk page, and at various article talk pages, of: socking, 3RR, NPOV violations, SPA, and NOTHERE; the indef block proposal did not seem to have consensus; and he was ultimately blocked for "disruptive editing." I don't have the experience to judge what should be done here, but I for one am confused about which, if any, of those accusations are considered substantiated. I think it would be clearer if the editor were warned, officially, for specific conduct violations (if any), and blocked if they violated such a warning. A shorter block, tban or other remedy may also lie. Levivich (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for assuming good faith on my part, Levivich. I was completely sincere that any other adminstrator is free to unblock if they disagree with my assessment. Any adminstrator. I took this action based on the confidence that the editing community has placed in me (true) and the fat paycheck I receive (joke). This discussion constitutes the warning, in my view, and the editor's response here justifies a two week block. There is no consensus for an indefinite block and if any other adminstrator feels that two weeks is excessive, feel free to unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is not a uniquely wikipedia concept so it is unfair to say a new editor should not know what a sock is. In the closed section someone alleged the editor said they had been editing since 2009 but I read that they said BMK had been here since 2009. Let's keep our facts straight. Legacypac (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, googling “sock urban dictionary” comes up with this as the second entry. Googling “sock wikipedia” comes up with WP:SOCK as the fifth entry. CThomas³ (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting that I never expressed doubt that one could find out what a "sock" was from Googling it, only that Mwright1369 didn't already know and had to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• My apologies, I was not trying to imply otherwise. I was just following up on your comment below: I highly doubt googling "sock" will show anything to do with a sockpuppet, although I could be wrong. I was curious to see how much work it would take, and if it were something a truly new editor with no context might reasonably stumble upon. CThomas³ (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• That comment was made by another editor, not me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oops, my apologies again. CThomas³ (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Mwright1469's initial edits on 29 Dec were to Turning Point USA, replacing some secondary sources with primary self-sourcing, which is perhaps problematic, but arguably allowed and maybe even preferred under WP:ABOUTSELF–the kind of thing, in my view, that is the proper subject for discussion and consensus on an article's talk page. BMK reverted these edits wholesale,^[135] the second time calling them "POV edits" in the edit summary.^[136] After BMK's initial reversions, Mwright took it to the talk page, with a somewhat pedantic response, but not an uncivil one.^[137] BMK's first response to Mwright's post was: "I am very familiar with the rules on sourcing. What is the name of your previous account, for whom this account is a sock?"^[138] That's a provocative, and I would say borderline uncivil, response.

BMK posted this ANI report just minutes later, before ever posting a second post on the TPUSA article's talk page.^[139] Similarly, there was no discussion yet at all on Planned Parenthood. At that point, this was, in my view, entirely a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. It should not have left the talk pages of the articles in question. I understand Mwright having a strong negative reaction to BMK after that kind of "welcome." I believe BMK was acting in good-faith but I also believe he could have assumed more good faith and thereby kept this dispute from spiraling downwards. This is a case study for why WP:AGF is important. If you accuse editors with whom you have a content dispute of bad conduct (socking, COI, POV pushing, whatever), all you do is needlessly inflame the content dispute. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your analysis of my motivations (i.e. that I was fighting a content dispute by other means) is completely incorrect.

Turning Point USA is an article which has had a plethora of IPs and unconfirmed editors -- including socks -- adding information which either attempts to skew the article in favor of te group, or is promotional on the organization's behalf. It requires constant watching from as many eyes as possible. When Mwright1469 made their edits, and I checked their editing history (which I laid out at the top of this report) alarm bells went off. That was the purpose of this report, to alert the community to probable socking activity which did not rise to the level of an SPI report, but which was a very familiar pattern for sleeper socks. That I had to go about it that way is, as I said above, a problem with our CU policy, but that's the way things stand.

My report had nothing to do with a content dispute, but looking at Mwirght1469's edits makes it quite clear that they are pushing a far-right, anti-abortion, anti-women POV, and they need to be watched very closely because of it. That, too, is not a content dispute, it's a behavioral problem: see WP:SPA and WP:CPUSH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to analyze your motivations, just your actions. I believe your motivations were "pure" or good-faith: protecting the encyclopedia from damage and bringing an urgent problem to the community's attention. What I'm saying is that some things which you feel are "quite clear," others do not feel are so clear, as evidenced by editors' comments above and below. WP:AGF, to me, means if you think someone's a sock, you don't say that, unless you have enough to go to SPI. What you refer to as a "problem" with the CU policy may not be a bug, it may be a feature. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Could be, but please do recall that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. A lot of damage can be done while sitting back and AGFing, allowing a problematic editor to run free -- and, no, it's not so easy as you may think to undo damaging edits, because they get buried below other edits and need to be removed by hand, which can be a time-consuming process. I'm (obviously) of the opinion that in many cases it's better to bring up apparent problems when they actually make their appearance, as opposed to when you can wrap up the case in shiny paper and a pretty bow and present it all neat and tidy.

I'm not asking for CUs to be allowed to go snooping into everyone's information at will, all I'm suggesting is that the bar needs to be a bit lower than it is now. Nor am I faulting CUs or SPI clerks, who are simply following the policy as written. I believe that the information I provided should be enough to allow a CU to do a check and report the results, and if they are negative, then I'm glad to offer my sincere apologies to the editor involved -- as long as there aren't other problems, such as in this case, with Mwright1469's biased editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

For some reason, people think policies must be perfect. If amendments are needed, which they are, they should be implemented. People shouldn't reject these ideas or the website will never improve truly. IWI (chat) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block

Based on the above, I'm proposing an indef block for User:Mwright1469, per WP:NOTHERE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose So quick to jump to an indef! While Mwright1469's behavior is clearly problematic, I don't see enough evidence to suggest WP:NOTHERE. So far what I see is that they've run headlong into a topic they are passionate about and run afoul of POV pushing. I would not oppose a shorter block--say a week--that would allow cool down time, but not an indef. TelosCricket (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: someone who considers The New Yorker to be a "tabloid" does not appear to appreciate what WP:RS are, which is clearly disruptive: Sources are mostly from the New Yorker, a heavily biased tabloid with an article that does not mention any of its sources and only "alleges" involvement. Source is minimally credible (via edit summary). --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

An article with spelling mistakes from a publisher with sensational headlines? I had hoped we placed a higher standard for evidence. Either way, this is a talk pages discussion, not ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwright1469 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If you think that The New Yorker -- a periodical with a deserved decades-long reputation for fact-checking -- isn't a reliable source, you're more than welcome to start a discussion on the WP:reliable sources noticeboard, where you'll quickly get your hat handed back to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per my replies above. I assumed only admins could vote but seeing that K.e.coffman has voted, I will as well. -Mwright1469 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note to closer: The "oppose" vote above was made by the subject of the proposed block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Mwright1469: Admins can unilaterally pass a saction like an indefinite block (although bans generally must involve the community). What is a bit unseemly is !voting on a motion to block yourself, aas it's generally assumed that you don't want to be blocked. There's nothing in policy against it, but there's a big difference between uninvolved editors expressing opinions and the editor being discussed. It's just not the done thing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BITE. PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm highly suspicious, but I think that you would need proof if you're going to make that sort of an accusation. It's possible the user here is a very careful man. SportingFlyer talk 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't see any solid proof of wrongdoing; even after the sweating the editor has been given. This all seems a bit bitey. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose - Problematic? Quite, but an indef is probably not the right thing to do at this stage; I definitely don’t see probable cause for WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 02:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - BMK is right, this user knows a lot about our policies and guidelines, and are probably a sock. I didn’t think this was enough evidence, but how else would they know if they didn’t have another account. Blatantly pointing out "I had to google what a sock is", using the short form as well, is just obviously a lie to make people believe they are clueless (looks like it worked). I highly doubt googling "sock" will show anything to do with a sockpuppet, although I could be wrong. The final nail in the coffin is that they knew exactly where to get confirmed (something an IP editor, who may be somewhat familiar with policies, probably wouldn’t know), straight away. They are also POV pushing in a subtle, disruptive way and I don’t see that they are here for the project's purposes, so they should be blocked. IWI (chat) 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support As Paul Magriel liked to say, "quack quack!". We don't need this dissembling. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Innocent of socking until proven guilty. I've come across many other users who display sock-like behaviour but it is not usual to block until there is either some hard evidence against them or they actually do something wrong. Frankly I don't see how Mwright1469's conduct is worse than that of the editor he's complaining about. Deb (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Writing in assumption Mwright1469 is a new good-faith editor who is not an LTA sock, there is no evidence of socking. It's reasonable for someone to create an account then make two edits and disappear before coming back many years later (i.e. they didn't like using the website at first, found it to be more useful after many years, etc). In the diffs above, BMK said things that would've gotten a newbie blocked indefinitely if they had said it to an experienced editor ("cut the crap", "keep your bullshit to yourself"). In addition to the incivility, BMK made a report here without any evidence for sockpuppetry, justified it by pointing to the flaws of WP:SOCK and was supported by multiple admins who likely had not even reviewed the case adequately (i.e. "Gee, could he have been using another account in 2009?" to an incorrect claim by Shashank5988 below). This is a blatant case of bias against new editors. I don't like the idea of ganging up against someone especially when there's no evidence or proof of their wrongdoings as it makes calling for boomerang a little reasonable. I think Mwright1469 should be unblocked.-- Flooded with them hundreds 11:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Per WP:ROPE - while I would prefer there to be a more explicit policy on Wikipedia with regard to the dissemination of pseudo-scientific statements WRT the social sciences and humanities (which so often are allowed through on lousy reliable sources) and while I find the opinions of MWright to be atrocious and vexatious, they haven't actually violated WP policy... Yet... and absent proof of sock-puppetry, WP:BITE would suggest we give them a chance to understand Wikipedia's rather unique online culture before indeffing them. Perhaps the already-enacted two-week block will be the warning they need to address some of the nascent behavioural concerns. And if it's not, well... AN/I isn't going anywhere, and this discussion is going to remain in the archive. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - With Cullen's permission, I have reduced the block on Mwright1469 to 48 hours. I doubt that there is any consensus in favour of a longer block. I can think of at least one respected contributor on this project who has had a change of ID without anyone noticing and has turned from his early "challenging" behaviour to become a highly productive and sensible Wikipedian. Let's give this user - whether he's new or not - a second chance. Deb (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• It will be interesting to see if Mwrght1469 keeps up their POV-pushing editing when they come off their block in a couple of days. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I feel like I've said these exact words more than once in the past, but here goes: while I think BMK could have approached initial interactions with this user more tactfully and therefore preserved credibility for this filing, I nevertheless feel that their read on the situation is likely accurate. This user's particular blend of gamemanship and posturing on policy are very much indicative of someone who not only has substantial experience with our processes, but also in attempting to subvert them to excuse POV pushing and smear anyone who begins to look too closely at their behaviour as a means of muddying the water. Furthermore, even were I not convinced that this account is likely to be a sock, there are also obvious and profound WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIV, and WP:CIR issues in the nature of their editing and interactions with other contributors. I realize it is a an argument that raises some concerns when we invoke WP:BURO as part of advocating for a block, but I think BMK's argument holds water: I do not think we would be be getting good value for our caution by extending WP:ROPE here. All factors considered, I can support the block here, albeit one which should be notated on the user page to reflect the nature of the discussion here, such that if Mwright wants to slow their role and apply for the WP:standard offer a little down the line, we can allow them a second chance at that point. I just don't think shorter term blocks are likely to arrest the substantial issues here. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I think BMK's reading of the situation is on the mark. The behavior is clear that this is a sleeper POV account. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Post-closing comments

I don't know where to register my strong disagreement with the indef block. An indef block was proposed. It was recognized there was no consensus in the discussion. One admin (who said there was no consensus for an indef block) imposed a 2-week block. A second admin reduced that to 48 hours. The reducing admin advised the editor not to approach contentious topics. The editor agreed to do so on their talk page. Then a third admin comes in and–poof–indef block! How are things run here? By rule of the last-acting admin? Admin should be discussing how to proceed and acting with consensus, not tripartite wheel-warring with "communicating" via blocks. The first two admin did discuss things with each other; but the third admin's actions, overruling everybody else, seems rather ham-fisted. Levivich (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, this is not wheel warring by any reasonable definition. I openly said from the beginning that I would not object if another adminstrator modified my block. And I don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 You said that, but I didn't see the second admin say that, and it is the second admin's block which has now been extended indefinitely, is it not? Anyway, I take your point that I am misusing the term–I don't presume to know what "wheel warring" means better than anyone else–so I've struck and rephrased my comment accordingly. I don't mean to accuse anyone of breaking any actual rules. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Deb can comment if she wishes, and the blocked editor is welcome to appeal the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I avoided wheel warring by not immediately undoing the block imposed by User:JzG. Why was it impossible for him to inform me in advance that he intended to overrule the result of my discussion with Cullen328?Deb (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Bold edits and bold admin actions often break through problems at Wikipedia. JzG is correct that Mwright1469 is an obvious sleeper sock with an unhelpful interest in topics related to gender and race. Good block. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, I ask "Please show us some evidence" instead of vague statements that he is an obvious sleeper or sock. Deb (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Challenging the decision to close the discussion and re-block User:Mwright1469

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

---

User:JzG has taken the decision to close a discussion at which there was clearly no consensus for an indefinite block on this user (proposed by User:K.e.coffman). As far as I can see, no one contacted the user to inform him that the proposal to block him indefinitely was even being made, although he subsequently contributed to the discussion. Mwright1469 was defended by multiple editors who pointed out that no actual evidence of wrongdoing had been presented against him. User:Beyond My Ken, who identified him as a sock, also stated that he did not have enough evidence for an SPI investigation. I discussed this with User:Cullen328, who had imposed a two-week block, and who accepted my request to reduce the block. I placed advice on Mwright1469's Talk page as to his future conduct. A few hours later, I found that JzG, who had not previously been involved, took the decision to close the ongoing discussion before any conclusion had been reached and to impose an indefinite block, without informing or consulting me. When I queried this, he replied that "this is a Gamergate clone" but has declined to provide any evidence for this statement. This closure, although not against the letter of procedure, does go against our AGF and behavioral guidelines as well as against consensus, and I'm disappointed in JzG for taking this cavalier attitude. I could, of course, lift the block myself, but I won't do that, for the same reason that JzG should not have imposed this block in the first place. It's against the spirit of the procedures for closure and for dealing with other administrators. Deb (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Good block. @Deb: Have you dealt with sleeper socks? Did you get involved during the Gamergate fiasco? Have you seen the many sleepers being used to post nonsense at WP:ANI? Sleepers don't come with a badge. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Deb's good faith does her great credit, but for me this is pretty clear: we saw hundreds of accounts like this at the peak of GamerGate, and many of them caused much drama before finally being banned. It is ridiculously unlikely that this user has not been using another account, based on edit summaries. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is it that you can't point to another one? Why is it that you can't raise an SPI? Deb (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Check the summaries and edits, Deb. Someone with basically no prior edits doesn't use proprietorial language like "We prefer secondary sources. Please review WP:NOR for clarification" in an obvious GamerGate context. Summaries like "First sentence is unsourced, last two sentences are entirely based on the conclusion of primary research. We prefer secondary sources, primary in this case is not acceptable as per WP:NOR - discuss on talk page please" do not speak of less than 3 days of active editing. I judge, from the tendentious editing and combative edit summaries indicating long experience of Wikipedia, that this is (a) not the user's only account and (b) not a genuine good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. And I think that is all I am going to say on this, because digging in would be less good than sitting back and letting other people decide. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• [BMK] also stated that he did not have enough evidence for an SPI investigation

• No he didn't, he said "you cannot file an SPI report without naming a master, and I have no master to name", which is NOT the same thing at all.--Calton | Talk 12:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely the same thing. Deb (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Baloney. It's a bureaucratic hoop, not a statement of a lack of evidence. That you would conflate the two in your posting about BMK -- deliberately or otherwise -- and immediately blame BMK for what appears to be YOUR error in the collapsed section below has got me wondering about your inconsistent application of AGF. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
      • This is bordering on a personal attack. And "baloney" is not an argument. Deb (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Confusing and probably not that important

It appears that User:Beyond My Ken has altered the content of this section and created an additional section above, thus affecting the flow of the discussion. Why did you do that, BMK? Deb (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC) It is quite possible that my edits, which were meant to be non-controversial housekeeping [140], caused some confusion. I am completely open to any solution, feel free to rearrange comments of needed. My apologies if indeed my edits were confusing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) It confused me, anyway - but I'm easily confused. :-) Deb (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC) (ec) Actually, Deb, you altered the flow of discussion. The first section above are comments made immediately after the closing by JzG, beginning with the one from Levivich at 00:40, 3 January 2019. This discussion continued until Johnuniq's comment at 01:09, 3 January 2019. Then, some 8 hours later, at 09:17, 3 January 2019, you inserted a new header and your comment (beginning "User:JzG has taken the decision to close a discussion"} above Levivich's, instead of after Jonuniq's, thus messing up the chronology. This version of AN/I shows the state of the thread immediately before your comment, with Levivich's comment coming after the closing by Guy, and ending with Johnuniq's comment beginning "Bold edits and bold admin actions often break through problems at Wikipedia." This diff shows you inserting your new section and comment immediately after the "abot" statement, that is before Levivich's comment Your edit created this version of AN/I. I merely restored the correct chronology, where your new section comes after Johnuniq's comment in the prvious section. My only substantive change was to add a header for the comments made immediately after the closing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Looking at Ymblanter's edit, it seems that you (Deb) intended the new material to be a whole new section, and Ymblanter changed it from level 2 to level 3, but if you intended that, you still put it in the wrong place, after the "abot" which closed the previous sections, but before Levivich's post-closing comment. It still should have gone after Johnuniqs comment, which ended that thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, I created a new section, with a header, directly under the one that I was addressing. I didn't see Levivich's comment because it wasn't in a section. However, the subsequent edits relating to the same issue are now in the earlier section. Deb (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here (I think) is that User:JzG and User:Johnuniq have both, at some time in the past, been involved in discussions over something called GamerGate and both believe that User:Mwright1469 is a sleeper-sock created for reasons relating to the GamerGate discussions. It's difficult for the rest of us to understand why it's not possible to point to comparable edits so as to demonstrate the perceived similarity between the edits of accounts blocked as a result of "GamerGate" and the ones made by Mwright1469. If one real example had been shown, rather than simply a statement that "we just know from experience", my approach to this incident would be different. At the moment I'm not even seeing how this example quoted by JzG is racist. Deb (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, Mwright1469 is  Unrelated to any other currently active account, and data doesn't reveal any reason why we should not take them at their word regarding their history. Absent any other evidence that this account is a sleeper sock, which should include diffs, the editor should be evaluated on their recent edits and behaviour, not their supposed connection to other bad actors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• That being said, I agree (and observed earlier) that Mwright1469's edits in these contentious topics do appear to come with a POV agenda; whether that's related to the agendas of past bad actors I cannot say, but I also agree there are recurring themes here. I declined to impose an Arb-enforcement topic ban at that time, but after our short conversation they continued talking down to and casting aspersions against Beyond My Ken (e.g. [141]) and clearly went go out of their way to interfere with BMK's edits in other topics ([142]). Because the areas that they seem to want to edit will not tolerate their agenda and attitude, I now suggest that the current indefinite block be commuted to a topic ban from abortion (WP:ARBAB) and gender politics including GamerGate (WP:ARBGG), and a one-way interaction ban from Beyond My Ken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would certainly support that as an alternative. Deb (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Like Guy, I too don't see a genuine good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia from Mwright1469. From their editing of Turning Point USA and its talkpage, they look to me like a tendentious editor not only as regards abortion and gender politics, but also in the American politics arena. So, should we impose a three-topic topic ban plus a one-way IBAN..? Too intricate? Perhaps. I prefer an indef block, myself, with the option to appeal in six months. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC).
• For the record, I am fine with a TBAN if that's the view of the assembled multitude. My concerns are entirely about the chronic waste of good faith Wikipedians' time by agenda editors on these topics. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• If you don't know what GamerGate is, please read the entire article carefully before forming an opinion. These are really nasty people who are out to harass women online. When weighing the magnitude of potential harm against the risk of a false positive, that's something to consider. An indef block stops the user from having that account. They can always go quietly create a new account, after some time passes, and edit peacefully if they are actually a good faith user. The indef just slows them down a bit. Jehochman ^Talk 22:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You're suggesting that we have to be involved in the issues in order to assess whether a block is appropriate; I think it's better to be impartial. I've already said I will support a topic ban, which ought to be good enough if the only problem is tendentious editing. Deb (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Mwright1469 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - links to aid scrutiny
  • They've tripped the edit filter twice.
  • In 2013 the user starts by making two trivial edits, and then this [143] is their third edit ever. New user? Really? Not new user.
  • Then, in 2018, about 5 years 8 months later, this is the fourth edit ever. [144]
  • I agree that this is a sleeper sock. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• People create sleepers thinking they might use them later. I listed some of the sleepers activated by a single person to troll ANI—a pathetic aim, yet they thought it worth burning over 30 accounts that mostly never edited since creation roughly two years ago. See my sandbox (permalink). The telltale sign of a returned user is the attitude they bring with them—why would a new user battle experienced editors? Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll have a look. Deb (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• I strongly echo Deb's comments that we should have evidence of sock-puppetry before banishing an editor for that reason. If you want to bring on some sanctions for POV, then by all means take that route. But I'm wondering if the evidence in that regard is not strong enough, hence the sock accusation. RandomGnome (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Said an account that registered on Dec 24, 2018 and has fewer than 20 edits. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, that's a comment and approach I find unbecoming of an admin. 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) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And you immediately found your way here as Defender of the Defenseless. Cool story. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Another accusing editor with no evidence of my misconduct. Not surprised that you would also indefinitely ban someone with....no evidence. It's not a particularly cool story but it's the true one: I have edited Wikipedia minimally and irregularly with ever-changing (ISP actioned) IPs. This is not a crime, or against policy here. Though it clearly appears to transgress some kind of moral code among the small club of regulars who can't seem to understand that the majority of people are not glued to Wikipedia 24/7/365. I apologize for the faux pas, but until you have actionable evidence, please quit the accusations, because you are helping to make this place incredibly unwelcoming and cliquey. RandomGnome (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a sleeper sock, as it pretty much checks all the boxes. --Calton | Talk 12:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Jehochman: You commented that They've tripped the edit filter twice, which is true, but it's also worth noting that neither edit that tripped an edit filter was problematic. One was a grammatical error that was corrected. The other was removing a duplicate reference and was immediately followed by the addition of a cross-reference in its place. I have no idea if this is a sleeper sock or not and express no opinion on the appropriate action, but I do think it is fair to note that neither edit tripping an edit filter was actually problematic. Both were appropriate / acceptable edits and offer no basis for criticism. Did you examine the edits before noting above that edit filters have been tripped? EdChem (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  You'll notice that my statement was that they had tripped the edit filter twice. True. I did not assert that this was something wrong. It's under a heading of "scrutiny", not "wrongdoing". Thank you for taking a deeper dive. That was sort of the point for my calling out the edit filter activity. I've tripped the edit filter way more than two times. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I raised this discussion because I felt that the previous closure was inappropriate. So far, virtually no one has addressed that question. Deb (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  The outcome is being re-evaluated. Is that what you were requesting? Or do you want to somehow sanction the editor who made an improper closure? What outcome are you looking for? Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I feel that the closure was appropriate. It occurred because Mwright1469 had been blocked indefinitely by JzG. Since the discussion started, more problematic editing came to light; for example, his last mainspace edit before the block was to troll BMK via an edit summary: I don't know Beyond My Ken, I think some people would want to see a citation for this. While blocked, 1467 continued with posts on their Talk page, describing how he had been wronged, without acknowledging his disruption: [145], [146].

This is either too practised (trolling) or too entitled (lack of a learning curve). Neither is suggestive that the user would be a productive member of the community. As I understand, TBans and IBans are designed for editors who are otherwise a net-positive but have issues with a particular topic or with a particular editor. Pretty much all of 1467's edits have been disruptive in some way. If someone needs three topic bans and a one-way interaction ban to edit here, that's a problem. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Question/proposals: Jehochman closed a "Proposal:Indef block" section writing "This is unseemly. We do not take votes to decide whether to block a user." Other indef block proposals have not been similarly closed, including the indef proposal in this thread, and this indef block proposal, which was closed by Swarm, writing "Per a strong consensus, [user] is indefinitely blocked, and by extension, indefinitely site banned by the community." Other proposals, for tbans, ibans, etc., seem to be permitted at ANI. I don't know what's right or wrong and I express no opinion; I only raise the question because I hope I am not breaking any rules by posting the questions below, which are basically a series of alternative proposals (though more than one could be adopted). My hope is that making specific potential proposals for editors to discuss will help clarify consensus, and that in turn will help bring this dispute, and this thread, to a close. If the wording of the proposals is not good, I ask other editors to edit and improve them. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Leave indef block in place, close this thread

Should this thread be closed, and indefinite block remain in place until/unless Mwright1469 makes a successful {unblock} request? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because I support some of the alternatives below. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because there are better solutions. Deb (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support per Coffman and other above. The user was not indeffed because he looked like a sock. He was indeffed for NOTHERE based POV pushing. I was originally opposed to an indeff, but based on his continued posts on his talk page, he's not getting the message. So, indeff with ability to maybe come back later. TelosCricket (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1-Month Topic ban

Should Mwright1469 be topic banned from abortion and gender politics (including GamerGate) for one month (or some other duration)? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because I don't think it will be effective. If the user is a "troll," for lack of a better word, they will just troll in another area. If the user is not a troll, we will have prevented a new user from editing in their preferred area. I don't see enough evidence (diffs) of problematic edits in a particular area (or any connection to GG for that matter). The diffs raised thus far are, in my view, not problematic. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support if two-way interaction ban cannot be agreed. Deb (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1-Month Two-way interaction ban

Should Mwright1469 and Beyond My Ken be subject to a two-way interaction ban of one month (or some other duration)? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support as this seems to be primarily a dispute between two users, both of whom, in my view, have said sharp things towards one another. I think "go to your respective corners" will help calm the waters. I note Mwright, on their talk page, has indicated they would voluntarily agree to this; BMK, on Mwright's talk page, has said he would not voluntarily agree to this (User talk:Mwright1469#Your block). Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support - as well as Mwright1469's thoughtless editing, there has been a lot of goading and provocation - mostly from those who think they are supporting BMK but in fact are merely aggravating the situation. Deb (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1-Month One-way interaction ban

Should Mwright1469 be subject to a one-way interaction ban against Beyond My Ken, or should Beyond My Ken be subject to a one-way interaction ban against Mwright1469, of one month (or some other duration)? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose any one-way interaction ban, because it would embolden the editor who was not subject to the ban by condoning or endorsing their behavior. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons summarised by Levivich.Deb (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock and warn

Should Mwright1469 be unblocked, with or without a warning? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Mwright has already been blocked for several days now. They initially posted responses to their talk page, but when advised to stop [147], they stopped, even deleting those responses [148]. I see this as compliance with community norms, a willingness and ability to change their behavior in response to input from other editors. I don't see any way that we can differentiate a good new editor from a NOTHERE editor, other than to let them edit and see what happens. I think a two-way iban, and this multi-day block, is enough of a "warning," and we should now give the editor a chance. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support as my preferred course of action, since the only possible proof is in the pudding. If Mwright1469 does not respect the decision of the community, I'll be happy to block him myself. Deb (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Unnecessary

The author of this multi-part proposal recently filed a request for arbitration, which was quickly declined with suggestions to the OP of avoiding unnecessary drama: Requests for arbitration: Sockpuppet allegations. Perhaps TBan Levivich from participating in administrative noticeboards unless the matter directly concerns them. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That reasoning would exclude you from participating in this discussion as well. Deb (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've not recently filed a RFAR that was declined 0 to 8: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Really, this is going too far. Are you suggesting that the RFAR has a direct bearing on the incident onto which you have tacked your comment? I hate to say it, but it looks like you are trying to cloud the issue simply because you don't agree with User:Levivich's proposals. And if you don't think any of them are suitable, why not make some alternative suggestions? Deb (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Stricken. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTHERE behavior by Professor Pug

Professor Pug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not appear to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and instead seems mostly focused on using their userpages as a webhost. They created User:Professor Pug/sandbox/nUSA White House Communications Director Notes as some kind of information page regarding a Roblox server, and then duplicated the same info at Template:NUSA White House Communications Director (currently up at TfD) and User:Professor Pug/sandbox. Their only edits outside of these pages have been a bunch of tiny edits to List of presidents of the United States by military rank in quick succession, usually adding wikilinks, presumably to reach autoconfirmed. They overall appear to be WP:NOTHERE. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve nominated the two userspace pages discussed for speedy deletion under section U5. Definitely just using Wikipedia as a web host, WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 03:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a Roblox group of some sort trying to use the website to host information. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've also deleted the template per U5 and IAR, it's clearly of no use to the encyclopedia. What's left of the user's contribs is a handful of edits to List of presidents of the United States by military rank which someone more knowledgeable about the topic should probably review, but the user hasn't edited in three weeks, so we can probably leave this to rest. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin ignoring BLP Issues

There was an on-going discussion on the BLP noticeboard regarding a BLP issue. The one editor, Geo Swan, was unhappy with the discussion not going their way and decided to forum shop and request that the article is protected as there was two other IP editors involved. The protecting admin, Swarm, had decided that the removal of information in line with the BLP policies and supported by the BLP noticeboard are vandalism and removing BLP violations from an article is not acceptable. An IP editor has requested admin transparency from Swarm and was blown off [[149]]. I am sorry but this behavior is unacceptable from a long established admin. 104.249.231.176 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would not call Swarm's detailed response a case of "blown off". That makes this complaint pretty weak. I've notified Swarm of your post here - which you are supposed to do when you start an ANi thread about an editor. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This IP editor was correct to stubify a version of the Mathew L. Golsteyn which contained BLP violations (negative claims not referenced to any sources). Their later removal of material and stubification after referencing concerns had been addressed was unhelpful, but I think was done in good faith. There was general agreement at WP:BLPN#Mathew L. Golsteyn that the article is not consistent with WP:BLP, and I've taken it to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn) where there is also currently agreement that the article is not sustainable on BLP grounds, so the IP is correct to still be concerned about the article. The editor (Geo Swan) who requested protection has been ignoring these concerns, despite having sought advice on my talk page and at WP:BLPN. Their report at WP:RFPP [150] ignored these concerns and contained falsehoods - especially the claim that "no one tried to defend the excision, on BLP grounds" - I did so in my first response to the discussion Geo Swan started on my talk page [151] and later at BLPN [152]. Swarm failed to do their homework before applying protection here. I've started a discussion with them on their talk page regarding their incorrect claim that I hadn't explained my concerns. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor should also register an account if they're concerned with things like this - Swarm or others could use that account's talk page to ask them to stop making unhelpful edits instead of protecting the page. It simply isn't possible for admins to discuss issues with editors operating from dynamic IPs. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't see how you can call this a "removal of negative unsourced content", anyone can see that 15 separate references were deleted. I read the discussion at BLPN, and on your talk page, and on mine, and the article talk page, and I don't see anyone having pointed out any content that is unsourced, and if there is any, obviously it should be removed. You were asked what unsourced content you were referring to, and you refused to specify. If the negative unsourced content is so obvious that you refuse to even specify what it is when asked, then I don't see why you don't just remove it. You're a confirmed editor, you can still edit the article, and it's not even considered edit warring. You really should remove it, if you have identified such content. But, I don't see blanking a thoroughly-sourced article, per "unspecified unsourced BLP vios" being a credible course of action, even if done in good faith, which I don't doubt that it is. This was just some random RfPP report I actioned, I certainly have no dog in this fight, and if I could see something that I overlooked, I would certainly have no problem apologizing and reversing myself. But, just saying "BLP vio" does not automatically give you permission to make any edit you want, and on its face, I don't see it, and neither will anyone else if you refuse to specify what the BLP vio is beyond "it's obvious".  Swarm  {talk}  23:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the IP editor's initial edits, where they removed unsourced negative content. This was later sourced - hence why I'm saying that their subsequent changes were unhelpful. However, they weren't unreasonable (hence why I've taken the article to AfD, which seems the better course of action at this point), and I think that you missed the context. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so you mean the first blanking, where the IP specifically stated that they were "stubbing out the article" in response to the statement that the victim was "taken off base", alleging that "NY Times says bomb maker was released, not taken off base". So, they blanked an entire article, deleting nine inline citations, over one claim that supposedly failed verification. However, if you look at the source the IP is referring to, it says: Major Golsteyn ... concerned that the man, if released, would kill American troops ... took him off the base, shot and killed him, ... [Army] documents say. The IP was either wrong, or misrepresenting the source intentionally. Granted, the citation was after the first sentence, rather than at the end of the paragraph, which did make that particular claim appear unsourced, and if the IP had just removed that specific claim, erroneously thinking that it was unsourced, that would forgivable. But, not only was there a source, but the IP was aware of the source, and they actually read the source, and then blanked the whole article, reliably-sourced content and all, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what the source said. That's the only specific allegation of "negative claims not referenced to any sources", and it's wrong. So, I'm still not sure what "BLP violations (negative claims not referenced to any sources)" you're saying the IP was correct in removing.  Swarm  {talk}  02:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've only looked at the diff linked to by Swarm, but yeah, that's not "removing negative unsourced material". And yeah, I'd go so far as to call their removal "unreasonable". Deleting something for "reason X" when reason X isn't true is unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:CRYBLP. We understand that you don't like the fact that mainstream media is less than enchanted by Goldsteyn's actions or Trump's mooted pardon. That is not our problem to fix. Sources like the Washington Post and New York Times are solid. Washington Times not so much - so maybe focus on nuking Washington Times and other unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably another round of compromised accounts

The ongoing vandalism here on ANI are all veeeeery old accounts with no activity in the past few years (if ever). DMacks (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Looking at the dates they were registered, it's more likely that someone made a bunch of sleepers and is now bringing them out of the drawer.

dates, sorted
2016 05 29 2016 06 01 2016 06 03 2016 06 07 2016 06 12 2016 06 17 2016 06 17 2016 07 08 2016 07 08 2016 07 10 2016 11 04 2016 11 04 2016 11 05 2016 11 06 2016 11 06 2016 11 09 2016 11 09 2016 11 16 2016 11 23 2016 11 24 2016 11 24 2016 11 24 2016 11 24 2016 11 25 2017 02 07 2017 05 06 2017 05 07 2017 05 10 2017 05 14 2017 05 20 2017 05 24 2018 08 30

If they were compromised, I'd expect a much bigger variance in creation date. ansh666 06:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. I didn't have as large a pool to compare at the time to see that pattern. Thanks for cross-checking! DMacks (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A SPI was opened. However, most of the "compromised" account did not have edit outside ANI at all, with one account trolling Zuckerberg. The case should now handle by admin and CU, but i would say they are more likely a large pool of sleeper account. May be the sockmaster creating new accounts by ip hooping or every new public computer or other reason. No pattern on username. Matthew hk (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pteridactyl, yep. ansh666 03:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Ansh666. The troll is running through old sleepers instead of creating new accounts at the moment because a technical restriction is doing what it's supposed to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ottomanor vandalising templates

• Ottomanor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Template:Top level Turkish football seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018–19 Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017–18 Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015–16 Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Ottomanor recently vandalised and deleted the template Top level Turkish football seasons numerous times on several different articles now recently. The bad thing is he/she also does that persistently, even though the disruptive edits in question were reverted several times. This user also went as far as blanking the page of the respective template, see here. It is blatantly obvious that this user does not care about the rules of Wiki in any way and that cooperative work and constructive contributions are not his goal. A look on his talk page also says enough.

Here a list of his persistent disruptive edits:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4 (simply blanked the page)

Simply repeating the vandalism on the same pages (despite the reverts):

• diff5
• diff6
• diff7
• diff8
• diff9
• diff10
• diff11
• diff12

It's obvious that this user does not care about warnings, as the same edits are done again. I also have issued one. I hope you can help with this. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Akocsg: It doesn't look like you've warned the user about this on their talk page. Perhaps you should have warned first before filing an ANI report. SemiHypercube 16:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: I did so today. This user is not new and got warned about several other issues already, still ignoring them. And does that change the fact that this case is not obvious vandalism? Akocsg (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If you did warn them, I must have not noticed, but the user's behavior indeed is still disruptive, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. SemiHypercube 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Back on December 17, Ottomanor blanked the template {{Top level Turkish football seasons}} as noted above. That might seem to be an old problem, but lately he has been removing the template from other articles such as 2017–18 Süper Lig. I left a note asking him to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) List of Turkish football champions was suffered from edit war before. However, Ottomanor did not involve in the content dispute, and so far he did not reply in his talk page. Matthew hk (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Failure to communicate, WP:NOTHERE

Recruos (talk · contribs)

The user first initial edits were the removal of sourced claim about the dynasty origin in Royal family of Emesa. After undoing his unexplained removal of sourced material, he made another change which falls under WP:OR by adding thus, and connecting it with the former sentence. Indicative of POV pushing.

Pointing this out and leaving his contribution, solely because I don't want to instigate an edit war, I advised him to go discuss it in the talk page's section I opened. After quite a while, it became evident that he have no desire to discuss the issue let alone solve it. So I restored the stable version until he make an effort[153]. Some time after he reverted the version without taking the time to discuss it, clearly at this point WP:NOTHERE behavior. Nabataeus (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting that the new user knew how to open a request for protection, which was denied and was advised by the admin to join the opened discussion. He requested for protection a second time just of now[154] which would probably be denied. He also issued a warning on my talk page[155] after I left him a notice on his page of this ANI. Weird behavior really, I left his problematic contribution and asked him to join discussion, but failed to do so, so I restored the stable version until he make an effort. Nabataeus (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you notify Recruos (talk · contribs)? I just came from WP:RFPP and again referred to DR and then to this discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Yes I did notify him about the discussion in the said talk page and this ANI. Nabataeus (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing the history, TurokSwe actually broke 3RR twice on two separate articles on 1-2 January, quite apart from edit-warring on other articles. I am extremely unimpressed with the edit-warring coupled with edit-summaries threatening people who he is reverting ([156], [157]) The user appears to be far too invested in these articles, to the extent on repeateadly inserting material not sourced to reliable sources. A topic ban may be the best way forward, though a block is clearly indicated if any further edit-warring occurs. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Jehochman: I wouldn't argue with that. Even after this ANI earlier today (which they clearly read, because they replied to it, saying "I still cannot see what I've supposedly done wrong"), they went straight back to edit-warring five minutes later on at least four of the same articles. Enough is enough, I think. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Seems pretty clear cut to me. Jehochman's summary of the situatuion is entirely on point. Time for an indef. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Umar

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

---

Thread moved from WP:AN and retitled. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

The page of the Second Caliph of Islam, Umar ibn Al-Khattab, was recently changed to reflect a minority view that a majority of the world's 1.7 billion Muslims do not accept as being historically accurate. I have read the page many times over in the past and was immediately aware it had been edited when I looked at it today. This is an affront to Muslims everywhere, as this article now disparages one of the greatest and most important figures in Islamic history. Please let us know how we can return the page to how it was originally and lock it so that in the future, such revisions cannot be made.

The page is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Umar&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B020:A0D5:A189:2019:492A:3C0D (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I can say that articles are not locked simply to prevent edits others may disagree with. They are only locked to stop active vandalism or edit warring. If the minority view you speak of is being given undue weight, that is a matter for discussion on the article talk page with other editors to reach a consensus. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Minority views are not usually excluded totally unless they are a very small fringe views that have little coverage in independent reliable sources. But minority views shouldn't be given more weight than needed. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That said, the OP seems to have a point though: there were some recent edits on this article, including this [158] and similar ones, that (to my non-expert eye) look very much like heavily tendentious Shia religious polemic. I'm considering indef-blocking the editor who did that, Snowsky Mountain (talk · contribs), whose entire activity on Wikipedia (from what I can tell at a quick glance) seems to consist of tendentious editing of this kind. (Will notify them of this discussion in a moment.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for bringing this issue to my intention. If you have a problem with any of my edits, then I would be happy to discuss those edits with you on either my talk page or the talk pages of the articles in question. As for Umar's page, as well as the other pages I edit, I do my best to ensure that my content includes references, and I frequently support my edits with references from a combination of Shia, Sunni, and non-Muslim sources. The "Attack on Fatimah's house" section on Umar's page, for example, is supported by 31 references. Is there a specific section of Umar's page that you would like me to discuss with you in more detail? If so, please let me know. (Some of my edits to Umar's page, by the way, have already been discussed on Talk:Umar - I do take the community's views into account when editing Wikipedia.) Finally, I would like to point out that I edit more pages than simply religious and historical pages; for example, I have created 6 new (non-redirect) articles about technology, and I am a frequent editor at existing technology pages (such as the Google Pixel page, which I have edited 57 times). Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp what a WP:RS is, however. You're using primary sources (Al-Tabari, Ibn Qutaybah, etc) as well as using A Restatement of History of Islam and Muslims which is clearly a polemical religious source. And that's just in the edit that FutPer linked above. Number of sources doesn't mean anything if they are all primary sources or unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Personally, I'm actually not interested in "discussing" these edits with you from the perspective of an editor, as I have no editorial interest in these topics and am dealing with the situation purely from an uninvolved administrative perspective. What I am doing, however, is warning you: I have reviewed many of your edits, and I find that virtually all of them, as far as these Islam topics are concerned, are quite obviously designed to promote a certain belief system (the Shia one) over its rivals. It's not that these contents aren't referenced; it's the fact that you are making Wikipedia articles overtly taking sides in a dispute, stating what are evidently parts of a pro-Shia narrative directly in Wikipedia's own voice. I'm telling you now that if you want to continue editing in this topic area, you will have to completely modify your approach to editing; if you continue making edits like this, you will end up blocked for WP:tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning; I will definitely be more careful going forwards. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

DE by Sae249833

Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks lists team winning streaks in college football. The list is cited with an annual ("2018") NCAA record book. The article reflects the most recent available citation, where that citation is current through the conclusion of the (prior) 2017 college football season. The (next) 2019 record book will be published in the spring which allows the article to be updated to reflect any/all 2018 season games -barring the location of another exhaustive citation, which is very unlikely.

The article has been PP three times in the last 3 months re DE insertion of "2018 season" content from various IPs.[159]

After the current PP was enacted, SPA Special:Contributions/Sae249833 appeared and began identical DE where the added content is not fully supported. The 2017/2018 sourcing issue is discussed on the article Talk and the editor warned re ongoing DE on their Talk. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Determined SPA with declared COI

Could use more eyes on this. New-ish SPA Chrismccown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) declared COI on one of the articles he's working on, Clan McCowan. However, Clan MacCowan is only a variant name of many variant names in a group of interconnected clans for which we already have multiple articles (in which the variant spellings and locations are already noted). So this unneeded stub means the user is now working on quite a few, practically-identical articles, with the same COI, pasting in the same unsourced OR,[160] and rewriting a network of articles to suit this OR. Some edits are with misleading edits summaries about "sourcing", but [161] when checked, the "sources" don't source the content (such as Gaelic "sourced" by an English dicdef of an English word). I went through and did cleanup on all these articles, but now this user has started to edit war:[162], [163], [164] to rollback the cleanup. I'm posting here now to keep other edit-wars from starting.

User has been warned by two of us on usertalk,[165],[166]; [167], [168], but is determined to keep going rather than discuss. He said he'll fix the awful sourcing, but he's just hitting undo, [169]. One of the "sources" and names he's edit-warring to add to the articles, [170] is by another COI editor who's worked on the Clan Ewing article, as well. It's not at 3RR yet, but could use more eyes. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not using unsourced material. These clans are not interconnected, they share common etymological origins. I have a feeling this is a political objection to having more than one clan that derives it's etymology or origins from the Gaelic name Eoghan. Even wen I fix my source under contention, CorbieVreccan undoes my edits. My only COI is that my surname is McCown, but that doesn't mean that my contributions aren't valid. They are very well researched. There are "at least" 4 or 5 different clans

that have ties to different people or tribes named Eoghan. CorbieVreccan is trying to conflate all of these clans together, when they are separate clans with separate histories and separate origins. He has undone a great deal of my work on these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I said I would fix my sourcing( not aweful ) which I did. I undid his reverts of my contributions after fixing the sourcing. He is being very disruptive and thwarting contributions by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

As I told you on your usertalk and in this edit summary, "sources" like commercial "Find your coats of arms!" and unsourced family genealogy pages are not Reliable Sources. Nor are self-published statements of personal genealogy by the man you're writing about (Thor Ewing). And you declared COI. We saw it. You are writing like someone who is a member of the group, advancing a group's interests and edit-warring, not here to prioritize the interests of Wikipedia. It's abundantly clear to me. I just brought it here for others to witness. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert your undo of my coat of arms site reference( even though it's reliable ). Thor Ewing wrote a book that you can buy on Amazon and it's very well sourced and cited. https://www.amazon.com/Thor-Ewing/e/B0028OKIHG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your unding of my contributions is indiscriminate and removes far more than unsourced material. You also manange to do it in a way that requires manual undoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

in fact my coat of arms reference was accepted by the reviewer of my original publication. I think Wikipedia has a common knowledge and common sense policy that I am adhering to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thor Ewing wrote a book that you can buy on Amazon'

A self-published book, from all the evidence, so not acceptable on Wikipedia except under very specific circumstances. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If you actually read the book, you'd feel differently. It's very well researched, cited and sourced and reviewed by others. You'd be hard pressed to find specific circumstances to dismiss it's authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Publisher: Welkin Books Ltd (March 21, 2016) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1910075043/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

And if you look up "Welkin Books Ltd", you find that they have issued three (3) books. Guess whose name is on all three books as writer or editor? Go on, guess. Hint: the name begins with "T" and ends with "hor Ewing". So yeah, self-published. --Calton | Talk 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

By coincidence, the name of the sole director of Welkin Books ends with "hor Ewing" too.[171] 92.19.31.85 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Chrismccown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now revert-warring on several of the above-linked articles, as predicted. Would appreciate an uninvolved admin stepping in. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Is trolling me and removing ALL of my edits on Wikipedia regardless of accuracy or sourcing. He is making it very difficult to contribute knowledge to Wikipedia. Please intervene.

Now Chrismccown's edit-warring to "source" OR to... wiktionary. Even if wiktionary was a usable source, it doesn't even source the content. Edit-warring on most of the articles now, removing article templates:[172], ignoring warnings, refusing to discuss:[173],[174],[175],[176]. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Chrismccown has no intention to stop, even while this ANI is running. Just now he has removed a COI tag and a self-published tag from the Clan Ewing article. (Check out the quality of the sources at the bottom of the article). It seems to me that a short block might be needed to persuade him to wait for consensus . EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no COI with Clan Ewing. I have no relationship to any Ewings. The source is NOT self published. It's published by Welkin Books Ltd 2016. You are making stuff up to troll. I'm not the anonymous one, my COIs are easily known. But like all trolls, they are anonymous and we'll never know their COIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd also be willing to bet that CorbieVreccan, EdJohnston and Calton are all the same person on differnt accounts to skew perception. Funny how everyone jumps on the bandwaggon at once. Also funny how all of these users use the same writing style — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering that two of those users are names I recognise, you're gonna have to come up with more than a cockamamie conspiracy theory. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The proof is in the changes and the content of the edits. Whoever reviews this, will have everything they need to see what you're doing.Chrismccown (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, when several editors all follow Wikipedia policies, the changes can look pretty similar. I also don't find the sockpuppetry accusation plausible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Or it could just be that three distinct editors disagree with your changes and what you're doing. Have you ever considered that? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, is there anything you want to tell us about those other accounts of yours? Hmm? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, He, er, I mean, we, um, I mean I am/is/are in possession of unique skills, is all. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Chrismccown, the web page (just one page so not a website) for Welkin Books lists three books for sale. Two are by Thor Ewing and the third is a compilation of poetry in the public domain. Clicking any of the three links leads you to Amazon.com. This is rock solid evidence that this book is self-published. Your failure to recognize this calls into question your ability to evaluate the reliability of sources. Your notion that if a book is sold by Amazon, therefore it must be reliable is false, shocking and of great concern. You are also using poorly cited 19th century sources and we prefer current sources by academics for topics like this, whether it is Scottish clans or Indian castes or Nigerian tribes. You declared a conflict of interest and you have a conflict of interest. Period. End of subject. As an inexperienced editor with a conflict of interest, you really need to defer to the judgment of experienced editors without a COI. Your accusation of sockpuppetry is spurious and laughable. On top of it all, you are edit warring. So consider this a warning. Your current behavioral pattern is almost certain to lead to a block. You need to change your behavior from top to bottom if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

They have been warned but have ignored the warning. Sadly it doesn't seem they want to engage collaboratively, only to continue to push a POV and throw ridiculous accusations that have no merit. Bidgee (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

...the third is a compilation of poetry in the public domain. Guess who the editor of that volume is? Hint: the name begins with "T" and ends with "hor Ewing". --Calton | Talk 06:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Bidgee. Well, now they have been warned by an administrator as a result of this discussion here at ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks also to you, Calton, for bringing forward that additional nugget of evidence. Hardly surprising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd rather buy it at Barnes in Nobel? https://www.barnesandnoble.com/enwiki/w/clan-ewen-robert-sutherland-taylor-macewen/1125273558 It's a legitimate source by a legitimate publisher. Thor is an subject matter expert, as he is the Commander of Clan Ewing. I also reiterate that I have no COI with Clan Ewing( check your sources ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

We may be entering WP:CIR territory here. EEng 14:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a legitimate source by a legitimate publisher.

As someone else has already pointed out above, "John Thor Ewing" is the sole listed officer for the "legitimate publisher" Welkin Books Ltd, so pretty much NOT a legitimate source by NOT a legitimate publisher.

Thor is an [sic] subject matter expert

So, on a first-name basis, are you? Perhaps you could explain what, exactly, your relationship with Mr. Ewing is. And no, he's not a subject matter expert, absent any evidence other than self-proclaiming. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, Thor Ewing actually has been published elsewhere (by The History Press) and I own his Viking Clothing book which is a very good resource for anyone who wants a reference work if they are doing some (the reason I own it) concept art. No comment on his applicability to Scottish clan history, I was under the impression he was more Norse-fixated. But Welkin is undeniably a self-publisher with regards to his work as he is the owner and sole director. Its likely retail carries his books because he is a published author elsewhere, but self-published is self-published and useable only under certain conditions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps all those out to discredit the material should read Commander John Thor Ewing's( I used his full official name used to imply no relationship ) books before making broad accusations on the content. I'd use your full name [[User User talk:Calton but I don't know what it is. I guess we're friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You didn't use his "full official name", pretentious as it is, you used his first name only, an act of familiarity. So, again I ask: what is your relationship with or to Ewing? --Calton | Talk 17:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i just found this thread since i was about to report Chrismccown here for failure to discuss his changes on the talk and persistent edit warring (even if, for this last point, the e/w noticeboard is more appropriate). This user seems to not understand how Wikipedia works and so far, he has reverted 3 different editors 4 times within less than 24 hours (he reverted two times CorbieVeccan, 1 time me and 1 time Bidgee). The sources he tries to include seem partisan (written by members of the clan Ewing) and, while i posted a 3RR warning on his talk, he ignored it and keeps reverting. I think that the community should take some action to stop this, but this is, of course, admins’ call. Wish everybody here a happy new year and a great rest of your day. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please have an admin review this disruptive targeted trolling of ALL my contribution on Wikipedia. This personal targeting of me, is not collaborative and review of the edits and these conversations will reveal that to honest broker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Several admins are reading all this and as far as i can see, you’ve been warned by one of them just above in this thread. Again, i ask you to discuss your changes on the article’s talk page since this is how Wikipedia works. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chrismccown:, another revert (5th in less than 24 hours if i’m not mistaken ...), i drop the stick since i don’t want to be engaged in edit warring, i’ll let admins deal with you. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

How big of you to drop the stick @Wikaviani:,.It's nice that another one of your friends to picked it back up. Did you mention how many times I've been reverted across ALL my contributions on Wikipedia( including Clan Ewing ) in a targeted harassment campaign by you and your pals ? Did you mention that you are indiscriminately reverting ALL content that I've contributed. You have removed valid wiki-links to other wiki-pages that should remain after the revert of your supposed objected content. This is because you don't review the content and you are only interested in removing ANYTHING that I've contributed regardless of content.Chrismccown (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You really need to read wiki policies like WP:3RR, WP:VER, WP:WAR, WP:RS etc ... Also, you've made more than 180 edits and i only reverted a few of them, not really what can be called reverting ALL content that I've contributed. As to my "friends", let me tell you that i'm here to contribute, modestly, to this project and any other editor who's here for the same purposes is, indeed, my friend. As said to you by numerous other editors now, the sources you try to include are unreliable and for the least, their inclusion would need discussion and consensus on the talk page. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not violating policies. I've made a lot of edits as a good faith contributor, that have been undone in bulk over the past day by this group of people. You have made no contributions to Clan Ewing until today and those contributions are only to indiscriminately remove all of my contributions, that is unless this is a duplicate user account of User:CorbieVreccan. I hope the admins reviewing this are able to look at IP addresses. You are removing more than the sources you deam unreliable. You are removing links and other contributions. In short, you seem to have no interest in Clan Ewing or keeping valid content.Chrismccown (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for continuing to edit war after engaging at WP:AN3. I have no objection to anyone adjusting the block without notifying me. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda, and everyone, especially those who also checked the sources and helped with the cleanup. As the block is only for 24 hours, I'd like to keep this open and see what happens when the block expires. I have a feeling we're going to be back here shortly. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think so. It's pretty clear Chrismccown has severe ownership issues with regards to this topic, and it seems all but certain they've also got a conflict of interest (though whether or not it's UPE or not is beyond my ken, no pun intended). Coupled with the unsubstantiated (and frankly audacious) claims of sockpuppetry against two users who I know to be amongst the most even-handed and fair on this site and I predict he's going to outstay his welcome sooner rather than later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Michalek2905 and "Eurovision opinion" pages

The majority of the edits of Michalek2905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been in their own userspace, specifically creating and maintaining this collection of "opinion pages" on the various Eurovision Song Contests, along with a handful of mainspace edits, all to related articles. This is a substantial violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and the related pages have all been listed at MfD. Looking through their talk, I've also seen that they also created Template:Engeos and Template:Yerdea earlier last year, both of which were quickly deleted at TfD under WP:1DAY. All in all, this user really doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and is instead using various parts of the site as a general purpose web host. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for intervention at Talk:Syrian Civil War

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

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

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

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

The true cause of a blocked IP?

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

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

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

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

I've looked into it. The IP did this [177] seven times and then did this [178]. The block was completely appropriate, which is more than I can say about 220.x's behavior. Then you left this remarkably clueless comment [179]. Does your current IP need to be blocked? Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime threatening blocks for good conduct.

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

---

The user "FlightTime" has twice threatened me with blocks today under the claim I added unsourced content to Rammstein (which can be seen in the view history section I give clear, concise and valid reasons for my edits) despite the fact I actually removed 2 unsourced quotes and his reversion added unsourced claims to the article. I messaged him on his talkpage explaining why I didn't deserve to be threatened with blocks and that he was in fact in the wrong but this was ignored and deleted from his page. So I am opting to report this user as I was unable to come to any terms of agreement with him. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Uh yeah. I can't see any reason for you getting reverted. You removed an unsourced paragraph and added in the dates for the band members which are essentially sourced elsewhere in the article. About the only thing I could fault you for is not putting a source for the dates but that can be solved by removing ALL the dates. spryde | talk 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you sp, I've reverted all my changes. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Bizarre edits

Odd spamming of a link (as far as I can tell to) Authority control for no reason I can ascertain [[180]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5

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

• Removed a link to "History of Iran" from the History of Islam page and removed a WP:RS reference written by a renowned Iranologist (Alireza Shapour Shahbazi).[181]

I didn't think that "History of Iran" is primarily directly connected to Iranian identity. What about that reference, I already explained it here[1] Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Accused other editors of "Azerbaijanophobia" at Talk:Bahmanyar.[182]

My answer [1] to it. Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tried to label Brill publishers as a "non-reliable publisher" (because Brill sources were putting a halt to his agenda).[183]

What about agenda are you talking? And could you prove this is source is A rated? After all, it is doubtful to use this source which was published in Armenia which mentions about Azerbaijan. Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tried to dispute/remove the Persian origin of the House of Sasan, even though it was literally sourced in the article.[184]-[185]

Because there wasn't citation of it in infobox and generally on the article. Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tried to label Bahmanyar, a historic Persian figure, as an "Azerbaijani". No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[186]

Because I wasn't experienced at those times. Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• 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.[187]

I already answered to it. [188] Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tried to label the Baku Khanate as an Azerbaijani entity,[189] 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.[190]-[191]

And it is also because that I wasn't experienced at those times. Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Removed the Shirvanshahs from "Iran" and added it to "Eastern Europe".[192]

Is something wrong with my edit? Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Added anachronistic gibberish to the Antioch article.[193]

My answer to it is there Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• More WP:IDHT.[194] Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

And what's wrong with it? Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

I answered to this issue on my talk page. Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 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 : [195], [196], etc ... sounds like a typical case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why you talk about pro-Azerbaijani agenda while your views aren't neutral? And what about my English, I answered also about it [1] Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim7049 reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn

Pages in question:

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

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

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

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

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

I have blocked JC7V7DC5768

I have blocked JC7V7DC5768 on the suspicion of being a compromised account. This user as is evident by a complaint on the talk page has been spamming random statistical emails to other users including myself. If this was a bad block, please let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2019) 04:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This is really concerning since JC7V has been active within the last 24 hours before this. It's not the first time this has happened, but at least this time it's not an administrator account. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: See User talk:JC7V7DC5768#Not comprmoised ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)