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

User fabricating statistics etc., no communication after many warnings - please block.

Dude Master 2 (talk · contribs) continues to add unsourced and in some cases obviously fabricated statistics and false/POV information, and refuses to communicate in any way, including never using edit summaries. There have been multiple "final warnings" and a recent ANI report, all of which they ignored, or removed from their talk page without comment. Latest edit today Special:Diff/875092851/prev, arbitrary and unexplained change to population number. See the previous ANI report for more examples. Asking for a block for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

May I refer you to the previous ANI thread about this issue? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, thanks, yes I started that thread recently, and linked to it above. It got archived before anything happened, because the user didn't respond or make any new edits. Now they've returned and continued to make more problematic edits, disregarding the warnings and the previous ANI report, and still no communication whatsoever. So I'm now asking for a block, if only to get their attention. Does that make sense? --IamNotU (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For example, today they made this edit: Special:Diff/875146508/875152046, changing the population numbers in contradiction to the given source. It looks like the number came from an earlier edit:Special:Diff/860541924/860574843, where they decided to just add a million people... --IamNotU (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit and fabricate statistics, and hasn't reacted to additional warnings or notices of this thread. Today Special:Diff/875337222/prev they added a citation that gives a number of 65 million people, but in the article they write 72 million. If it was an isolated incident it could be a typo, but it's part of a clear pattern of unsourced altering and "fudging" numbers to suit their POV. Not all their edits are bad, but mostmany are, and the main thing is that they don't communicate at all. --IamNotU (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at their edits, and, indeed, most edits seem good, but edits like this one where they change statistics without amending the source are not really acceptable. Given that they have never reacted in any way to warnings or explanations at their talk page, I am afraid a block could be needed, unless someone manages to find a way to let them understand the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The user is on a final warning basis due to the last warning that was left on his/her user talk page. If this continues, I think that a temporary block is completely fair. As much as we appreciate the good edits (and even the good-faith edits) by this user, edits that add incorrect information to articles and/or don't cite reliable sources is problematic. Edits or behaviors, even if made in good faith, can be disruptive if repeated and lead to action being taken if it's deemed necessary in order to prevent more disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter and Oshwah, thanks for taking a look. They've actually deleted a previous "final warning" from another editor on 7 December, and kept on making problematic edits. A couple of days ago, they also deleted final warnings from me, as well as the notice of the first ANI report, without comment. Since then they've only made a couple of edits, those are ok. You're right that many of their contributions are ok, and I don't think they're purposely vandalizing. But they're obviously pulling figures out of thin air and "massaging the numbers" to suit themselves, and ignoring any attempts to communicate with them. I'm not in a rush for a block (temporary, of course), but it seems unlikely they'll respond otherwise. If you like though, I can just keep an eye on it and report back if there are any more problematic edits. --IamNotU (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The 72 million figure is a little bit out of date: [1] (p. 216 of the report or p. 247 of the pdf) says "7.38 crore citizens hold valid passports" (i.e. 73.8 million) as of end-of-2017. It looks to me like around 9 million have been issued in 2018 so far, by adding up the year-to-date figures in the "granted" rows in the download from here. Anyway it looks like good faith editing to me. Please stop going berserk about blocking people (wp:bite) and try to be welcoming and helpful instead. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, "going berserk"? There's no call for that kind of snarky remark! I'm more than happy to be welcoming and helpful, and I usually am, but it's not really possible when someone won't communicate at all, and never has. Two admins have already said that a block would be appropriate due to that. Even if the edits are good faith, changing statistics without giving a source, so that they contradict the existing source, is a problem. Especially so if the numbers appear to be invented: [2], [3], [4], and many others. If they would discuss it, there would be no need to be thinking about a block - the point of a block is to hopefully get them to engage. --IamNotU (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You're not wrong to raise the issue. Even if they are good faith edits, the user should respond one way or another and explain him/herself. It's worth drawing a line in the sand as from now. Next time User:Dude_Master_2 crosses it, I'm willing to make a short-term block for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Deb... The user hasn't edited since December 27th. However, there's now an IP 116.72.212.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that started editing on the 29th, similar patterns, no edit summaries, some are properly sourced but others not, for example replacing the same population figure as Dude Master 2 had edit warred over, in contradiction to the source: [5]. --IamNotU (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU:You can make a sock report - if the IP is proven to be the same user, both will be permanently blocked. Deb (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's technically sock puppetry, but given that they're not evading a block, I wonder if an indefinite block is a bit too harsh at this point? They do make some good contributions. I hoped a temporary block might bring them to the table to discuss the bad edits. I don't know why they don't, maybe a language issue? Is there some way we could just do a temporary block? Oshwah, can I ask what you would do here? --IamNotU (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I just saw the notification and that I was pinged for help here, and I'll be happy to try and do so. :-) From what I skimmed through and read from this ANI discussion, sock puppetry is possible but not proven, so I obviously wouldn't be able to apply any blocks or sanctions for anything sock puppetry-related - not without evidence and not without proof. However, it looks like this user has been consistently making edits that are problematic and that it's causing undue frustrations and hardship among other editors to fix and talk to the user about (and to no agail). Given the number of warnings and discussions that have been left on this user's talk page, and the number of opportunities that we've given for this user to try and either work with us or review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and apply them in order to stop the problematic editing, I think that leaving the user in-depth and detailed custom message to list exactly what the issues have been (and with diffs and links to relevant policy pages), that the user has been repeatedly talked to and to no avail, that they are on a final warning basis from here on out regarding their edits, and end with clear expectations set and what the remedies will be imposed (block) should these expectations not be met or any further issues or problems continue. Should the user cause further problematic edits again, start them off at a 36 hour block, then an indefinite block if it happens a second time (so that they must explain and appeal their block before they can edit again). This is what I'd do if it were up to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. I did write a custom message on their talkpage already, something like you describe. The thing is though, that it looks to me like they've now abandoned the account and are just editing logged out. I'm hesitating to make an SPI report, because of the consequences of an indefinite block. Just not sure what else to do. Start over at warning level 1 with the IP? --IamNotU (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion. This kind of vandalism is particularly troubling. Lends credibility that Wikipedia is unreliable. A temporary block on the IP does little, if any, harm. And as to the named user, I suggest they be blocked (if they are gone already there is no harm, and if they come back, let them explain what they were doing and how they relate to the perceived socks). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead with an SPI report. It's pretty obvious that it's the same person. It's not my intention to kick them off of Wikipedia forever, but I guess even if there's an indefinite block it isn't necessarily a permanent block. If they want to keep editing, they'll have to speak up one way or another... --IamNotU (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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 [6], [7]. 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 [8], 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" [9]. 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[10] and then 7-8 hours later removed them[11],

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..." [12] 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)

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 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 [13]. 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)

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 logically, seeing as he has read everything from this discussion and the evidences I provided, the way he 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, bring 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)

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. [14] "Rv addition of poorly sourced content back to good version"] (Deciding what he HIMSELF considers "poorly sourced content")
2. [15] "Restore stable version and trimmed off unreliable references"] (Making my additions look bad and forcing his edit through)
3. [16] "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.[17][18][19] 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.[20]
  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[21][22] 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.[23]
  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 [24] [25] [26] [27] 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 [28]. 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 [29] [30] (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 [31] 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 [32]; 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 [33], 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 [34] as well as two other users [35] and [36] 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.[[37]] [[38]].-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" [39]" (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.[40]

You need to read my comment which includes evidence of Mar4d's poor knowledge of WP:RS and WP:PA.[41] I have also shown that while many of his edits test the edges of topic ban[42][43][44] there are edits where he has clearly violated the topic ban.[45] 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.[46] 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,[47] 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

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: [48] [49] - 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)

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[50][51] 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)

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,[52][53][54][55][56] anti-Indian POV pushing,[57][58][59][60][61] 7 years of sock puppetry,[62][63] and reckless proxying for banned socks,[64][65][66] among other long-term issues.

Back in March 2018, I recommended a topic ban on Mar4d,[67] 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.[68]

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",[69][70] misrepresents sources[71][72][73](also see next edit), proxies for banned editors (by wikihounding contributions of others),[74][75][76] violates topic ban,[77] violates copyrights,[78] and refuses to acknowledge any of these issues.[79][80][81]

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.[82] 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".[83] This sock requested Mar4d to edit war with Mountain157 (talk · contribs)[84] 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.[85] 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"[86] 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 [87] and canvassed another editor about Mar4d's edits [88]. 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.

Aquaelfin

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

Aquaelfin was initially reported at AIV by Cabayi. The request was declined by Ad Orientem, suggesting a report here. I figured I would do the paperwork. This user has a long history of problematic edits.

• They were reported for removing a CSD template on an article they created.
• This was after a final warning for vandalising WP:FOOTYN, in an attempt to make the articles they were creating notable.
• Their talk page shows an extremely long history of orphaned non-free images, speedy deletion nominations, and AfD nominations.
• SveinFalk warned them for vandalism in 2016
• Vanjagenije warned them for removing CSD templates in August 2017

This disruption has been ongoing for an extremely long time, but has never resulted in a block. Something needs doing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Note the poor english on Aquaelfin's user page, along with the fact that they describe themselves as a "Thai football team updater" makes me suspect that there is a language barrier. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Will add that the English is really poor at many articles he has created, and not even understandable at some parts. He also adds red or pink colour in Season by season records when teams don`t enter the national cups by their own decision. No colours should be added, and the colour red is only to be used when teams are banned/suspended, so him adding red colour to "not enter" make it seems different. Due to the high number of articles he edits/creates, it`s not possible for anyone to "fix" all his poor English text and more. SveinFalk (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Aquaelfin's most intractable problem is their flaky grasp of English, and a tendency to hit undo as a first reponse when challenged.

I challenged Aquaelfin in October over their use of Thai on enwiki - User talk:Aquaelfin#English please - and got a reply on my talk page - User talk:Cabayi/Archive 5#I talk Gunkiet only. It's not public. Aquaelfin has, so far as I can see, used only English on enwiki since then.

Recently Aquaelfin has created some problematic articles about low profile Thai footabll teams.

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangkhuntien F.C. Aquaelfin noted that WP:FOOTYN was a factor and so decided to "fix" the policy in their favour FOOTYN's history. Again, in the face of my final revert edit summary "Discuss first, stop reverting", and a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning Special:Diff/875691978 on Aquaelfin's talk page (which Aquaelfin immediately removed Special:Diff/875693447), Aquaelfin has been discussing the policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Old definition of WP:FOOTYN is don't true with Number 57, FkpCascais, and SportingFlyer. I'd like to hear their opinion of the fruitfulness of that discussion.

Aquaelfin also created Bangkok City F.C. which I tagged A7, and Aquaelfin removed the CSD 1, 2, 3 times. After Aquaelfin received the {{uw-3rr}} Special:Diff/875703246, (which Aquaelfin again immediately removed Special:Diff/875704777). We'll never know how that would have progressed as SkyGazer 512 declined the A7 and Onel5969 (who also has a history with Aquaelfin [89]) took it to AFD.

Aquaelfin has language issues (an inability to accurately distinguish amateur/professional, national/regional, and cup/league) and a behavioural problem in that the first reponse to any obstacle is to revert/undo, whether it's a CSD on an article or an unwelcome message on Aq's talk page, rather than to understand it and deal with the underlying problem.

When I raised the AIV I was looking for a short-term block to show that the community has expectations which can't be brushed under the carpet. In the light of Bellezzasolo's ANI report it becomes a wider issue of WP:CIR and Aq's unwillingness to admit any failure in their understanding of English, but there is a willingness to understand and comply when there is absolutely no other alternative. Cabayi (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really ever get involved with ANI discussions so I don't think I'm going to comment on the actual user, but since you pinged me here I will say that I think I was correct to remove the CSD template. There are decent sources in the article and the club has played in the 2018 Thailand Amateur League Bangkok Metropolitan Region; both are almost certainly claims of significance. I'm by no means saying the article is notable, but I'm just saying that it did not fit the A7 criterion.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• While Aquaelfin was not correct to remove the speedy deletion template, I also have no problem with the removal of A7 generally as I don't think these fit the A7 criterion either. There's definitely a problem here since Aquaelfin doesn't seem to understand our notability guidelines, meaning the amateur Thai football club articles they create are frequently nominated for deletion and frequently get deleted, though not always - some randomly do pass WP:GNG. I do think a block here would be punitive and would suggest requiring the user to use AfC to create any new articles, but I share everyone's frustrations. SportingFlyer talk 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• SveinFalk teach me about banned/suspended colors, rule of league tables. In the past, I did red or pink colors of banned/suspended because I saw older member add same color in some Thai football club articles but I understand now and I fix banned/suspended colors which SveinFalk teaching to my standard.

In the past (about 2017 Thai FA Cup). I created Muangchang United F.C. article because this team joined Thai FA Cup but this article was deleted with A7 criterion. Who requested Muangchang United F.C. article to deleted. He explained me this team isn't Amatuer and Professional team. This team less famous to create wiki article. I understand and fix his explainable wiki article of Amatuer teams. one year later, I create wiki article of Amatuer teams follow his explainable but they get frequently nominated for deletion and frequently deleted. Wiki article of a lot of Amatuer teams, which I created in the last years, was deleted too. I ask moderater who was deleted this wiki articles. They explain Amatuer teams didn't join National cups such as Thai FA Cup to delete. I observe Amatuer teams pass WP:GNG to have wiki article, its was joined Thai FA Cup but Thai FA Cup is same knock-out cup of all countries in the earth. Thai FA Cup can joined by Professional teams, Amateur teams and Non-Amateur teams. Non-Amateur teams are Amateur teams which don't join any Amateur league and Amateur tournament. Thai FA Cup isn't basic standard to determine Amateur teams which pass WP:GNG because Non-Amateur teams can join this national cups. Non-Amateur teams don't famous more than Amateur teams to pass WP:GNG.

Cabayi took A7 to Ubon Kids City F.C. but he didn't see R1 in FA Cup column of Record tables. When he saw that, He pass WP:GNG. I laugh it for his standard. Aquaelfin (talk) 6:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Aquaelfin If I have teached you about not adding colours for "Not enter" a tournament, you certainly didn`t learn anything. It`s a year or two since I talked with you about that, but at PTU Pathumthani F.C. you added red colour in April this year. You have done same on lots of other articles. If you are not being banned, I suggest that you look through ALL articles you have created/edited and fix all your errors and improve the poor language. And just to add, if a T5-club has played in the FA-cup, then you can make an article about that team, according to the rules. If a club only has played in T5, you can not make an article. Even if I don`t agree with the rule, it`s very clear. SveinFalk (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

SveinFalk I do allow older member add it but I fix my colour error now. For Amateur teams in T5, I suggest to change basic standard to determine Amateur teams which pass WP:GNG to fix in Amateur tournament which have this clubs story in national public news. A lot of T5-club has played in the FA-cup have result of matches news only. I think it doesn't true. Aquaelfin (talk) 9:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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 [90]
• 3 edits on that date, including one [91] to PERMISSION requesting to have the account confirmed;
• editor was told simply to edit to get it confirmed [92]
• 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 [93], and talk page comment [94] 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, [95] citing this polemic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Another data point: Clueless newbie knows what the BLP policy is. [96]. 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" [97]) 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) [98], and Gestation [99], 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 [100] 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. [101] 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,^[102] the second time calling them "POV edits" in the edit summary.^[103] After BMK's initial reversions, Mwright took it to the talk page, with a somewhat pedantic response, but not an uncivil one.^[104] 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?"^[105] 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.^[106] 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.

User:Beyond My Ken

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

---

I was really hoping I did not have to do this but this user has been stalking and harassing me incessantly. I warned him I would report him and now I feel that I have to.

This individual has been harassing me, calling me a sock and a puppet. He has been on wikipedia from what I can tell, since 2009 [107] and has been bullying me, and in bad faith undoing my legitimate edits - simple edits such as spelling and removing double/redundant citations[108].

Individual insists on using unsourced negative information about living persons and when confronted on talk page and proven wrong, refuses to engage [109]. It wasn't until ANOTHER user made the edits that he left things alone. This is clearly unfair and is bullying.

Individual also stalks my contributions and follows me around through different articles. This person had not made any edits to Planned Parenthood until I did [110]. Kind of creepy. Unfortunately this isn't one of those sites where you can block a user for privacy reasons.

Most of all, overtly and excessively aggressive in talk pages, using personal insults and swearing against me which I absolutely will not tolerate. This alone gets you banned on any online blog [111]

Using terms like - "cr*p" and "keep your bullsh*t" are highly offensive and have no place on wikipedia.

I read through some of wikipedia's sanction and disciplinary guidelines and I'm asking that you either ban this user or sanction them. I know he has made a lot of contributions, but this sort of behaviour should not go unpunished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwright1469 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Following someone around because they are making inappropriate edits is allowed. It's not the same as harassment. However, an editor should be sure of his/her ground before calling someone else a sockpuppet. I would agree that edits like this are not appropriate but I don't see "keep your bullsh*t" anywhere on the page you referred to. If you have evidence of him swearing at you, please produce it. Deb (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *clutches pearls* Oh Lawdy, Lawdy, Mistah Ken uttered that most foul C word?! Heavens to Betsy, won't someone think of the children?! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Haven't checked all the diffs yet but you registered in April 2013, and you claim that BMK is bullying you since 2009. Can you describe how? Shashank5988 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't claim that at all. Deb (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Registered in 2013, didn't become active until a few weeks ago... Gee, could he have been using another account in 2009? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb! Here is the link [112] - to quote Ken directly cut the crap and keep your "thank you for your passionate response" bullshit to yourself. Completely uncalled for, offensive and should not go unpunished. @Ian.thomson I'm not going to discuss my personal and professional life online and why I haven't been using wikipedia but I'll leave it at that my career is demanding.

Over the last 24 hours I've discovered that people like Ken quite literally spend the entire day on here and have become so embroiled in wikipedia culture that they can't fathom anyone else having a full-time job and only doing this for a hobby. I'm starting to wonder if Ken is paid to harass people online. -Mwright1469 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mwright1469: "I have a life and a job, unlike you losers" is far more insulting to anyone who puts forth more effort than you than saying "crap." Dial it down. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's an interesting conversation, which shows you patronising BMK with "If the scientific jargon is too much for you, we can use lay terms so it's easier for you.", not to mention failing to understand the concepts on synthesis or reliable sourcing. Inevitably if an account which basically started editing yesterday focuses on two hot-button topics and starts editing in a POV manner [113] then experienced editors are going to look at it with suspicion. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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)

• 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)

RfC incident at Talk:Albania–Greece relations

Hello, a question. Can editors modify unilaterally an ongoing RfC by adding their own RfC options to it?

Someone opened a RfC at Talk:Albania–Greece relations. Then another editor who didn't liked the ongoing RfC, came and added unilaterally his preferred RfC options into the ongoing RfC: [114]. It is not even part of the ongoing RfC's question. Is that allowed? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: - almost all RfCs I participate in aren't on talk pages, but on those at least options (especially compromise options) are frequently created throughout the process. It doesn't like they've been adding gratuitous options to disrupt debate, so it seems fine to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (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)

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 [[115]]. 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 [116] 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 [117] and later at BLPN [118]. 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)

User:85.242.159.277 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Jumping the gun: Making changes to infoboxes of Raycom station articles before the sale to Gray is even officially complete. We need to see some sort of confirmation (e.g. a press release). [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Boy band vandal recent activity

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

---

The boy band vandal was active last month and today, with a spate of IPs in his usual area of Alberta, but including a few days spent in the Southern California desert during the holidays. He's back home, now, using the IPs listed below. Can we get a few blocks going, including a rangeblock? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• 66.222.157.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2019
• 208.118.126.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2019
• 2001:56A:F883:CD00::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) January 2019

This nonsense is part of this LTA's signature style. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And now he's disrupting Russian-language Wikipedia, adding "American boy band" to the Brockhampton biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked 2001:56a:f883:cd00::/64 for two years and the IPV4 addresses for a month each. Graham87 07:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, global block requets go to m:Steward requests/Global. I might add one there about this issue later, if nobody else beats me to it. Graham87 07:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That takes care of it. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Potential legal threat and escalation request

User_talk:Upsetterfc and other pages, e.g. Talk:Desmond Napoles contain a potential legal threat that was copied to multiple pages by User:Upsetterfc.

• "I will request removal via arbitration or legal action if Controversy section is added again."

At the bottom of User_talk:Upsetterfc, the statement "I am waiting for action on this matter." made me create this report.

The user has asked for "escalation" in one of their recent edits; I am afraid that I can not provide diffs if this is a real threat. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Update, fortunately: User seems to be removing the "legal action" part of their comment: Special:Diff/876398117 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I will not mention legal action again. But I will request page removal as his legal guardian due to page being used to attack minor.Upsetterfc (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Upsetterfc: "On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog." If you claim to represent this person, you need to prove your bona fides. Go to WP:OTRS and follow the instructions there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This is my child. Will look into ticket system when time permits.04:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsetterfc (talk • contribs)

@Upsetterfc: While establishing your relationship with the subject may be useful, that alone would not necessarily affect the article. The first approach should be to prepare a statement detailing what problems exist with the Desmond Napoles article. The only relevant problems are those concerning violations of Wikipedia's policies (see WP:5P for a summary—are sources reliable? are topics mentioned due? is there a biographies of living people problem?). After preparing a statement (say on your talk or at Talk:Desmond Napoles), copy it in a new section at WP:BLPN and wait for responses. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There are major BLP concerns with this article about a young minor child who has emerged as a public figure in drag performances and gay rights. Some horribly unreliable sources have been used in this biography. Because the community has decided at AfD that Desmond Napoles is notable and should have a biography, I call on all experienced editors to consider adding this article to your watchlists. It must be kept neutral and well-sourced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither The Western Journal nor the Daily Wire is a reliable source, and both are completely unacceptable for use in a biography of a living person. An editor who removed such poorly referenced content should be assisted and commended, not chastised in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 2 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)

Legal threat

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

---

66.255.231.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted apparent legal threat at Criticism of Sikhism - see the edit summary. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• And the same IP user has blanked the page again, with another legal threat in the edit summary. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That said, the lead of that article is a bit sucky. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat II

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

---

The Hughes Complex in Trenton, NJ: just one of the many places you may not threaten to sue Wikipedians.

This looks very much like a legal threat but I suspect it is more bluff and bluster. Perhaps a kind word from an admin might cool their ardour.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and left a note at their TP, though since their only two edits were to make the threat, I suspect we've seen the end of it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

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

---

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

This user has continued personal attacks directed against me e.g. (calling me a Troll, etc) diff, diff, diff, diff.
The 2 WP:NPA warnings [125][126] (were read and removed here), have failed to have any effect, and the attacks again happened today. . --DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Grow up, and grow a thicker skin. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Further observations

• Every coin has two sides. I don't think that Bbb23 has checked the background of the dispute. DBigXray has been spilling over his content dispute from Talk:Rafale deal controversy by wikihounding/harassing multiple editors of that dispute by either nominating their articles of interest for deletion or participating in the debates that concern these editors.[127][128] The degree of obfuscation by DBigXray constitutes harassment. Why a new editor wouldn't get angry over such harassment? I don't understand. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Everyone can look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitra Samaja (opened by User:DBigXray) and form their own impressions about who is behaving well or badly. You might find yourself agreeing with User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Background is not limited with just an AfD. The diffs above in the report by DBigXray includes Rafale deal controversy, which is indeed the locus of dispute where DBigXray had made 7 reverts. Qualitist (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am not actually seeing how a block of "one week for disruptive editing and personal attacks", is warranted here. DBigXray has only presented one side.

First diff doesn't show that the new editor called DBigXray a "troll" but his act of declining a "fully protected request" which can be only attended by an admin.[129] DBigXray is not an admin but pretended to be an uninvolved admin there, contrary to WP:EDITREQ: "Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator." I would consider this to be a deliberate attempt to mislead others by DBX.

Second diff appears to be alleging DBigXray of Wikihounding, which is a correct allegation because DBigXray went to nominate an article for deletion only because it was heavily edited by NavjotSR.[130]

Third diff is absolutely not a personal attack, but a newbie act of asking help.

Fourth diff appears to be commenting on the conduct of DBigXray that he is misrepresenting the sources because he is clearly doing it and also bludgeoning.

DBigXray fails to mention that he was before coming to ANI, he first reported the editor on WP:AIV,[131] in spite of any vandalism. This clearly shows that DBigXray either don't understand what is the definition of "vandalism" or he was trying to get rid of an opponent after baiting him.

Where is the evidence for "disruptive editing"? To me it appears that this is just a pattern of harassment by DBigXray to follow contributions of other editors then misrepresent sources and obfuscate discussions. One can also have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir for observing this pattern obsfucation and misrepresation of sources from DBigXray.

DBigXray was let off barely 1 week ago,[132] for his disruptive editing and harassment. Now we are here again with more evidence of harassment of users. What we should do? Qualitist (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Qualitist, fully protected edit requests can be handled by any editor of long-standing, who often do decline them, on a variety of grounds.

And, you have been here long enough to know that this consists of brazen personal attacks nad is primarily based on their own creative interpretation of policies. ∯WBG^converse 05:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Regardless of the matter at hand, I don't see how Roxy the dog's "Grow up, and grow a thicker skin" is a helpful comment, or even an acceptable response to a complaint about personal attacks. Bradv🍁 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Bbb23: you must not close a thread when it is discussing your block. See WP:INVOLVED. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Um... no. That's not what WP:INVOLVED means at all. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an admin can unilaterally close a thread which is discussing their admin action? That is opposite of WP:INVOLVED. Qualitist (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Previous ANI was closed without examining the evident pattern of long term disruption by DBigXray and the closing note lacked factual basis.

@EdJohnston: Hadn't you clarified DBigXray earlier regarding his understanding of "vandalism"?[133] When DBigXray violates copyrights [134] and tries to evade the fact that he was the original editor who added the copyvio, and shows extreme failure to recognize that he is using a poor source, per this discussion, then I rather wonder that why we should trust DBigXray anymore with editing in place of sanctioning him for his long term incompetence? GenuineArt (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I commented on a discussion where DBigXray was involved and I didn't know this user at that time. After an hour or so, I got notification that he reverted me on a page where he was never involved before and removed my explanation which I made in defense of allegations.[135] I could be reverting this edit because the clerk and filing editor had no problem, and DBigXray was only reverting because of a grudge, but I didn't.

On 28 December, DBigXray removed nearly 2,000 bytes and provided misleading explanation as "update",[136] which I had reverted with explanation[137] but DBigXray reverted me back and again provided misleading explanation [138] and left a level2 warning on my talk page, claiming I provided no edit summary[139] when I had provided the edit summary. I don't know why we should not refer this as WP:GAMING.

On talk page, DBigXray has not contributed productively but attacked other editors[140] and copy pasted his comments Copy pasting "If you think That I made a mistake you need to clarify what is the mistake" at least 3 times by creating 3 separate sections.[141] He made every attempt to drive editors out and realise that there is no hope that DBigXray will agree with a resolution. Not to forget he made 7 reverts against 5 editors in just 4 days.

I got notified of a poor AfD nomination on my talk page, and DBigXray jumped to make the listings of the AfD for deletion,[142] until now he has added more than 10,000 bytes to that discussion and falsified the sources.[143] He falsely claimed that I didn't provided any sources and only speculated on sources contrary to my edits where I have in fact provided the reliable sources.

I would like to hear that how this sort of problematic behavior won't frustrate others that they would be critical of the actions of DBigXray? This is what NavjotSR appears to have done while having much better editing skills than DBigXray. I would support unblocking NavjotSR, because he was simply baited and offense was clearly not serious.

In NavjotSR's case, DBigXray first left him a "level 3" warning,[144] and second time he left him a "level 4" warning.[145] All of this counts as WP:BITE but it is deliberate harassment when DBigXray has been doing this on various occasions. This is a case of harassment and horrible editing skills. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Taking a look at what's being presented here, I am seeing a protracted pattern of harassment and disruption by DBigXray. Anybody can agree that this source [146] is thoroughly unreliable by reading the first paragraph alone, and the version after "copy edit" by this editor still appears to be infringing copyrights or closely paraphrased.[147] Since these edits came after sufficient warning and explanation provided by other editor against these edits,[148] I indeed agree that WP:CIR is a core issue here. The adamancy to remain unfamiliar with core policies after 3 years of active editing clearly indicate that the pattern of disruptive editing is well established now and will continue to cause more trouble regularly no matter how many reports have been filed. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, i think that 7 day ban on NavjotSR was way uncalled for and should be reversed immediately. Those edits were hardly personal attacks. The trolling thing was closest to a personal attack, and that hardly qualifies. Also, the guy is a newb. A newb can't get blocked for that. I've seen experienced editors routinely do worse. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:00, 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)

Dispute on policies

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

---

If you look at User talk:81.137.62.113, there is clearly a dispute on policies between the IP and me. They seem to claim that I am gaming the system. I am not sure about that and it is getting quite complicated to resolve. I would like admins to hop in and settle. Thanks. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the thread on my talk page for all rationalisations and dismantlements of arguments put to me by ImmortalWizard. Take notice that since our discussion began I have not edited the page in question, and I affirm the notion that a ring of editors are gaming the system. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that this area is subject to WP:GS/PW. Natureium (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, either for all editors involved, or simply for those guilty of WP:GAME by removing what they don't like. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wrestling again! Yipee! EEng 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP editor for 48 hours for adding unreferenced content and edit warring to keep it in the article. And this is all about a stupid professional wrestling insult which is in itself a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Fowler&fowler - "Hindu garbage" - racist attack

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.

Editor advised to remove offensive language and not repeat anything like it.

---

• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reporting racist and bigoted language used by Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs). This user has engaged in racist as well as religiously sectarian and communal language where the section was about clothing, but the user turned it into a Hindu vs. Muslim argument. Using crude, disrespectful and bigoted language like "Hindu garbage". This is not acceptable in Wiki. I am filing a grievance regarding the user's racist attitude. Calling someone or someone's culture "Hindu garbage" is unacceptable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

I am deeply hurt by this: "Hindu garbage" (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

Please be aware that you are required to notify all involved parties when opening a discussion here. I have posted the obligatory notice on F&F's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler, you owe us an explanation--not about clothes and stitches, but about this word choice. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler is the pre-eminent editor of all South Asia topics. He is also the most respected out of all contributors to the South Asia topic area. I see that this is a content dispute. Needless to say, as he is the main author of the FA India, Fowler's insight is most pertinent. Not paying attention to a user's rights can naturally frustrate them and make them lose their temper. That being said, I do not find the OP's claim of racism to be accurate. Fowler&fowler has made a comment on the content, not on any contributor. I suggest that discussions continue on the talk page and this thread be closed. There is nothing remotely actionable here. Code16 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Code16 (talk · contribs) Let's say I accept your view that it was about content (even though I vehemently disagree). Calling the so-called content, which is reflective of someone's culture, Hindu garbage - Is it not bigoted? Is it not racist? Is it not hurtful? I am extremely pained by his language. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

• I am having a hard time seeing a scenario that would make that choice of words OK. That said, I agree with Drmies. We need to hear from F&f. It's getting late here so I will look back in on this in the morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• This doesn't appear to be a personal attack but his word choice is definitely a problem. This also indicates some kind of unrestrained prejudice. A problematic trait in an editor. But I agree, let's at least hear him out first. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay. I just saw the notice. @Code16: is correct, the remark was about the content, not the contributor. True, I lost my temper, which I shouldn't have, and for which I apologize, but what does one do with an editor who under "Clothing," adds ten images of Hindu weddings (explicitly mentioned) or Hindu actresses (their religion clearly identified by their name), engages, in the text captions, in out-of-context and unreliable asides about bare midriffs and navels, when all the clothes being displayed, with the exception of the sari, were introduced by the Muslims, who brought the art of stitching to India and who still constitute the archetype of a tailor in North India. Not to mention that all examples are of the elite, that the actresses in the images, in typical Bollywood fantasy, are lighter skinned, by ten degrees of melanin, than the average in India. The images after all are supposed to represent the clothes of a country 69% of whose population lives in villages, and makes do with much less than the country's per capita income which ranks 140 out of 180 countries. The current images in place in the article are far more representative of India's population and diverse culture. In the "Cuisine" section, he added another ten images of vegetarian platters found in restaurants in India, the "vegetarian," usually in the Indian context being code for "upper-caste Hindu (or Jain)." That is what I was battling. Furthermore, he had taunted me earlier on my talk page about "Eurocentric" something or other. His edits represent, in my view, deliberate attempts to promote the Hindu/Urban/elitist history or culture of India to the exclusion of its other religions, regions, or classes. One way to have your way is to needle an editor with a surfeit of such edits, and then cry foul (or feign hurt) when they explode. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  My observations seem to coincide with F&F to an extent. ∯WBG^converse 05:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Has anyone even looked at the diff? F&f never said "Hindu garbage", he said "unmitigated garbage". There is a difference. Highpeaks is being dishonest here. Second, I have interacted extensively with both F&f and Highpeaks. F&f is a model wikipedian, with enormous contributions on South Asia topics, whereas Highpeaks is somewhat less...distinguished. He habitually pushes a (sometimes extremely silly) Hindu-nationalist POV [149], often with deceptive edit-summaries [150], edit-wars frequently, and routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with him "eurocentric" or "ethnocentric" [151]. This latest bit of dishonesty is particularly odious. I call for WP:BOOMERANG. Khirurg (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this angry and dismissive two word phrase is that is both hostile to the editor you disagree with, and highly ambiguous. Did you mean "all Hindus are garbage" or "this is a very poor argument common among extreme Hindu nationalists"? How do we know, other than the fact that you are a productive editor? It is not really racist because members of any racial group can be Hindus and members of any racial group can be involved with all the other significant religions of the region. I suggest that you withdraw this comment, Fowler&fowler, and express yourself more clearly and with greater civility in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• F&f, please strike the offensive language and don’t use anything like it again. No further administrative action is needed here right now. Jehochman ^Talk 05:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Done and apologized. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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