Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shahanshah5 (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 15 January 2019 (→WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Complaints with EurovisionNim

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

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

    Evidence to support this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Bang on the money Cullen328. I like learning. Vauxford, please note I do not revert/replace for no reason. I only do that because I know my (or someone elses) image is better quality. Its like no problem, I have every right to be WP:BOLD. You seem to be taking me for a ride, as opposed to helping me. I can picture on whatever car I wish. I was told by Mr.choppers "...if a shot of a Holden Commodore parked in London is of high quality then that could be the best one to use. EurovisionNim used to annoy me to no end, but when a photo is better than mine then there is no point arguing..." Exactly, this is what I mean't. You need to understand clearly that I do not revert editings without cause. i do not mind being reverted, but I do mind if the reverter is the creator of the files, such as in the case of Vauxford as explained in [1], [2]. I discussed the issue with Vauxford but he stubbornly refused. I think my proposed suggestion, is that going forward, whenever I make a replacement of Vauxford's examples, another editor can revert it, so it prevent bias. I am more than happy for this proposal. In addition, he expects for us to "let him know before I make a revert" which I think its completely ridiculous. This is not his personal website, hes not the king of Wikipedia. I have been doing the same thing for the last 3 years and haven't had much complaints so I don't see how I should make any changes, except maybe going easy. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)'[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The point being is I did the exact same thing with OSX. However he didn't complain, but you seem to be the only one who cares about your images and only will allow reverts when a user lets you know. I told you the compromise, which would solve our issues. Its essential that policies are given to users because the fact remains your edit summaries when you revert, you don't even do or you think your image is "fine" when in fact it is not. The point of CARPIX is that it was told to me [3], and therefore it would be suggested by the community to utilise this guideline. If you followed that guideline and photographed exactly to the guideline, and if I replaced yours, and you reverted it, then I'd have no problems as you'd be 'following the books.' Again, you were the one when you first started to consult me, so I suggested I give you a list, but now you seem to take this liberty to picture every car on the road. Whilst its not a problem, you just replace images randomly. His edit summaries are completely bogus, suhc as "previous is fine" or something like that, which indicates he may have a problem with the quality of images on the site. I'm not sure if I'll be needed on Wikipedia as theres no point of me contributing if I cannot post high quality shots to replace the existing low quality example. Vauxford, its only the Audi image, why are you making this a big deal, I want to compromise and half the use of yours and mine as per this discussion. I will of course leave the foreign Wikipedias for your Q7 and I'll handle the English, Wikidata and Simple Wikipedia. That means its easier and to prevent further discussion. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think thats the main problem with Vauxford, he wants me to focus on non-UK cars, so I believe hes the one thats being disruptive. You cannot stop anyone from picturing anything. It seems extremely inconvienent, and unfair because the same cars that exist on the Australian market can be sold in the UK. Vauxford, doesn't matter if a Holden Commodore in London or a Vauxhall Astra appear in Australia, whoever pictures the better one can be used. Its plain simple. I have a strong stickler for higher quality images. Vauxford has accused me of not able to make my own decisions. This is the type of annoyance that I see from Vauxford thinking he'd have the right to replace all his images. In addition, users are expected to let Vauxford know if they are to revert his images, without him seeing for himself. He believes all photographers should have their own styles. When i began in 2014, I was only using an iPad to take car photos and a crummy camera, but OSX helped me improve my photos. He also believes that his images are more superior to mine and accuses mine of being a "carbon copy" [4]. I don't see why he should be focusing on the Asian vehicles and let me focus on the cars not sold in the UK. Its Wikipedia, not a dictatorship, and you are expected to comply with guidelines and policies prescribed. If no one complies with these guidelines, then whats the point of them being there? You may as well delete them. If rules can be bent, then you'd be seeing users able to vandalize articles, which to me is absolutely not tolerated. I think if Vauxford followed CARPIX guidelines, then I wouldn't be starting these arguments. I suggest for all images taken by myself and Vauxford, before replacing, there should be a third opinion. It would be non-negoiable and this could resolve 95% of our problems. Also I know what the image guidelines on CARPIX pretty much off by heart (my memory isn't too good, but this has been concreted into my head), therefore its essential this policy is given to people. I'm strict about these policies and follow by the book as this is how I was told when I began in 2014. If I wasn't told about CARPIX, then I'd not follow these guidelines --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Nim - These semi-retired/retired templates are to be used when you're not really on any more or are taking long breaks away or are no longer editing here at all .... You added the template(s) to your userpage[5] and then 7-8 hours later removed them[6],
    It's also worth noting you say have family issues but here you say "I am not going to be continuing this argument. I think for the best of everyone here, its best I retire. I don't see how I can contribute much with the limits you are restricting me" - Ofcourse I'm by no means saying you're lying but it seems odd you would say the first comment and then 10-11 hours later say it's for a completely different reason (If I had family issues I would not only state this but I'd also not edit here)
    If you have family issues then you should stop editing and focus on your family - Please remember we're only a website - Friends and family are far more important. –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    Its not violating any Wikipedia policies, so why should I change? OSX expected all car spotters, including myself to follow his set guidelines to the highest standards. Through your addition of these images, I took the chance to build onto the discussion, as I saw some worse examples. Also the comment "...why can't you focus on cars not in the UK..." [7] is an indicator that you don't want anyone else to contribute cars that are sold in the UK. I mean, is this some joke or something? If a Holden decides to sell one of their cars in the UK (Commodore), you'd tell me that I am not allowed to picture any Holdens? Its everyone's right to photograph whatever car they wish to do, and showcase it on Wikipedia. The guidelines at WP:CARPIX should be adhered to by anyone who is part of Wikiproject Automobiles. I've suggested for you to photograph cars that are European mainly, like Porsche, SEAT, Aston-Martin, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and let someone else do the other vehicles. Its gotten to a point where theres no chance for anyone to share their images on the site, rather you are driving away all the contributors. WP:CARPIX is a guideline which anyone can edit, hell if an admin on this chat decides he wants to edit it, and is not part of WP automobiles, he can. I have utilised some of my 2018 examples to further make it more comprehensive. Charles01 is the main person that should be blamed for the hardship caused. Also I don't really understand why you always get worked up with my images, yes I do replace them, but generally for valid reasons. I try to ensure my images are "perfect". If it wasn't for OSX, I'd be still using my iPad or iPhone and then they'd be low quality junk. I don't replace all your images, however I do if I know mine are improvements of yours (even for little things, I get worked up, as I want Wikipedia to be the best article as possible, this applies to writing too). I only replace them when I know mine (or someone elses, such as M 93's) is better. I like your Vauxhall and SEAT images and others not sold in Australia. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Another addition to try and get my point with this user is the edit warring he got into with other users.
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I understood that, but I'm not letting you weasel out of it. --Vauxford (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I've further made a compromise with Vauxford in relation to the Outlander image [8]. What this means, is by setting up compromises, then the dispute is resolved. I am allowed to make any edits what I wish, provided I'm not violating policies and guidelines. In fact see WP:IGNORE as this will give a better outline. Also I'm very picky about background choices, rather than pixels. I don't have much an issue with the pixels, so I'm now being very careful. If its in front of a house or something, its no problems provided theres nothing in the windowsills. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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. TheMesquitobuzz 02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    TheMesquito Be aware that this is the 5th time Nim has "retired" throughout this whole ANI, he done it first when I was considering of creating a ANI and he said he taking a Wikibreak as well as requested a self-block, this lasted only 3 days. After I created the ANI, he "retired" again follow by a "semi-retired" which lasted no longer then a day. He then stated he cannot retire follow by another Wikibreak. When things started to not go his way, he "retired" again follow by a semi-retired which only lasted 2 days. I presume this "retired" stunt would be his last, seeing as he blanked his entire user page. --Vauxford (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully he takes a month off and thinks about what he has done and addresses it (ie: no more obsessive ownership of photos and articles, and how he has been disruptive). Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Addendum - I support the proposal to make the topic ban indefinite. The more I look into this the more disruptive Nim appears. I'm starting to see things that look like potential WP:CIR issues, but I'd like to provide Nim the opportunity to contribute elsewhere, where this severe obsession and the resultant level of disruption will hopefully not occur. --Sable232 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Comment I am happy to accept a topic ban for a month. This means that basically I won't be contributing on Wikipedia for this time, thus it'd alleviate breathing space for the group. However this may not be effective because I'd just be continuing uploading on Wikimedia Commons, except this time round, I'd have the time to relax and ignore Wikipedia. After all, we want the best. Also Vauxford is not the only user I'm following around, Areaseven is another user, as indicated in the Mazda MX-5 article. Users who are sanctioned are permitted to take part in these discussions. I also admit gladly that I did that with OSX, except this time we worked together and ensured we got the best. He was more interested in helping me out, so i helped him back. Its very ironic we have the same photo techniques. Unfortunately stopping a user from photographing the same way as you is not going to work out, because remember some of the top photographers people emulate their techniques. This means, the first month I can use, I can have the time to reflect. Unless someone is willing to teach me how to write, the only way I'm able to contribute is with photos, because I do not have very good writing skills, thereby pictures is the only way I can really express myself. I'm also very picky with photos, such as the car should be clean, the car must have no distractions and other stuff. I guess this way I was very picky and I do indeed apologise for the misfortune that I have caused you all, and I hope to remain a productive editor in the next month. I've also resolved plenty of disputes in the previous segments, therefore theres a good chance that I can improve. After all its 2019, but this means that I can slowly adjust to the user's preferences on quality. I had the same problem back with OSX when I first began, however by setting out compromises, thereby we achieved the best outcome possible --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your pictures 6 months ago said otherwise, they had no aspect whatsoever to be remotely similar to mine, the reason why they are now because you simply mimic off them, why couldn't you of done that when OSX was around? You didn't seem to pick up his way of photographing at all. You were "picky" because you treated the CARPIX essay that was heavily rewritten by OSX like it was the Tenth Commandment and you kept shoving it down in all of our throats, it a good reason why I find it redundant because it just far too impractical and seem to tailored specifically in that location.
    You clearly are following me everywhere I go, especially when I made edits on an article completely unrelated to automobiles and yet you feel to have the urge to make a pointless edit all because I was there, you also stalk me on Wikimedia Commons and doing tasks such as categorise and changing the description on my own image when the user personally asked me to do them and having to resort to private messaging with other users because you would intervene in them almost all of them. --Vauxford (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Whilst Vauxford does primarily update and replace images here (the same as Nim) as far as I can see no one's ever had an issue with Vauxford although I do object to him replacing ALL images to his own - That being said his images are much better quality than those he's replacing,
    Nim on the other hand appears to have caused issues with a good few editors and doesn't seem to be listening to anyone and unfortunately at this point in time has become disruptive to the project,
    I suggested to Nim a few days that he should take a break for a bit which seemingly went ignored so as such I see no other viable option than a IBAN/TOPICBAN. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef TBAN and 6 month IBAN - As of late I've replaced a good chunk of Australian car images with European ones (because English Wikipedia goes beyond Australia and because I believe there should be a variety of images) - Nim had reverted myself and others on almost all articles and there are clear signs of IDONTHEARTHAT in his edit summaries as well as on my talkpage (here and here) and there's certainly a lot of oWNership taking place,
    It's also worth noting Nim has gone to every single Wikimedia Project and has added all of their images to these various Projects which given this and their behaviour here I would certainly say there's a very unhealthy obsession here,
    Given their mass-Wikimedia image replacements as well as their behaviour here I believe they should be TOPICBANNED indefintely from automobiles and anything and everything related to them - Outside of cars Nim isn't a problem and so despite their behaviour I would consider blocking to be OTT at this present time. –Davey2010Talk 02:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A year would definitely seem excessive Davey2010. Wouldn't it be better if someone who's the first time being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard get like a short period of the ban say 3-4 months. One year seems overly excessive because on the first report, I haven't been blocked for anything, except for self-requested blocks ([9]). These, however, were needed, because I was studying, and didn't want Wikipedia to distract me. Besides, I've apologized over the incidents that I've done in the past, and therefore, if I am just being restricted to non-UK cars only, then I'm not feeling any point in contributing, because there are other users from America, like Kevauto. Besides I'd probably learn my lesson in 3-4 months. I also note that a 'bit' means like up to six months, rather than 1 year. Because theres nothing really on Wikipedia that interests me, that would just be rebutted. I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014. But why are you trying to refer to Vauxford having no issues with other users. Eddaidohad objections with this image, which I was trying to tell everyone and placed options. I also specifically told everyone that if they do not like the current version of CARPIX, they are more than 100% welcome to update it to meet the new standards of other car spotters. I've been using this guideline as my bible, therefore hence I've been careful about my image selections. You want me to have a break, thats fine, but then again, i've been doing this section for the last four years, only 2018 I had the issues with Vauxford & others. Besides the previous edits, I think 2019 would be easier to improve, but I would think that maybe I'd go easier unlike before. I guess now, looking at everyone's complaints, I now understand how my behaviour has caused everyone upset and despair, but I never knew. I do indeed apologise to everyone on how I acted and I hope for 2019, I do more improvements for Wikipedia, but I can't find anything else on Wikipedia. It seems a little bit too much to resort to a topic ban for one year, but I think do a 3-4 month topic ban on the first go. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I see that EurovisionNim mentioned in one of hs rants on this page that I identified him as "Comrade Psychopath". Guilty as charged. I might choose to say I intended it not necessarily as a diagnosis but more as a throwaway remark. Ill-judged for people - and there are lots - who believe that psychcopathology carries or should carry a stigma. But there are serious issues. The fellow insists on uploading and linking mediocre pictures of cars to wiki articles on an industrial scale and reacts to disagreement by treating the wikipedia project and fellow contributors with contempt. The way he assiduously wiki-groomed Vauxford over more than a year was border-line creepy, and seems to have ended in tears. But either way, this is not what wikipedia is for. Or am I missing the point of something here? The more important issue arises where he risks degrading wikipedia by insisting on inserting own photographs most of which are not terribly good. In the process he wastes huge amounts of other folks' time as here. And there is no way to calculate the number of potential contributors who take one look at the way he behaves and wander off to do something else. He says he is very young somewhere. Maybe he is young enough to learn? He must be. But the evidence of the last few years suggests that he is a relatively slow learner. No one reading simply this page will know the sheer scale of EurovisionNim's contributions to talk pages. But wikistats can no doubt be interrogated. And this page does itself, after a couple of days, give a reasonable flavour of the sort of thing we're faced with. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Now that EurovisionNim has dragged me into this, its time to get some facts right. Back in 2014 EurovisionNim was going on a spree replace ok and good photographs with one that were of poor quality and would restore his own photographs when they were removed. It is clear that EurovisionNim doesn't take on any feedback or criticism given about his actions and behaviour. These are the reverts that I did back in 2014 and most were of vehicles not buildings; [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] and [35]. Bidgee (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bidgee, this was four years ago, besides I've got all these images deleted. Why do you need to worry about an incident that occured more than 4 years ago? At that time, I never knew what was quality and was just plain dumb. You didn't need to do that way because that time I learnt my lesson and no longer repeated the offense afterwards rather i improved my photos based on the feedback you gave me. Thats a totally different issue altogether mate and besides at that time, I was completely new to Wikipedia so therefore I wasn't aware of the policies at the time. Since joining Wikipedia i've grown and now i tend to reduce images as opposed to flooding them. These edits I looked back were unacceptable, because they were all low quality junk and also I understood when you left me [36], afterwards I've completely halted this activity, and focused mainly on Perth. So those diffs are completely unnecessary. If I forgot to apologise, I do so indeed. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it wouldn't have been raised at all if you never made the following statement, "I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014.", which wasn't truthful! What do you think I was going to do, leave it unchallenged? Though one thing to come out of it is that you haven't changed, you continue to push what image/photo you want, you can try and say its a totally different issue but its the behaviour that you have that is the problem and it hasn't changed from 2014 to present. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also going onto other people's talk pages is not a wise move. Bidgee (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I doesn't see like EurovisionNim can't let it go and is showing strong signs of having ownership issues[37]. I'm starting the lean more towards a block, if EurovisionNim refuses to recognise that he has a problem (ownership/control issues) and address it. Bidgee (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bidgee: I agree, I'm almost tempted to start a different proposal for a temporary block alongside the TBAN/IBAN, this is getting ridiculous. TheMesquitobuzz 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite interaction ban and indefinite topic ban. EurovisionNim would be welcome to request that these sanctions be overturned in six months. For that to be successful they would have to provide reasons there would not be a repeat of the obvious problems. I removed "for a short period" from the heading because longer sanctions have been proposed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per Johnuniq. Have EurovisionNim request a topic ban-lift after six months and then show willingness to collaborate. It seems like this issue needs plenty of cooling off, and my POV is that one month is going to bring it back to ANI almost for certain. RandomGnome (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN as a limited-time measure that is clearly necessary; the best way to resolve this dispute is for EurovisionNim to gain more editing experience in other areas of the project. I'd prefer an explicit 3 or 6 month TBAN, but an indef TBAN with an explicit "this can be appealed in 6 months and there is no expectation of waiting longer" is fine as well. I'm less sure about supporting an IBAN; this seems like a situation where an IBAN might be more trouble than it's worth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Dax Bane Not surprised Nim prefer this proposal because it means he can continue the very thing that is causing the problem. He been doing exactly what you are proposing, and he beginning to frustrate other editors because of it, we are all fed up having to comment on every replacement edit he does. Another thing this is the 3rd time that he has said the following; "wiki-break" or "retired". He treat the retirement template like it an on and off switch when things doesn't go his own way.
    I prefer TheMesquito's proposal because it far more logical, seeing as he has read everything from this discussion and the evidences I provided. The way how Nim express that he "cannot retire, there MUST be someone from Australia to take car pictures", To me this is like a obsession to him then a hobby, bringing distress rather then enjoyment and potentially can be unconstructive in that sense. Plus it mean I don't have to wake up 4am in the morning and my talk page flooded with constant request for comment whenever he want to replace a picture (mostly mine). With this topic ban for a short period of time would be better for him and ween out this obsession and be able to actually think with a sound mind. --Vauxford (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    I agree with you Vauxford, he has an obsession and this has driven (no pun intended) people from the project. I have now very rarely uploaded any photographs of vehicles because of EurovisionNim unhealthy obsession and ownership that he has, so I know how you feel. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose while this a good proposal at heart, looking more into Nim's edits I feel like it would just be more of the same. I think Nim honestly needs a break from the automobile project for a bit in order to give the project time to breathe and give Nim a fresher head. Also I agree with Vauxford above, the retired template is not for when a conversation is not going your way. TheMesquitobuzz 20:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I think a topic ban is appropriate here. Nim's editing has been disruptive, even if in good-faith, to more editors than just Vauxford. Nim has expressed insight that some edits have been disruptive and sincerely wants to step back, but can't seem to do it, not for very long. A temporary topic ban would also extinguish the interaction between Vauxford and Nim. The auto project would progress without Nim's involvement for a while, allowing Nim to see how a (hopefully!) collaborative and much less combative approach has worked to benefit the project during the term of the ban. RandomGnome (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The above account, RandomGnome, was created on 24 December 2018. The above is their 17th edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    not important to this thread
    Yes, I have edited Wikipedia before irregularly as an IP and am somewhat familiar with a few of the policies (how could you not be, considering how one is pounced on by experienced editors citing this or that WP). If you're making a back-door accusation that I'm a sock, I guess you'll have to go in search for evidence. Although sadly, evidence apparently doesn't seem to matter too much around here when instituting indefinite bans. RandomGnome (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What search? The account "RandomGnome" was created on 23 December (not 24 December as I originally stated) [38], and the comment was their 17th edit [39]. I have absolutely no doubt that you, the person behind the account, have "edited Wikipedia before". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nothing but retaliation because I disagreed with your report below. As I have already stated, if you have evidence of my misconduct then it is appropriate to bring it to the attention of the relevant admins rather than follow me to unrelated threads in an attempt to discredit my edits in other areas of the project. I will likewise bring evidence of your misconduct if you persist. RandomGnome (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. You just thought it would be a great idea for you -- a brand new account less than 2 weeks old, with a mere handful of edits to your credit --to stick your nose into a discussion which revolves around whether a brand-new editor is a sock or not. No, no, that's not likely to raise any concerns, not at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm prepared to believe your efforts to rid Wikipedia of sockpuppets is most likely coming from a good place, it is clearly now becoming a time-consuming disruption for the project. It is certainly uncivil. As evidence of this, I would cite an admin, User:IvanVector who has described your behavior as bullying, while strongly questioning your methods in bringing it to this forum with no evidence. I think this raises far more concerns than anything I have done here. Despite what you might personally believe, you don't own any of the conversations here, and you certainly don't have the power to decide who gets to 'stick their nose in'. I have very well placed concerns that an editor is being banned without due process. And I am clearly not the only one. One more time - If you would like to bring actual evidence of my misconduct to the attention of an admin, I'm sure you are very well versed in how to do that. If you persist in following me to other threads and articles with accusations bearing no evidence, I will not hesitate to use my right to report you for violating policy. On a constructive note, I would ask if an admin could consider counseling Beyond My Ken that it is actually possible for people to irregularly edit this project, and this should not be seen as evidence of sock-puppetry by itself. I would ask an uninvolved editor to please hide this discussion, as it's not constructive and is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair call, I’ll be happy to accept it but would I be able to appeal the ban say in about 4 months? Is that how it works? I’m happy to have it for around 3-4 months but up to 6 months is equally fine as this means I’ll get the chance to do anti-vandalism activities. Bidgee can step in and do the car photos for me while I work on anti-vandalism. Sounds like a fair deal —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    DE-Wiki

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

    Johannes Maximilian Correct me if I'm wrong but they not really edit warring examples from me and Nim, I think the worst one out of the you linked was the Kia Sportage one, the rest are hardly relatable and are 1-3 months apart. --Vauxford (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a specifically wiki-de issue, JohMax. EurovisionNim cheerfully replaces pictures on wikipedia in every langauge with an article on the car that he is photographing. There is probably no "wiki-guideline" prohibiting this behaviour because till EurovisionNim came along no one had the self-belief (good word) or arrogance (nastier word) to behave in this way. But the overall result is even more of an excessive preponderence of pictures featuring the same trademark blindspots as to what makes a half-decent portrait of a car. Or - if you think the fellow takes excellent pictures every time he sets foot outside his home (and he does have a certain talent for "making wiki-friends", as some of the contributions to this page confirm) - the same excellent pictures. But even then, too much of a "good" thing, I suggest! Charles01 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Charles01: I just wanted to mention that there was sort of a "photo-warring" on DE-wiki and that Nim was asked to stop (he has unfortunately ignored it) – I have not seen any other non-English Wikipedian posting a similar "please stop" message on Nim's talk page yet. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote stacking issues

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

    Its also worth noting that in the talk page message they sent to 1292simon, it links directly to the proposed TBAN/IBAN TheMesquitobuzz 14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting worse. I feel like we should now, after a hefty discussion, just direct TBAN/IBAN him, and we have the votes anyways. However, we need to fix what he’s done in all the other language Wikis. We need a steward. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshawott 12: I would almost agree, the amount of issues across multiple wikis are going to be hard to clean up without a steward, but is his replacements in other wikis bad enough to warrant calling one?TheMesquitobuzz 00:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheMesquito: @Oshawott 12: It isn't as bad as you think it is, what seem to have happen, since Nim have a tendency of mimicking almost anything I do, at one point I did do some replacement edits on different language Wikipedia articles which hasn't been updated for as long as 10 years. I did do some replacement edits on active Wikis such as German and Polish and my rule of thumb of doing it; "If the folks over there rejects my replacement, then that's that" and don't interfere with Wikis such as Ukrainian and Italian as users on there are doing it there own way which I respect.
    I like to think my intention of doing these edits are in good faith however the problem is, when Nim found out I been doing it, he began doing the same thing, attempting to replacing BMW X5, Kia Sportage, Mercedes-Benz GLC etc, from my assumption he doing this like it a game of "Who pictures appear on the most Wikis" which safely admit this when he said "but the only reason I want mine to appear is because I want these to be in news articles". --Vauxford (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks?

    SPI filed hours ago - For privacy reasons they cannot be made public so as such I'm closing this section, No objections to reopening by any admin. –Davey2010Talk 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Current IPs:

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

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

    Indefinite block/ban

    Notice: Some early participants in this thread may no longer be available for further discussion.

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

    * Weak support I don't really want to see him blocked, but with the use of sock puppets and other issues, Nim clearly needs some time away from the project. Hopefully he will be given the standard offer and can return eventually. TheMesquitobuzz 05:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose as per Vaux TheMesquitobuzz 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't hear quacking. There's no shortage of problematic IP editors in this space (as I recall from investigating Carmaker1 threads here) and the 4 IPs presented are obviously not all the same person; 120.188.65.92 reverted 125.160.209.22 at Toyota Sienta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm a bit disputed over the IPs, I recently sent a message to Nim questioning about the IPs, unsurprisingly he denied all them so I don't have much to say. --Vauxford (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Earlier I had been thinking/voting in terms of a time-limited block/ban but the continuing editing under various IP accounts after repeatedly announcing his "retirement" (per the frequently archived bits of his user page and talk page), combining with the denials reports by Vauxford, swings it to "indefinite". I've not studied all the IP edits from IP addresses listed in this section, but I have studied the entries from the IPs identified here. I am far more familiar than I should wish to be with where and how EurovisionNim likes to edit. These are not anonymous quacks, IM(H)O. More to the point, there is no evidence that he is able or willing to edit constructively and collaboratively. There is, clearly, absolutely nothing to stop him applying for reinstatement when he's thought a little more thoughtfully and ... "calmed down a bit" Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just adding another problematic IP to the list to investigate for a possible indefinite block, for all of the good it will do. 2600:1003:B86E:4CEB:907D:2C26:889B:236B (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Having thought about this for a day I have to disagree with Indeffing - Whilst they are a problem editor they're only a problem editor on car articles .... as far as I know outside of cars they're not a problem at all,
    I honestly have no idea if the IPs in the SPI are him or not however IMHO if the IPs are his he should be indeffed, If they're not his then the SPI should be closed and then this ANI thread should be closed with a consensus for the indef TBAN/6month IBAN,
    I feel indeffing him is just throwing the kitchen sink at everything and I feel it's rather excessive - If issues arise with other articles then we can return here but like I said at present I cannot support an indefinite block. –Davey2010Talk 16:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify I support indeffing if there's been socking but I don't support it if it's just for CIR/HOTHERE etc,
    Also just to note Nim's not been on since the 7th however IMHO the topicban/iban should be enacted regardless of his "departure" (He could easily return in a few weeks or even a month). –Davey2010Talk 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - It a likely chance we won't find out if the IPs were his. Agreeing with Davey, I still support the TBAN/IBAN and hopefully that would it be put into place soon. I rather not want this whole ANI I created myself just to be used to scare off Nim for a few weeks, only for him to come back to cause the same problems I been addressing for the past month. --Vauxford (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as per Davey2010. Indef if socks proved resulting from SPI. TBAN if not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGnome (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5

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

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

    A problem with this editor was also reported on my talk page in December: see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Another concern. If WP:CIR is the verdict then a conventional block might be considered. On the other hand, if it turns out that POV-pushing is the greater problem, a topic ban from WP:AA2 can be an option. The user was notified of this discussion on 6 January and gave a point-by-point response. Unfortunately all his statements were removed by another editor who didn't like the interlinear edits. I'll leave a further note for Shahanshah5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (The "another concern" thread has been archived to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_46#Another_concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: IMO, and with all due respect for the reported user, i think he has WP:CIR issues and is a POV-pusher. Saying, like he did in his point-by-point answer, that he has tried to add "Azerbaijani" to some articles because he was not experienced enough does not sound like a good faith answer. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment shows, one more time, his inability to speak English and his battleground mentality.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston:, as admin would you tell me that which of my edits can be reason to make me blocked? Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikaviani:, I already introduced my online English certificate on my talk page, but for you I can add it also to here [1]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Honestly, I think Shahanshah5 views WP like a fighting video game. e.g. some users revert and reject his edits but he believes he must win. So he decides to continue his problematic edits or targets some specific topics. Even if we consider his edits as good faith ones, there are some serious issues that can't be ignored: Weak command of English, ignoring WP guidelines and other editors' comments, lack of interest in collaboration, and Obvious nationalistic/irredentist/anachronistic POV. So do you think giving him the second chance would solve those issues? Everything about him proves this case is WP:NOTHERE. But if he promises to change his behavior, then I support a final warning or 6-month block. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it seems he does not care about his account. Dropped an inappropriate reply on 2019-01-06[63] and didn't try to rewrite it again or write a proper reply. Seriously what is this?![64] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query If he made a point-by-point rebuttal it might be helpful to see it. Is there a link that I missed? Can it be copied here?19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    Here is the link you asked for.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wario-Man:, I'm interested in the collaboration with every Wiki user (who make edits on historical topics )since I often try to discuss some edits and future edits on talk pages, here is some examples: [1] 2, [2], [3]. I want also add that you should concretize which my edits you mean by saying nationalistic/irredentist.

    Section 27

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

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

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

    • I'm curious that why User talk:LouisAragon says that I labelled Brill as non-reliable while I said that it's not high reliable source[1]. In addition, I gave there two publisher rankings which proves my words about Brill's source.
    • My edits on Bahmanyar and Iskander Beg Munshi pages were one of my first edits which weren't experienced.
    • Baku Khanate ethnically is an Azerbaijani khanate which house was Bakhikanovs of, but unfortunately I forgot saying it to Louis Aragon when we had a discussion on my talk page.
    • Before answering to the accusing I demand User talk:LouisAragon to prove to me that my this edit was wrong.
    • My edits on Antioch and Quba Khanate pages weren't carefully, I understand it. Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this complaint is very hard to follow. Second, this looks like a content dispute. 2600:100F:B104:1606:FC9F:90E:6DC4:B70E (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    I think its a response to the ANI section WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5. Possibly should be moved there? Curdle (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved. Qualitist (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1)What Shahanshah5 links to is a Ranking system by SENSE. Nowhere on this page does it state Brill is an unreliable, less reliable or even that "it's not high reliable source". Yet again, Shahanshah5 has shown their inability to read and comprehend what is written in English. Here is the SENSE documentation and organization page. "Where it states:Please note that the WASS-SENSE ranking list of publishers has been set up for the WASS and SENSE Dutch Graduate Schools only. The list is based on the publishing houses used by our researchers. It should not be used by other institutes."
    This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history. This is POV pushing at its finest.
    2)Shahanshah5 has on numerous occasions added information that is poorly written[65] and/or makes no sense. Clear case of Wikipedia:CIR.
    3)Shahanshah5 has made battleground comments. Accusation of racism, labeling editors that do not agree with his illegible, nonsensical edits as "pro-Iranian colleagues"
    4)Refusal to get the point.[66] Shahanshah5 was in such a hurry to push their POV, they either didn't or couldn't comprehend that the book they were using for a source, also supported the information they were deleting!! And when told this, they still ignored what I said and then blamed me for their lack of compentence in English!
    I see no reason to allow this to continue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (1), SENSE documentatation [1] where it writes that A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers'B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers'? Doesn't the A rated means the being high rated source? And how B rated source the Brill can be as high rated? Oh, and checked Brill also on this Wiki page where were the lists of the top publishers but I didn't notice notice there the name of Brill. And what about it "This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history", why don't you give at least two publisher rankings that Brill is the A rated?
    (3)I think you're a little bit late with the Bahmanyar talk page, so I already answered to it on ANI. What about the second accusing, hm, I had thought users here can be honest since User talk:Wikaviani and User talk:WarioMan labelled my edits as the pro-Azerbaijani and nationalistic/irredentist. So I had thought I also should be honest and said about the POV of some my colleagues.
    (4)I already answered about Quba Khanate here. What about the second deal of "blamed me for their lack of compentence in English", it's not so succesfull manipulating over meaning of my sentence were I citated "I think you didn't fix these sentence on those articles to get another evidence against me :)" You didn't revert my edit and at least didn't fix my sentences(which was on high RS source) until your reporting of me to the admin. But after reporting the admin, when you done your work you reverted my edits [1], [2].
    @LouisAragon:, aren't you going to answer my demand about your accusing me on this my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor at Talk:Pikmin 2

    Is this sea cave underground? Levivich (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Gosh, if it's not underground, it certainly isn't under the sea. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a slightly complicated case. There is an editor at Pikmin 2, Leitmotiv, that has been engaged in edit warring over several months over the phrase "underground cave". They believe that this phrase is redundant and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Their edits were contested in the summer, and then they reasserted their edits a few days ago without attempting to reach a consensus, I posted about edit warring on the noticeboard here [[67]], they were warned.

    They have been told multiple times to open an rfc if they believe their position is right, but they refuse to do so. My complaint is two-fold, first is that they took the incredibly inappropriate step of making comments represented as my own here. [[68]].

    Second, they have stated that they are erasing the phrase "underground cave" from wikipedia [[69]], as they believe they are an expert and have judged the term redundant[[70]], as they believe all caves are underground. Others have shown the person that the definitions of caves includes caves in the sides of hills and that the distinction is not entirely redundant. I see from their contribution history, that they appear to be blindly removing the word underground from all articles including the phrase. In some instances, this changes the meaning of the sentence and I believe this is a pattern of disruptive editing and editing with an agenda. For example, this article specified that the owls burrow in caves underground, while the average reader would probably assume an owl would burrow in a hillside cave if the word underground were removed [[71]]. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's totally an agenda. I am free to answer any questions, but the consensus I wrote on the talk page of Pikmin 2 was clearly my own interpretation of the discussion when Basil refused to answer my simple question. And no, I'm not avoiding an RfC, all things when I'm ready to do so. I'm not operating on Basil's schedule. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Battling to change "underground cave" to "cave" in an article about a game is pretty, umm, lame. Find something substantive to work on and forget that article. Perhaps people are dumb and do not understand your point, but it doesn't matter so forgetting about it would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I love a good argument, that I can't deny - so maybe it is lame from that perspective but you could say any mundane task here on wikipedia is lame and that's really not fair to those folks. Honestly, it's really a tempest in a teapot. I'm not arguing for much because my edits would equally be understandable. But the resistance to it is irrational. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing tautology improves the project, so I understand Leitmotiv's motives. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Leitmotiv was warned for long-term edit warring about the word 'underground' at Pikmin 2 per a complaint at WP:AN3 which was closed on 8 January. I have explained to him how RfCs work, though he has yet to explore that option. The AN3 seems to be an exchange of complaints that the other party isn't discussing properly. Anybody who knows how to open an ANI should also know how to do an RfC, so the way is open for the real discussion. Since both parties know what the real next step ought to be, I suggest this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, this ANI isn’t about the edit warring, I provided it here for context. This ANI is 1. About the conduct of misrepresenting comments as my own. No editor has the right to speak for or as another editor. And 2. A pattern of disruptive editing at all articles with the phrase “underground cave” based on a personal agenda. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to say that removing tautology insn't improving the project, that it is a personal agenda? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    You may disagree with my reasoning on my edits regarding redundancy, but that hardly makes my edits disruptive nor an agenda - I'm improving Wikipedia in my own way, that's the only "agenda" I'm guilty of. If there is a special case needing closer examination, I'm happy to discuss the need for clarification/distinguishing certain types of caves in those instances, should they arise. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, it is an unacceptable use of english, but wont comment further. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be a good place to discuss the tautology of "underground cave" since Basilsauridae refuses to answer some fundamental questions I asked her at Pikmin 2, even though I know this thread is more about perceived slights. It's okay to use hillside cave as that is descriptive of it's locale, if there is a need for it. But a hillside cave is still underground. I've never deleted a "hillside cave" for redundancy. If there is a need to label a cave as "cave in a field" that too is fine, but it still remains that both a hillside cave and a cave in a field are both underground. The very thing that Basilsauridae cannot answer is why there is a need for distinction on Pikmin 2, nor any other editor on that talk page. There is nothing special about the cave at Pikmin 2, which contradict's Basilsauridae's concern for confusion on other pages, because she has repeatedly dodged answering why a distinction is important at Pikmin 2. For what it's worth - Cave den or cave burrow would also suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Oh, I see it's okay for you to discuss it prior to my comments. You're still dodging why this cave needs a distinction when "cave" would suffice. Are there other types of caves in the game that could confuse the reader/player as to which cave we're talking about? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not be engaging in this debate with you here or outside of an RfC. I have expressed my opinion fully and reasonably on the talk page, and summarized here for anyone interested. That is not the purpose of this ANI and you are aware of the appropriate venue. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the question of tautologies (or not): sea cave, glacier cave, etc. --JBL (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Joel B. Lewis A sea cave is always underground, even if it is also underwater. A glacier cave could be a particular exception in some cases, I suppose. Anything lying on the ground, could be considered a part of the ground, including the mineral ice. However, I could see some exceptions as a small possibility if somehow a reader was confusing a dirt ground with one of ice, though off the top of my head I can't think of any. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, ANI isn't the place for content disputes so not sure that the above discussion is helpful. IMO it's fine for an editor to change one or a few articles per WP:BOLD, and then participate in a discussion to defend that change if they are reverted. I would suggest that changing a large number of articles enmasse is likely to be disruptive unless there is an RfC or some other wider discussion that establishes the term is clearly wrong or unneeded. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely arbitrary section break by an uninvolved editor

    An admin determining whether a cave is underground. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies for my bluntness: This doesn't matter, it shouldn't have made it to ANI, and it most certainly doesn't need an RFC. Stop fussing over one word and go find better hills to die on. -- a. spam | contribs 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again, it didn't "make it to an ANI". It was provided here for context but is not what the ANI is about. The ANI is about 1. The action of misrepresenting comments as my own. and 2. a long term disruptive pattern of editing. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Basilosauridae: That may be the case, but again - it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I'll admit, I did not look into it all that much: I saw a content dispute about something as inconsequential as whether caves are underground or not lead to a few hundred lines on both the article talkpage and ANI. It takes two users to tango edit war: Take your own advice and drop it. The world will keep turning whether we specify caves are underground or not. -- a. spam | contribs 22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, If you don’t think it’s worth discussing then don’t get involved. I’m not sure why editors think it’s helpful to tell people to just stop having an issue. Dropping the WP:STICK implies that there has been a consensus or other impass reached and editors are continuing to persist. I am here to start a discussion on the things I brought up, to which there has been little discussion. Everything is up for reasonable discussion on Wikipedia. Additionally, I don’t think it’s helpful to essentially tell people to pipe down when you admittedly “didn’t really look into it much.” †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the Pikmin 2 edit war that started that ANEW, a warning was issued and I consider that ANEW discussion over. Another editor with a similar issue resurrected that conversation with their own complaint about similar behavior on another article, to which I would suggest that they should have opened their own section because Leitmotiv was not warned from the overall behavior, just from edit warring at the Pikmin 2 article. That discussion doesn't overlap with the complaints of this ANI in anyway, so I would say that the current discussion at that ANEW isn't relevant to this ANI. The main purpose of this ANI is to discuss the pattern of disruptive editing concerning the phrase "underground cave". I would argue that the new issue raised by a new editor to the discussion, czar, supports my position that this is disruptive behavior. I'm not sure where else to discuss an editors expressed personal agenda that affects hundreds of pages, if not an ANI, let me know if there is a more appropriate venue. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You and your personal "agenda"s. Click-baity words. If I decide to continue editing "underground cave" I am open to discussing disagreements. My latest disagreement at Catacombs of Rome went smoothly and also ended in my favor. I think I'll find there are plenty of people that agree with me and an equal amount that get butt hurt about not having an "underground cave" if Pikmin 2 is any indication. In the latter example, I may discuss it for a bit and see where it goes. Basilosauridae, I recommend not getting worked up over a tempest in teapot next time. My passion is caves, yours is your whale ancestors. Don't begrudge me for having an interest in editing something that I'm knowledgeable about, even if you disagree with my point of view. My edits aren't the end of the world, nor the hill you want to die upon as someone mentioned earlier - though I suppose if said hill had an "underground cave" it would make for an ideal tomb too. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scholars of Google Scholar seem to think there's such a thing as an underground cave "underground+cave". See also the ngrams [72]. I get the impression there's been a shift of usage over the decades, and Leitmotiv clings to some traditionalist definition. EEng 05:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And NASA thinks Planet 9 is Planet X, but that doesn't make them correct. People fumble with their words all the time, even those inspiring folks in the White House (sarcasm in case of Poe's Law). And I think traditionally, people have used "underground cave". Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you chose the Planet 9 – Planet X issue, which is a lukewarm disagreement no one's particularly exercised about, as your archetype of black–white / right–wrong says a lot. This is really beginning to look like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by way of WP:MISSSNODGRASS. EEng 03:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Naw, I'm just pointing out that even speleologists can clutter their words too. If NASA can't get their facts right, it's no surprise that neither can the common man. I'm just clearing up tautological errors that align with my editing interests. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the wonder of Wikipedia: Not once in my life have I ever thought about whether all caves are underground or just some caves are underground; since reading this thread several days ago, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the implications. What is "ground" exactly? Is ice "ground"? What if it's floating on the sea? What does "underground" mean? Is there a difference between "underground" and "in-ground"? If I'm in a cave in a hill, am I above sea level but below ground? The sea floor is "ground", so when I'm underwater, am I below sea level, but above ground? If I'm in a cave, there's ground below and above me: am I "between-ground"? What is the template for the mind-blown emoji? Levivich (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite fascinating isn't it! Humans try to categorize everything to make sense and we're limited by our words. Ice is a mineral, so why would we decide that ice isn't the ground? Because we like playing favorites? Why only ice? Ice is interesting in that it's a floating mineral, though pumice has this same quality, but it is a rock. Is it floating ground? Seems absurd, but that's just what it is. Well, if you're standing on an iceberg, are you standing on the water, or something else? When you fly to the south pole and your plane touches down, is it touching down on "not the ground"? If you're on the bottom of the ocean, with a mile of water above you, and a hole in the ground below you, you are indeed fitting that rare niche of being below sea level, but above ground. As for being in a cave, you are both below the ground and within it. A cave is exactly the absence of substance in the ground. You could say you've taken the middle ground, possibly in Middle Earth. At the end of the day, the vast majority of the articles on wikipedia aren't going to gain anything by doubling up "underground cave". If an article raises the above mentioned issues, then I'm willing to make an exception, but I think most of us realize there aren't going to be many examples like these. Most of the articles don't have another cave mentioned in their article, or if they do, it's a part of some cave system. Personally, for me, discussions like this make me appreciate the unique properties of H2O. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in most instances on this issue, I am persuaded by WP:YOUDONTSAY. Levivich (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. I'm always open to exceptions, but the editors that have rebuffed my edits are hard-pressed to supply a reason why their cave is special. Underwurlde - a cave below a house. Pikmin 2 - a cave in a field. There isn't anything confusing about these caves that requires them to also be labeled as underground. Levivich, are there any project pages/essay pages that would be interested in the tautology of underground cave? I enjoyed your link on Principle of Some Astonishment. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI that's my essay (with a lot of help from my friends, of course). I wish one of you two would change your name because I have trouble keeping you straight. EEng 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh nice! Good job. Also, are you saying that between Levivich and myself, one of us is redundant? Leitmotiv (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many L's and V's. EEng 04:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done LEvivich 04:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oh that is rich! literal lols over here. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As A Fellow Editor once said: "When technically minded folk with a penchant for order, consistency, and control get caught up in the zeal of a systematization crusade, un­pleas­ant­ness can result."
    @EEng: It's one of my favorite essays. I look forward to vandalizing it someday. @Leitmotiv: To answer your question above, I don't know of any such projects or essays, but you could always write an essay about it. You know, at first, I thought somebody going around striking "underground" from "underground cave" from like every article that had it was disruptive, but after thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that no, that's called copyediting prose, and I believe it's permitted here under certain circumstances. Regardless, may I suggest that as you go from page to page tightening up the prose, if you come across a page where an editor strongly objects, just let it be. Let them have it. I generally agree it's redundant, but out of the many pages you're editing, if a few redundancies are left behind because somebody really wants them there, it's only going to be a blip among all the other examples you will have fixed. It's hardly worth fighting about, even if you're right. Any time you spend fighting is better spent making some other changes you want to make that no one will object to. Just my two cents. Levilivivich (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thems some good cents. The thing I like about arguing is that I understand my position much better as well as my naysayer's. I think you're right. I'm not going to "fight" the ones that want to keep it the way it was. At least not as much, but I still may learn something yet. Maybe a few more arguments, and then I'll be sick of arguing once I've fleshed out the nuances. For now, I think I've actually eliminated most of the occurrences of "underground cave" unless my search method is flawed. I have, however, seen that "underground tunnel" has way more entries, and I suspect "underground catacombs" may too. "Underground mine" is an interesting case where it actually makes sense because there are surface mines, though I suspect there are plenty of cases where the distinction was made without consideration to surface mines. Not sure if I want to tackle those beasts as I'm not as learned in those fields. Thanks for advice the Levivich with three v's. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkknight2149 v. Hijiri88 and Curly Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @Curly Turkey: Don't use the word slander or any of its forms to describe another editor's conduct/statements on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd honestly support any sanction the community sees as appropriate to deal with this disruption, but this time it should be indefinite (as I believe community consensus favoured last time; six months was essentially Drmies casting a supervote - I don't begrudge him that, but I think subsequent history proves it was not the right call) to prevent comments like this. And yes, slimey, empty threats meant only to harass and intimidate, like the latter part of that diff, are pretty characteristic. This time the community needs to be clear that his behaviour is unacceptable, and he shouldn't be allowed just wait it out while denying all wrongdoing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The diffs above are spread over nearly two years. This is not exactly high-intensity disruption. But given that it's been going on that long, perhaps an indefinite community IBAN between DK on the one hand and CT and Hijiri88 on the other is in order? GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The interaction ban, should there be one, needs to be two-way. While DarkKnight2149 reacted really badly to it, it was Hijiri88 (a frequent flyer here at ANI) who brought DK2149 up first, wholly unnecessarily, in an unrelated thread a few sections up (perma-diff here). And then DarkKnight2149 for no reason decided the absolute best thing to do would be throw around terms such as " dishonest, passive-aggressive" and to unnecessarily tag someone else he'd been arguing with (Curly Turkey). And then Curly Turkey decided the best thing to do would be to unnecessarily go in all guns blazing, managing an impressive 7 uses of the word "fuck" in one and a bit lines. It's all very personality-driven and exactly what an interaction ban is for. You'll notice I used the word "unnecessarily" a lot, which is exactly what this all is. Fish+Karate 15:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I will add that this templated warning from DarkKnight2149 is really unnecessary, and inflammatory. If DK2149 can't understand when a templated warning is not a good idea, perhaps extending this incipient ban to also bar DK2149 from using templated warnings for a while wouldn't be the worst thing. Fish+Karate 15:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right you could and should have, "sticks and stones" and so forth. That said, I do think that DarkKnight2149 bears a grudge against you (and others) and needs to be restrained. Paul August ☎ 23:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "A rose by any other name ..." Paul August ☎ 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say an ANI thread would smell like a rose, this would probably be a better comparison. SemiHypercube
    TParis, Paul August: Were this a neutral third party with legitimate concerns about neutrality, I'd have nothing to say; but this is accused turning the header around to emphasize the accusers over the accused—not in the slightest an NPOV thing to do. Would ANI tolerate it if I were to reverse the title to "Darkknight2149 v. Curly Turkey and Hijiri88"? That would better reflect the evidence provided and nature of the accusation, but I'm pretty sure it'd result in an instant block. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not DarkKnight vs. the entire community. I've changed many a header on ANI and on talk pages; they do actually need to be neutral. No need to ping me in this thread. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How could any comment made in this discussion (or the header) be construed as "DarkKnight vs. the entire community"? This is a non sequitur.
    "Curly Turkey and Hijiri88" is not neutral—Hijiri and I are not a duo, Hijiri was not involved in the filing of the report (nor in the original disputes), and Darkknight's attacks have been directed at a larger "cabal".
    I still believe the header should reflect the content of the report, but would you object to "Darkkight2149 v. Curly Turkey and others"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Either suggested name sounds OK, but why do some people insist on ANI threads being titled like a legal case? SemiHypercube 02:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a simple comma replacing "and" would suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I did not consent to or support CT in opening this ANI discussion, and I did not (as implied above) bring up DK out of nowhere "unnecessarily" -- I was asked (in a not-so-polite fashion -- Ctrl+F "conspiracy theories") why I thought there were "unblockable" editors and linked to the best example that came to mind, but I could have mentioned any of about a dozen others. I was then subjected to a harassing comment out of nowhere, by an editor who was clearly monitoring me very closely (he and I hadn't interacted in almost seven months), to which I remained completely silent. I have had almost no agency in this matter, and see no reason why I should be named in the thread title. Therefore I would politely ask the community to give strong consideration to CT's requested title, and to leave me out of this. I said my piece above, and had every intention at that time of just leaving the matter to the community at that point. For the love of the encyclopedia, please just let me go about writing articles without subjecting me to yet more of this drahma. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, because the original named subject of this thread wanted to add me as a party, because forcing me to waste time on ANI fulfills his agenda of deliberately and repeatedly harassing me (again, how did he even know about the above, as he hadn't edited ANI in eight months?) he is allowed to? If he wanted to file an ANI report on me, he should have done so. He didn't. Curly Turkey filed an ANI report on DK, mentioned me, and then DK decided to add my name to the title. How on earth is that "more neutral"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems a decent idea. As an alternative if people still object, how about Curly Turkey, Darkknight2149 and Hijiri88? Alphabetical order, no vs. just the three editors this thread is mostly concerned about. Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri's not a filing party, nor the subject of the report. Why not stick the names of DK's other targets in there? This is how DK's disruptive tactics are taking root and a reason why the subject of the report should never be allowed to mess with the header. But whatever—could we deal with the harassment? The was a strong consensus against DK in the last ANI, and the only consensus here against me seems to be that I say "fuck" a lot—I sure as fudge haven't been following DK around to prod and threaten him, and nobody here has accused me of anything like that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Hijiri not involved when people are proposing to i-ban them below as a result of what has arisen in this thread? AFAIK you're an experienced editor, so you should know ANI discussions are not restricted in scope to the people named in the original report, but in fact the actions of anyone involved in the dispute are likely to be considered in the interest of fairness. If the actions of anyone else start to be considered in detail, then sure, name then in the title. So far this has not happened. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And how much has that been influenced by DK's manipulating the header? I am an experienced editor, and in my 13+ years experience at WP I've never come across a case where the subject of an ANI report was allowed to manipulate the report header. As the opposers below note, the evidence provided against Hijiri is next to nonexistent. How about providing some substantial evidence before Hijiri gets named in the header? That was a minimum requirement for me to name Darkknight2149, after all—a whole list of diffs. If a header or any content is to be changed, it should always be by a neutral third party. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know and frankly by this stage, I don't care WTF changed the header. What is clear is that multiple parties have said that they found the header change acceptable, and so whoever changed it first is a moot point. We are not going to sanction someone over one ill-advised header change, especially when others feel the change was for the best and we are having an active discussion about ibanning the person named in the header. I mean sure, SemiHypercube or Drmies could have changed the header back and then reintroduced the change, but that is dumb, hence why we have WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. You may not believe there is sufficient evidence presented again Hijiri88, but others do. Note that quality matters as much as quantity. One diff may be enough in some cases to justify an ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take the most measured stance I can since this is a continuation of now years-long drama. The bare minimum action that should be taken here is the imposition of two two-way IBANs between CT and DK and Hijiri88 and DK. As to the above inane section title dispute, legal cases are, to the best of my knowledge, titled plaintiff vs defendant. DK is not the plaintiff, so it makes no sense to put their name first. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to spend too much time here, because I'm filing an Arbcom case request over the weekend on this extensive matter (Hijiri and Curly seem to have mistaken my exasperation and reluctance to get around to it for "empty threats". I don't really care what they think. Before, it was "It'll never get accepted!" Now, it's "He'll never do it." Wait and watch.). I'd also much prefer to keep watching Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 hang themselves by their lies, with no ammunition to spin from me replying. I mean, is anyone actually looking at their so-called "evidence"? Some of it is just laughable. For instance, I changed the title of this dispute from the blatant lie Harassment by Darkknight2149 to a more neutral Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 v. Darkknight2149, and he actually attempted to argue that I strategically placed his name in front of mine to avoid drawing attention to myself. I just rolled my eyes and reshuffled the names. Now, he's trying to get it changed to Darkknight2149 v. Others to make it seem as close to Darkknight2149 v. The Community as he can possibly get. A more hilarious example is in Hijiri88's recent diff, where he tried to claim that I said "9,000 people hate you, Hijiri!" (when, what was actually said was "I don't know anything about this, I'm too busy to be involved in this, but I don't know about the 9,000 other users you pinged"). You can see their dishonesty on full display. Hijiri88 and Curly also have a habit of accusing me of exactly what they've been doing, so there's that as well. I'm not about to go through and refute every line of accusation they threw at me, because they would just try to twist my words around and this is going to ArbCom anyway. I have also collated quite a bit of genuine evidence against them, all of which will be exhibited there. In the meantime, they can continue their Wilson Fisk act.
    Likewise, I'm not exactly sure why Curly Turkey is still acting like his frequent WP:FACTIONing with Hijiri88 is some sort of secret. It has been out of the bag for a while now:
    The persistent meat-puppetry between Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 is a matter of public record, yet administrators have been completely unwilling to address their behaviour. I highly doubt the Arbitration Committee will feel the same.
    The TBAN that Curly Turkey is so fond of using as his "shining example" also isn't valid at this point, which will be a key point at ArbCom. Not only was the entire ban built on false pretenses, but it was largely driven by the tag-teaming of Curly Turkey, Hijiri88, and Twitbookspacetube — a confirmed troll, liar, and supposed "clean start" account who lied about not having open sanctions (among many other things), and was later blocked for all the things I warned everyone he was doing at that ANI dispute. To make matters worse, several of Curly's "likeminded supporters" migrated from WP:COMICS specifically to defend him at ANI, and the dispute was largely regarded by the community as a trainwreck. And worst of all, the ban solved absolutely nothing, given that Curly continued his behaviour at WP:COMICS, being royally uncivil and starting fights with other users over the same discussion where he claimed I was the problem.
    That being said, if you have already made up your mind like Paul August and drank the Kool-Aid on Curly's bullshit, I doubt any amount of evidence or the truth is going to change your mind. But I think I can safely say that I'm not the one holding a WP:GRUDGE. Hijiri88 in particular has an extensive history of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour (which has earned him multiple blocks), he has admitted to holding a grudge against me over a Talk:Mr. Freeze disagreement from 2016 (even though he also admits that I did nothing disruptive there, but he still brings it up). Back in June, Hijiri88 began stalking my contribution history and WP:HOUNDing me out-of-nowhere, as soon as he saw that I was unblocked for something that wasn't related to him in any way, shape, or form. Hijiri lost it, and immediately started reverting my most recent contributions on random articles ([81], [82], [83]). He then promptly messaged every administrator involved in the unblock individually and accused me of "Wiki-lawyering" (an accusation that the unblocking administrator completely shut down). He then began smearing and gossiping me to other users, which he is still randomly doing nine months later. Now, he's exhibiting clear WP:DIVA behaviour by posting more lies about me on his user page and threatening to retire. Paul, do you actually think I want any of this?
    Observers should also draw attention to this brilliant exchange, where Curly Turkey tried his usual bullying tactics on an administrator:
    • Fish and Karate: "Do not restore the reverted content again."
    • Curly Turkey: "It's all going straight back up again tomorrow regardless, so you're not accomplishing anything but aggravating people with this behaviour. You still have the option to revert and hat, like I requested—unless threatening victims of harassment with blocks is more your style."
    • Fish and Karate: "And then you'll get blocked."
    • Curly Turkey: "CAN I AT LEAST HAT IT?!"
    -- Dlohcierekim (talk)
    And by the way, I never claimed that there was a massive secret "cabal", although I have pointed out Curly Turkey's tendency to WP:FACTION with other users. The term "cabal" was coined by Curly, and recently, Hijiri88 parroted it by saying I'm part of some exclusive group of "unblockable users". DarkKnight2149 20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to be fair to Curly Turkey and note that's not exactly how it went. When CT said "it's going back up tomorrow" I mistakenly assumed he meant he'd be restoring the same edit, again, when he actually meant he was going to reference it in a thread on ANI (this thread). This was resolved reasonably amicably. Fish+Karate 13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to personally thank the subjects of this discussion for proving that an IBAN could not come soon enough.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as a member of the Cabal, I am happy to assure you there is no cabal.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

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

    I had not seen GoldenRing's comment when I made that revert. Still, you did not gain consensus before changing it to Darkknight249 v. Curly Turkey, even though everyone (including administrators) told you it was fine the way it was. DarkKnight2149 21:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fish and karate: I'm sorry, I assumed it was self-explanatory by now. The purpose of the "final warning" template was exactly that — a final warning to let him know that this was the last straw before action would be taken with the ArbCom case. Between the lying, hounding, smearing, incivility, meat-puppetry between him and Hijiri88, WP:GAME, and everything mentioned above that would have been mapped out at ArbCom. The template was making it a formality.
    Fish, I'm going to be up-front with you. Even with the IBAN, I'm not 100% comfortable knowing that Curly and Hijiri88 are going to continue what they've been doing with other users. That being said, it will no longer be my problem. I am sick and tired of this debacle, and I just want to move on.
    I don't believe a sanction against me using templates is necessary, but if you are going to propose one, you should also know that Curly has false templated my Talk Page in the past. The template on Curly's page wasn't false. There was genuine disruption involved, and I had every intention on wearily taking it to ArbCom if that's what it came to. DarkKnight2149 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkknight2149: "I'm not 100% comfortable knowing that Curly and Hijiri88 are going to continue what they've been doing with other users" is passive-aggressive unevidenced battleground commentary that is exactly why an interaction ban is necessary and honestly, you're borderline close to just being blocked at this point. Just because the interaction ban is yet to be implemented does not mean you can take as many whacks at them as you can until the ban is in place. Stop talking about them now. Fish+Karate 09:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have done nothing wrong here, and do not accept an involuntary sanction for disruption caused by another editor who was hounding me. I know an IBAN would theoretically prevent him from hounding me, but experience has taught me that that is not how it would work out. GoldenRing is well aware of this experience -- I opposed his RFA because he had expressed the opinion that I should be blocked as a result of another editor hounding me and me complaining about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This "it's never me it's always them" attitude is exactly why an interaction ban is warranted. Hijiri88, it was you who brought up DarkKnight2149, for no reason whatsoever, in a completely unrelated thread. One could argue you "hounded" him there, but it doesn't matter; a two-way fault-free interaction ban stops you all endlessly sniping and chipping away at one another and allows everyone else to have some respite from this nonsense. Fish+Karate 12:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you appear to be implying GoldenRing is suggesting this interaction ban in bad faith because you opposed his RFA. I am sure this was not your intention, so I suggest you tweak your wording there. Fish+Karate 12:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment According to his user page, Hijiri88 has now retired, but I feel that this should not preclude an interaction ban being imposed, both to avoid DK2149 continuing in this way in Hijiri88's absence, and just in case Hijiri88 opts to return at a later date. Fish+Karate 13:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fish and karate: Should the ban go into effect, Hijiri88 needs to change the text on his userpage. Much of it is talking about me, and not in a flattering light (the whole "hounding" situation was a spat that took place back in June). DarkKnight2149 22:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Fish+Karate 09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Clearly, from the oppose above, users are incapable of interacting constructively and clearly there is a lack of self awareness as to how unacceptable this behavior is. I have little doubt we'll be back here with this issue in less than 6 months, but it's worth trying.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Dlohcierekim: if you "have little doubt we'll be back here with this issue in less than 6 months", then wouldn't it be worth it to try to examine the evidence and solve the problem here and now, rather than waste everyone's time and patience six months down the line? This is the third time I've taken DK to ANI, after all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow. Switch to strong support per Black Kite-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Support per Dlohcierekim and replies, and the title squabble isn't helping anyone's case. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems like a reasonable tool to prevent problems in the future from returning. One-way interaction bans aren't useful anyways, the unsanctioned user has no reason to interact with someone who is prevented from responding. IBANS are a good no-fault way of stopping problems; to say the users cannot interact with one another doesn't mean they are equally at fault, but it does mean that there won't be problems going forward between them. --Jayron32 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose two-way IBANS, and Support some sanction for DarkKnight2149. I've seen enough from DarkKnight2149 to convince me that some sanction is necessary, an IBAN, at a minimum. I believe that this editor bears a grudge against several editors, and is unwilling or (as I suspect) unable to burry the hatchet. But, I'm unconvinced that any sanctions—even supposedly "no-fault" ones—are warranted, for the other two editors, diffs anyone? Yes, I understand the "plague on both your houses" mentality, but still. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Paul August: You could start with the one I provided, above, showing Hijiri88 bringing DarkKnight2149 up for no perceivable reason in a wholly unrelated thread. Fish+Karate 09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fish and karate: I'm not seeing much here. I think I read this exchange between you and DK (I meant Hijiri88 Paul August ☎ 13:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)) differently than you do. DKHijiri was impatient that his request had not been responded to. He wonders (jokingly? and/or a bit paranoidly?) whether the reason is because he was the requester. You take (or mistake?) his comments as serious. Reprimand him for starting on "conspiracy theories", take offense at his impatience, and reply that "we are not your skivvies" (believe me I understand the sentiment here, but such remarks are never helpful). In turn DKHijiri takes offense, and tries to explain that he "was joking", and parenthetically tries to explain that his "theories" (joking or not) have some merit and links to what he claims are examples, which (conveniently?) involve a certain other editor. So I agree this last is not helpful, but it hardly constitutes a pattern of harassment. Paul August ☎ 12:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Paul August: Assume you mean Hijiri88, not DarkKnight2149. As I mentioned below, I do seem to have a bee in my bonnet about users expecting speedy responses for everything, which is something I'll work on. Fish+Karate 12:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fish and karate: Yes thanks, I did mean Hijiri88 (and have modified my post above). As I said there, I completely understand your impatience with other editor's impatience for quick responses here from the rest of us, volunteer's all ;-) But when that escalating impatience upon impatience leads to less than ideal behavior from others no one should be surprised. In any case one diff does not a pattern make. Paul August ☎ 13:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Per my previous comment above. An IBAN would certainly keep them from continuing to lie about me, indiscriminately smearing my name across Wikipedia, stalking and harassing me out-of-nowhere, randomly showing up where they're uninvolved and attacking me for having an opposing viewpoint (which is how this all started to begin with), ETC. Though keep in mind that I'm filing the Arbcom case request over the weekend regardless. Between the lying and WP:GAMEing, the frequent meatpuppetry between Curly and Hijiri, WP:BLUDGEONING, canvassing of specific administrators, ETC, this isn't an issue that's going to get solved at ANI. And yes, I fully intend on filing the case request. If Curly wants to accuse me of bluffing, I really don't care. When it's up, it's up. DarkKnight2149 20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    parsed -- Dlohcierekim (talk)
    I should also mention that while two-way IBANs would specifically end the conflict between me, and Curly and Hijiri88, it would not solve their larger behavioural issues. They would just continue to do the same things on other discussions with other editors, as they have been doing. And given the persistent meat-puppetry, I'd say that Curly and Hijiri need to be banned from interacting with each other, but that's a proposal for ArbCom. DarkKnight2149 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, the last thing you want to be doing is questioning someone else's neutrality. I just checked the original discussions and you appear to be one of the several "likeminded users" that supported Curly at WP:COMICS. Many of the users that defended him at the last ANI reports were the same "likeminded supporters" that migrated from WP:COMICS, and Curly's WP:FACTION / WP:MEAT tendencies are mapped out above. This is a key reason I'm filing an ArbCom case request over it this weekend. Meanwhile, me and Fish and karate have barely interacted before this, and I'd say he has been very neutral to both sides. DarkKnight2149 19:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My original reply: @Signedzzz: I became aware of it because someone was kind enough to notify me that I was still getting smeared via email. And I'd say I provided quite a bit of evidence against them above, so I don't know where you and Paul August are getting that it's "just one diff" (which was talking about me). It also definitely wasn't a "joke." As Nil Einne correctly pointed out above, Hijiri88 has been known to begrudgingly mention users he has come into conflict with, in instances that don't involve them. He also has an extensive history of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and is engaged in a conflict with someone on a near constant basis, not to mention that he's been smearing me to other users ever since he showed up out-of-nowhere stalking my edits and harassing me back in June. DarkKnight2149 19:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to ping a name for the user to be mentioned. It's clear who Hijiri88 is discussing. And the - ahem - pissy attitude was for Hijiri88 complaining because an admin had not responded to his ANI post. You will note I did actually address the problem (the problematic editor was blocked). Fish+Karate 10:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No complaining: he was making a joke. This was pretty obvious, but in any case, he immediately said so. I don't really see why you are still defending it. I notice you also accused him of making up "conspiracy theories" - hardly surprising that he would mention something he thought would counter that accusation. zzz (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A jokey complaint is still a complaint. I do admit I have a bee in my bonnet about users complaining when administrative processes take too long, and I do get more defensive about it than I should. I'll bear it in mind. Fish+Karate 12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's disappointing how little effort the supporters appear to be putting into examining the evidence and context. The same thing happened initially at the ANI that got DK TBANned—there was even an early proposal to TBAN myself, until people started looking at the actual evidence and started interacting with DK. Very soon, the community turned on DK, with community consensus for both a block and a TBAN (though only the TBAN was enacted). Look how quick DK is to attack those such as Paul August who have also called for people to slow down and examine the evidence—that alone should be setting bells off. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I most certainly hope that people are looking through the "evidence", and not just Curly's dishonest commentary about it. The sooner his disruption is exposed, the better. Curly now seems to be WP:BLUDGEONING the matter, going through and replying to everyone trying to influence it in his favour. Of course, this is the same reason he caused such a fuss over the more neutral ANI title, even suggesting it be change to Darkknight2149 v. Others (obviously pushing his assertions that I'm fighting the entire community... Or a secret Wikipedia "cabal"... Or something). DarkKnight2149 23:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I might have missed it, but I don't think Hijiri88 has participated here at all. Paul August ☎ 01:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC) (My mistake Paul August ☎ 01:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
    He's commented here three times, Paul. He even voted... DarkKnight2149 01:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, thanks I see that now (I was using the wrong search string). Paul August ☎ 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, basically Hijiri88 was just asking why the hell he's been dragged into your private war. --Calton | Talk 02:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? Do I know you, Calton? Also, I'm not sure how being randomly smeared by Hijiri nine months after he stalked and harrassed me out-of-the-blue is me inflaming a "private war", but okay. DarkKnight2149 02:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? Do I know you, Calton?
    Was there a point to the question? Do you have the need to divide the world into Friends of Darkknight2149 and Enemies of Darkknight2149?
    And no, still not buying the story you're trying to sell. Deal with it. Find something better to do. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So a random uninvolved user shows up with an attitude, immediately takes a strong one-sided stance, and then makes bizarre unsubstantiated accusations about me "inflamming a private war" (despite the fact that it was Hijiri88 who resurrected the conflict in the latest two instances)? Yeah, I don't buy it for a second. On top of that, your contribution history is filled to the brim with rude and uncivil edit summaries, you have a block log longer than my arm, we seem to edit in similar topic areas, and I used to primarily monitor articles for disruption and report disruptive users.
    To top it all off - the last time a random, completely uninvolved editor (with an inexplicably strong position) showed up out-of-nowhere at ANI to support Curly on everything and fan the flames in my direction was with Twitbookspacetube — a confirmed troll and sock account who was later banned for that sort of behaviour. So forgive me if this whole scenario smells incredibly fishy. DarkKnight2149 03:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Calton, under the guise of your suspicious attitude, you noticeably avoided the question - Have we ever crossed paths? Moreover, out of all the discussions on ANI, why is this complicated thread the only one you decided to lend your inexplicably strong viewpoint on? Something is definitely off. DarkKnight2149 03:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC
    I "avoided" nothing. You can stew in your own paranoia unaided by me. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Nothing suspicious here. Why don't you substantiate your viewpoint, then? Between your clear inexplicable anger (despite having no involvement in this until now), refusal to answer pertinent questions, strong and unjustified bare-bones allegations, and everything mentioned above, you aren't doing any favours for your credibility. DarkKnight2149 06:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off. This is a community discussion and all editors in good standing are welcome to opine here. If you carry on badgering those who do, I'll block you myself. GoldenRing (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose two-way interaction and Support one-way inaction ban on Darkknight2149. Darkknight2149 needs to find something better to do than inflaming old grudges. --Calton | Talk 02:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Two points of note: I see I'm filing an ArbCom case request over it this weekend per DarkKnight in several earlier comments in this thread, and Hijiri88 has self-requested a 22 day block. I really don't want to put in the effort to check diffs to see if there's anything here or not. If this can't die out on its own (preferably by a semi-voluntary IBAN), ARBCOM will certainly sanction those editors who refuse to let it die out. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and Support one-way interaction ban on Darkknight2149 This is really only a problem with DK's behavior. Carlton has it right. They should just move on to other topics rather than hounding people he's had disputes with in the past. The conspiracy theories are pernicious to this thread. All three of these editors would do well to stop talking about each other at all. --AdamF in MO (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence the need for the IBAN's. "All three" editors.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamfinmo: But what you, Paul August, and Calton have all repeatedly failed to justify is how I'm the one "hounding them" when it was Hijiri88 who specifically resurrected this crap, and who has been bringing me up in instances where I'm not even involved since June (when he randomly began harassing me over something that had nothing to do with him, as well as reverting me across multiple unrelated articles). This has been well documented in the diffs above. So has Hijiri88's history of WP:BATTLEGROUND and his self-admitted grudge against me from a 2016 dispute.
    Bizarrely, you also supported a one-way ban (which would allow them to continue harrassing and smearing me out-of-the-blue), yet you go on to claim that "All three of these editors" are at fault. Are you seeing the same contradictions I am? What you are saying isn't based in reality, and you wonder why I plan on taking this to ArbCom depending on how this plays out. DarkKnight2149 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is precisely why I'm only for a one way ban. I think that Hijiri88 and CT can listen to reason. You can't. I didn't make the claim that "All three of these editors" are at fault. Excuse me for saying so, buy your claim that I did is a rather frank lie. I simply told the truth. You all should STFU and go back to doing something else. They only difference is, YOU will have to be forced to do it. That is my opinion and it is quite clear. Seriously bro, claim the eff down. Back away from the keyboard. Maybe have a nice hot cuppa tea and relax. It is all just words on a screen. Nothing that happens here is important. Nothing anyone says here is really going to have any effect on anyone's life. --AdamF in MO (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "You all should STFU and go back to doing something else. They only difference is, YOU will have to be forced to do it." - Although uncivil in delivery, this is fair enough. Darkknight2149 out. DarkKnight2149 23:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've stayed out of this until now because I have history with some of the editors involved, and because it wasn't really clear to me what, precisely, was going on. I've now tried to untangle the situation a bit -- and failed miserably. There is just too much history, and too many points of view involved to get a clear picture. I don't believe that the word of any of the involved participants can be taken at face value (although I do believe that they believe what they're saying), so I can't fall back on thinking "X is right and Y is wrong", because it seems quite possible that they're both right and wrong at the same time, in different ways. Because of this, calls to "get to the bottom of the matter" are, in my view, almost impossible to fulfill short of making it one's life's work to do so.
      Given all that, clearly the situation cannot continue as it is. Hijiri88's retirement doesn't change the situation much, since many "retirements" are not as permanent as the editor originally thought they would be: the lure of Wikipedia is too strong. Therefore, I see no reasonable course of action that has a chance of changing things except the two-way IBANS between DK & CT and between DK & H88. I hope that the participants might be able to see this "solution" as the community taking steps to protect itself from disruption in a circumstance that has become too complex and entangled to do anything more precise, and to not take these sanctions personally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I'm basically in the same camp as BMK. I'm not spending a lifetime conducting the algebra necessary to work out who holds what specific amount of fault here, and I don't see how the one-way IBAN counter-proposal will prevent future recurrences of this. This is what started this. Just separate them. I wouldn't have even known about this discussion if I had not received two separate pings about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support To my knowledge, i have no history with any of the three of them, other than what i have seen on the drama boards over the years (years! Why would anyone keep coming back here, again and again, involved in havoc?). I believe that IBANs are a shame, a sign of the community's failure, so it is with regret that i support the two IBANs based on Black Kite's and BMK's reasonings. Happy days, LindsayHello 05:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Agree with Fish+Karate, Drmies, Aircorn, etc... I would prefer the format of a two-way IBAN. Lots of escalation, and I would say long-term problematic behavior, on all sides, as shown by copious diffs above. Let's cut the Gordian knot and resolve the outstanding problems once and for all.LoosingIt (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      LoosingIt: could you please clarify whether "shown by copious diffs above" means you clicked to through examine them? Are you referring to the existence or the contents of the diffs? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two two-way IBANs seem best. I'm not saying there's equal fault on all sides, but there's enough of it that the ibans are warranted. As others have said, the comments in the whole thread seals the deal really. As a disclaimer, I've had disagreements with Hijiri88 in the past, but minimal interaction with the other 2 AFAIR. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Drmies, F&K and all the comments made by the involved users in this very thread. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request to closer—if this report closes with IBANs, please note them as "no fault", given (a) many of the supporters have based their support on it, and (b) most (all?) of the supporters have stated they have not and will not examine the evidence provided. I make this request as IBANs and other sanctions are frequently weaponized in unrelated disputes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not my understanding that two-way IBans are in some way labelled as "fault" or "no fault" - I don't believe I've ever seen that. If only one editor was at fault, a one-way IBan would have been imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken: we're told frequently that "one-way IBANs don't work", and thus two-ways are often implemented even when fault is found to be one-sided (as with hounding cases). Is that not why several of the supporters bring up "no fault"? Whatever is decided should not give ammunition to future disputes—keep DK and myself from interacting, and have everything end there. I'm looking for the cleanest, least disruptive end to this mess (as a distant second choice to having the decision based on an examination of the evidence). Can you foresee how declaring "no fault" could conflict with that goal? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't see any precedent for it -- or real need for it. And regarding one-way IBans, yes, there are people who are quite vocal about their not working, but I don't think anyone has ever actually studied them to find out, so it's entirely anecdotal. I see no reason why they shouldn't work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither do I (it's what I requested), but the assertion appears to have consensus, and my experience is that one-ways are thus exceptionally rare, even in cases that are clearly one-sided. It could be a useful tool for the community to set a precedent of marking "no-fault" IBANs explicitly to reduce having IBANs weaponized in unrelated disputes. And it's an awful lot less to ask than "please look at the diffs". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point everyone has stopped caring about "fault" or "at fault", I think I can speak for most of the community when we say we just want it to go away. None of this dispute at all is now about the actual encyclopedia, it has mutated into an ugly string of finger-pointing, passive-aggression, and tiresomeness. An interaction ban stops this. Hoping this will be closed soon. Fish+Karate 09:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at fault two-way IBAN for all involved editors as proposed, per the caba comments above about the behavior in this very ANI thread. Can I also have a two-way IBAN from these editors as a preventative measure? In all seriousness, I initially had no opinion, but every time this thread grows, I've leaned more and more towards !voting support, until the comment above tipped the scales for me. The editors clearly have not listened to community feedback and have shown over and over again, with increasing certainty, that they have zero self-awareness about this problem and a total inability to resolve the issues between them. The disputes between these editors should not take up any more of the community's time to mediate, and an IBAN is the only way to make that happen. Levivich (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correspondence: A couple of days ago I received an e-mail from Hijiri88 (we had previously established e-mail contact, so this was not entirely out of the blue). I was granted permission to publish its contents (more accurately "do whatever you want with it"), but most of it doesn't need repeating everything here. I'll relay one thing from the e-mail for the benefit of all here, which was sent to both myself and, I was notified, to Fish and Karate (F&K): Lastly, on a basically unrelated note, I would like to apologize for the trouble I have caused both you and the community in the last few days. It has been a stressful time, both on wiki and off, but that is not an excuse for how I have behaved toward you. You have my sincere apologies, and my best wishes for your continued efforts in maintaining Wikipedia. I'm repeating it here because under the terms of their retirement, they can't do so themselves (self-requested block to facilitate retirement), and the message is to the community as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Can confirm I also received this. Fish+Karate 09:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Indeed, a three weeks retirement could be an efficient method for cooling down. Perhaps the other two should try the same remedy, instead of trying to convince the community that only others are at fault... with the probable result of an imposed three weeks block at some point in the future. Pldx1 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'support two way IBAN, not again two users who crop up here all the time with the same kind of inability to cooperate. Being sorry for wasting others time is not good enough, changing how you act is what is needed. I am seeing the same crap in a thread below this, and see that ending up the same way. Two (or more) users who will just shout at each other. As to a one way IBAN, why? This just punishes one party in a two way dispute, and more over will not (I think) solve the issue, just delay it. This is not "only one side at fault", it takes two to have an argument.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Peterjack1

    Here we have a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT:

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

    The individual does have a 'heavy' revert button. I had some disagreements with him a few weeks ago at the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections article. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the above, this user makes numerous poor edits (such as adding multiple junctions for one town in one entry in the infobox even if the junctions aren't connected, which is misleading) and constantly reverts edits. Dough4872 14:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Clarification, the user keeps switching back and forth without making sure that they are logged in. Cards84664 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    -I did not switch to an IP address to be sneaky, I used my desktop instead of my laptop. Chill out. -Peterjack1

    You should be logged in to both. Cards84664 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well too bad cause its not something you should be worrying about as long as I'm not being sneaky which I'm not. -Peterjack1

    @Peterjack1:, it is against policy to be using both an IP and a username this way: see WP:SOCK. --Rschen7754 07:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately ignoring guidelines continues. Mitch32(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 06:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Commenting as an editor) Overall I see this issue as not being willing to listen to other editors and their concerns (as well as the POV/RS issues). I also see a DS warning message on their talk page, so that indicates to me that there is a larger issue. --Rschen7754 07:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, as I pointed out above, my past experiences with the aforementioned editor, is that he's got the wrong attitude. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AB10002, WP:SPA?

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

    I agree with Walter Görlitz. The one and only time this editor attempted to engage other editors was at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 August 10#Someone is changing a biographical page with negative unsubstantiated edits. The advice they received was ignored, and they have continued their WP:COI and WP:OWN habits. They have also not responded to legitimate concerns about WP:NOSHARING and WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we avoid the word "grooming" if possible, as it usually means something markedly different to what I think Walter's intention was. Fish+Karate 10:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to second Fish and karate's request - I saw it and was half way to typing out the emergency email address while I scrolled down Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yes:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=prev&oldid=791873201
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=prev&oldid=804191907
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=877668973&oldid=877665306
    Does this help? I mean, with only 36 edits to the article in question over eight distinct sessions, you could look at all of them, but I understand the need for examples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they look problematic. Support topic ban. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Th editor has made an edit to their own talk page, [87], and again to my talk page [88], to clearly explain that they are not a paid editor. However, it's not clear how the editor had access to "an internal communication of Ms. Payette to her staff". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It is the news media CBC that reported having gotten copy of the « internal communication of Ms. Payette to her staff » and quoted from it. REF: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/payette-governor-general-anniversary-2018-1.4844727 AB10002 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Don’t know what to do, but...

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

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

    Probably better at WP:AN/EW. IWI (chat) 09:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, less confrontationally, get third party input into the sourcing issue at WP:RS/N --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I wouldn’t want to piss him off by giving him another notice. Could we just do it here because it gains more traction? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He has at least now opened a discussion on the talkpage, which is a step in the right direction. I also reverted the content, mostly because it's disputed (and so he should argue for its inclusion rather than just reinserting it), but also because it's so poorly written that it's pretty difficult to make out what he's trying to say. Grandpallama (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    o.k parsing , : Libcom, ( an anarchist site) countered [argued against her article ], saying that, 'Contrary to Nagle’s opinion, very, very few elites support open-borders. [-] The militarised borders that exist in Europe, the United States and Australia fulfil a defensive function, insulating wealthy states from the blowback of their actions – the imperial wars, the climate destruction, the corporate robbery.' That is pretty clear I should have thought. It was removed because two editors, a SPA, and Oshawatt, took exception. The SPA because they just knee jerk sought to remove all criticism of Nagle. Oshawatt seems to think opinions expressed on an anarchist site are not worthy of inclusion. Has no problem with a link to A Youtube video of the Fox News hack Tucker Carlson. Thats o.k. FFS. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At issue here is the question of whether the article you shared from Libcom counts as an RS - it's pretty clearly labeled as a blog. And I say that as someone who is politically sympathetic to the far left. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, I’m sorry, but I had no idea what you wete talking about in that big chunk of text. I was looking for vandalism, so I made my own decision. Your source is clearly a primary one, as it being a blog. Also, you spelt my name wrong. Twice. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 16:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that blogs are always considered unusable. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be discussed at WP:RS/N. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by DBigXray

    DBigXray has performed as many as 2 set of 3 reverts today[89][90][91] and also on 8 January[92][93][94] to smear Khalistan Commando Force as a "terrorist" group in violation of WP:TERRORIST and he also edit warred to claim that the group is "radical" without providing any source whatsoever. In order to stop this edit war and POV pushing by DBigXray, I initiated discussion and adhered to the policies[95] while DBigXray posted over 11000 bytes of a reply lousy with unreliable sources such as "Lulu.com" to make his policy violation right.[96] I have already made enough replies to make him aware of WP:TERRORIST and how his edits are improper[97] but he is not hearing and when I detailed his use of self-published sources,[98] he deceptively removed mention of "Lulu.com" when the message was already replied.[99]

    Unfortunately, he is still exhibiting that he can't understand the policy on WP:TERRORIST or he just don't want to accept it, which seems more like the case according to his last response on the talk page.[100]

    This same type of disruption and smear campaign is also evident on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale where in place of addressing the issues I raised and waiting for consensus,[101] he restored the content of 26,000 bytes[102] that he himself wrote by using unreliable sources, plagiarizing content, and misrepresenting sources. Because it is becoming tiresome to repeat same thing and DBigXray continues to be obtuse, I am reporting him here so that others can evaluate this disruptive behavior. DBigXray is editing with a clear agenda. He can't even understand these simple policies, let alone understanding the sources and interpretation which require thorough analysis before bringing them to main page, yet he wants to write about the subjects about which he doesn't know. What is worst is that he doesn't want to hear whatever you tell him. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is a complete lack of WP:AGF from Harmanprtjhj as evident in his talk page comments.
    • I have noted that Harmanprtjhj has been making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits to whitewash pages related to Sikh Terrorism and remove all mentions of the word "terrorism" (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) and add freedom fighter (diff, diff), by misquoting WP:TERRORIST even if the subject is widely covered in the reliable media as a terrorist organisation.
    • [103] As evident by his talk page, Harmanprtjhj was reverted and warned by many other editors including an admin User:C.Fred, who had also placed DS template and suggested to take this to ANI if it continues.
    • On Talk:Khalistan Commando Force page enough evidence was provided[104] that the subject (a banned terrorist organisation) is widely represented as a Terrorist organisation in reliable media and also independent third party sources such as books, scholarly sources, New York Times, Chicago Tribune etc (listed on the talk page) but he is refusing to acknowledge the same[105].
    • The word Lulu.com was autofilled by the citation bot during autofill and I did not notice it at first, I had corrected the publisher's name to Crossbow Books, Washington as mentioned in the book in this edit
    • On the page Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale same type of tendentious editing was shown by Harmanprtjhj when he tried to add [106] POV content from biased source such as this one by AISSF, a group that is Pro-Khalistani and actually participated in the violence, and was banned in India. The "language used in this book is often emotional and entire religious groups type cast in a negative manner often embellished with words such as "Evil, Treacherous, Wicked without any factual evidence", of course as is expected from a propaganda book.
    • Added [107] a bunch of youtube videos as references and removed [108] reliable scholarly sources that did not support his opinion
    • On the same page Harmanprtjhj tried to misrepresent another source [109] related to terrorism, when the source [110] did not actually say anything that Harmanprtjhj was trying to claim, the source only said the "information will be available at another location ( with the state government)". When Harmanprtjhj was asked [111] to cite the actual line that supported his position, He started attacking me on the talk page about my other edits [112], [113].
    • Based on the talk page discussion, I have added more references that were asked along with copy editing where ever was necessary.
    • I have already responded to this user on the talk page and I am willing to continue the discussion for any content related issue on the talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC) [updated on 21:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]
    Complying with WP:TERRORIST is not whitewashing. Fact that you still can't conceive this rather enforces the original complaint. Do you really claim that there was nothing wrong with making 3 reverts in every couple of days over what seems like blatant POV pushing? I am not too surprised since you were doing same thing when you were violating BLP on Jaggi Vasudev, whitewashing on 1984 anti-Sikh riots, adding POV on Rafale deal controversy, and more. These examples are from less than 2 months and these pages had to end up getting full protection because of your unnecessary edit warring over the edits that were never accepted. You were similarly gaming 3RR there and bludgeoning on talk pages while harassing the editors on their own talk page. At this stage it appears that a topic ban from the area is warranted. Qualitist (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it appears the first use of the word "terrorist" in the article was by an IP editor here: [114]. The edit was reverted several times until it appeared to stick by a number of different editors. Appears to me to be a pure content dispute. SportingFlyer talk 03:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:SportingFlyer How this is a content dispute when the next person is on a smear campaign and cant understand simple policies? He is also misrepresenting sources, plagiarizing content from unreliable sources (copyright violation), making 3 reverts everyday to evade 3RR for restoring completely nonsensical edits and asking others to block me[115] and now canvassing others to participate in this report.[116] This looks like a pure competence issue since same thing appears to have already happened on a number of other articles cited by Qualitist. This could be due to bad command in English as well as POV pushing mentality and in place of wasting any more time there should be a solution to this recurring problem. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Harmanprtjhj: The user that was "canvassed" was an administrator who had recently posted on your talk page and who had reverted similar edits as the ones reverted by DBigXRay. They are not the only user who has warned you in the past week, and you've been warned on multiple articles. I don't see any evidence of a smear campaign here, just an edit war, and based on a review of your contributions since you registered on December 29th, maybe some possible competency issues and/or socking. SportingFlyer talk 05:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SportingFlyer: I think you mean an involved admin (per own admission) who was involved in same dispute as DBigXray but stopped warning Harmanprtjhj and also stopped helping DBigXray after he was introduced to deceptive editing of DBigXray.[117] People do take the word of an experienced editor when reverting new editors by assuming good faith towards more experienced editor. They don't verify their edits and DBigXray is trying to exploit that AGF. You should better know that selectively leaving notes user talk pages is a violation of canvassing. DBigXray already pinged C.Fred here, but still, DBigXray left a talk page note on C.Fred's talk page and pinged him there as well.[118] It is a smear campaign and textbook of disruptive editing when you are making 6 reverts to label a group as "terrorist" and labeling a person as "terrorist", which is not allowed by Wikipedia policies to use these words in Wiki voice. DBigXray is also using terms like "radical" without giving sources. If this report concerned a new editor then he would be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. DBigXray likes to spam warnings on talk pages of editors, just like he was spamming on my talk page yesterday (while he was edit warring and disrupting the pages) but these "warnings" should be considered as forms of harassment by DBigXray. 103.255.5.96 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC) (I pasted this message by IP user here because this messages sums it up nicely. Harmanprtjhj (talk) )[reply]
    • Badgering by a ban evading IP aside, I still believe that this is a content dispute which should be resolved at the appropriate talk page. Regards. << FR 15:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ban evasion
    • @SportingFlyer: I think you mean an involved admin (per own admission) who was involved in same dispute as DBigXray but stopped warning Harmanprtjhj and also stopped helping DBigXray after he was introduced to deceptive editing of DBigXray.[119] People do take the word of an experienced editor when reverting new editors by assuming good faith towards more experienced editor. They don't verify their edits and DBigXray is trying to exploit that AGF. You should better know that selectively leaving notes user talk pages is a violation of canvassing. DBigXray already pinged C.Fred here, but still, DBigXray left a talk page note on C.Fred's talk page and pinged him there as well.[120] It is a smear campaign and textbook of disruptive editing when you are making 6 reverts to label a group as "terrorist" and labeling a person as "terrorist", which is not allowed by Wikipedia policies to use these words in Wiki voice. DBigXray is also using terms like "radical" without giving sources. If this report concerned a new editor then he would be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. DBigXray likes to spam warnings on talk pages of editors, just like he was spamming on my talk page yesterday (while he was edit warring and disrupting the pages) but these "warnings" should be considered as forms of harassment by DBigXray. 103.255.5.96 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @103.225.4.8: The warning was posted after your second revert on January 11th, inviting you to the talk page, and the disruptive editing warning after your third revert per the page history. Perhaps leaving you a message instead of a template warning would have helped de-escalate the situation, but these warnings were technically warranted and are far from harassment. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SportingFlyer: Misleading warnings constitute harassment. This 3RR warning for reverting 2 disruptive edits came after I had already discussed sufficiently discussed the matter on talk page.[121] Where as this warning came when I never made any disruptive edits. The irony is that DBigxray was himself edit warring and making disruptive edits when he was leaving these warnings. Also take a glance at his misleading RFPP request[122] which he made only for disabling me from editing the article. When DBigXray is incapable to understand the valid use of these warning templates then why he should be trusted with editing these sensitive articles? 103.255.4.4 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting that the amount of WP:ABF and deceptive tricks used by these "brand new accounts" and the IP above is too damn high. Since the content disputes didn't seem to work so far, now there are bickerings about a "ping" in an apparent attempt to lobby for sanctions, FYI, in case you were not aware, just know that the WP:Ping to C.Fred [123] never went because it was not in a new line or had my sign at the end, hence I had left a note. May be you should let C.Fred answer how many pings he received from this ANI thread. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This incident looks primarily like a content dispute centered around the reliability of the sources provided. I believe this would be better handled at the appropriate t/p. Regards. << FR 09:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misrepresenting the dispute. This report concerns wilful misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, agenda driven editing, battleground mentality and failure to understand what is being told. 103.255.4.4 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been a couple additional problems here. First, Harmanprtjhj moved the response from the block-evading IP out of the hat and used it as their own response. I was pinged again just now to see the user had re-added the response verbatim here: [126] I checked to see why and how it got deleted and saw that DBigXRay had removed the post here: [127]. I'm astounded any user would be so bold to remove text from an ANI thread in which they are directly implicated, especially because this is a page which is well watched, and the response could easily have been considered by any admin who closed this thread. SportingFlyer T·C 00:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a content dispute if both sides are presenting a meaningful version, however in this incident we are only seeing one user (OP) complying with the Wikipedia policies where as other one (DBigXray) is edit warring to reinstate POV edits that would be never allowed in Wikipedia. Harmanprtjhj has respected WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV, where as DBigXray has made 6 reverts to violate these policies. These things have been already told to DBigXray more than enough times on the talk page, but DBigXray still appears to be holding an odd view that discovering a few passing mentions of the term "terrorist" would justify the labelling groups or people as "terrorist". Edit warring was also done to include the mention of "radical" but sources are missing for this yet another "word to avoid" in spite concerns raised on talk page. The talk page conversation was never needed at first place but now that it exists, it does reads like WP:BLUDGEON on DBig's part.[129] DBigXray's attempts to falsify publisher's name after one user highlighted the self-published source would discourage any editor to hope for a sensible dialogue.[130] DBigXray describes this falsification in his above replies that he "corrected the publisher's name to Crossbow Books, Washington", when the publisher is indeed Lulu.com not Crossbow Books.[131][132]
    As for the other article, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, DBigXray is excessively relying on a downright unreliable source after copy pasting content directly from the unreliable source and he is failing to accept that the source is unreliable.[133] Anybody can agree that it is an unreliable source only after reading the first paragraph of the source,[134] let alone reading the name of the author who has deep COI with the subject. Responses here don't show anything but confirms the views of OP that DBig is being obtuse and editing with an agenda. The recent response on the talk page that "Claiming that these sources does not exist is a demonstration of WP:IDHT. Kindly stop this whitewashing before you are blocked for repeated WP:Tendentious editing"[135] is extremely hostile and the editor indeed does not understand what the argument is exactly about. No one has said that such "sources does not exist" but their edits don't comply with the policy. I think supporting a topic ban on DBigXray from anything related to India and Pakistan is warranted at this point, which should be appealed after six months of positive contributions elsewhere to Wikipedia or something like that. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misrepresenting sources and edit warring to continue editing with an agenda while you don't even understand what these simple policies say. You make personal attacks and bludgeon discussion whenever your poor edits are dismissed. No one will argue about obviously unreliable sources nor anyone will accept your poor edits since you are also misrepresenting sources. Your own link in your edit cited "lulu.com" as publisher, which is also verified as lulu.com by sources outside Google Books. You warn people even when they merely discuss your edits,[137] yet you are making these personal attacks and false allegations like "outright lying", "deception and lies", "clearly malicious attempt", etc. and by doing this you are proving that your issues are wider than disruption in India and Pakistan subjects. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • response inline.
    • "You are misrepresenting sources". Care to explain which source did I misrepresent ? Throwing allegations is not going to help you in any way.
    • "no one will argue about obviously unreliable sources" A source does not become unreliable, if you dont like what it says.
    • "Your own link in your edit cited "lulu.com" as publisher, which is also verified as lulu.com by sources outside Google Books." The book clearly says the name of the Publisher: Washington, DC, Crossbow Books Google books even has the publisher's name right on top of the cover, plus here is another citation noting the name of the publisher. [138]
    • "You warn people even when they merely discuss your edits,[139] " The comment linked clearly states the reason why you were warned. You are supposed to read the message and not to repeat the same behavior again.
    • "yet you are making these personal attacks and false allegations like "outright lying", "deception and lies", "clearly malicious attempt", etc." The evidence that shows the deception and lies have been provided in my comment above. You have made claims and allegations and I have responded to them, now let an admin, read and handle the case, if it has any merit. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you still believe that this "I didn't hear that" mentality will help you? Each of these points have been already proven. Just read the comment of Wikiman5676 as well as my original complaint. Being obtuse is not going to be any helpful for you. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • DBigXray's interaction with others strikes me as bullying and harassment for which they have been warned following an extensive ANI.[140]. More interestingly, this is cumulative behavior is just as apparent even after this ANI report was filed. For example, Soman made a comment on an AfD concerning their article, where they pointed out that DBigXray is seeking deletion on "weak grounds".[141] DBigXray replied Soman by writing an aggressive response,[142] and also warned Soman on their talk page by falsely accusing them of throwing "ad hominem".[143] On other AfD they have made more false accusations against Soman that the user is using Wikipedia as a source and also that they are using "fake refs",[144] which was pointed out by other user.[145] DBigXray appears to be trying to drive this editor out by disparaging them and falsely accusing them of misbehavior. This type of toxic presence together apparent IDHT behavior sinks others time. I am seeing similar behavior in this dispute where DBigXray unnecessarily attacked Harmanprtjhj just now with the comment that they should "stop this tendentious editing and join the discussion in the thread above"[146] despite significant participation of the user in the said discussion. Kraose (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Norschweden

    Das Cabinet des Dlocierekims-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
    The Cabinet of Dr. Trump

    User:Norschweden has violated WP:3RR in an obvious attempt at an edit war at Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump Vjmlhds (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like they are talking now. Perhaps a block will not be needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dlohcierekim Well, he did violate WP:3RR, but I'd be happy with this...why don't you play tiebreaker and see who is in the right here, because me and Norschweden can talk all day and get nowhere. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • i only restored status quo untill a consensus is found, you can see in the history that the controversiial edit wasn't old, and the former version had much of support. btw.: did Vjmlhds violate WP:3RR as well, while pressing his version through without any kind of consensus Norschweden (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I now think Norschweden needs to be blocked. Not only did he clearly violate WP:3RR and is very obviously edit warring, but the blatant revenge driven ANI below shows that he's just looking to pick a fight. When you get down to it, Norschweden has gone against WP:3RR, WP:Own (reverting 2 different editors just to have his way), and WP:Civil (the retaliation ANI against me). Vjmlhds (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, now the editor that originally made the edit to begin with (Corkythehornetfan) has reverted it back to the way it was before Norschweden went on his edit war binge. This should show that Norschweden was just trying to fight a one man battle to have his own way. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • it doesn't matter, if its a "one man battle" there is no consensus, as you can see in the discussion and so status quo, aka pre controversial edit has to remain. btw. the way you act here, calling my actions revenge porn are pretty insulting. Norschweden (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1. You are waging a 1 man battle, and those don't end well (believe me, I know). 2. When you filed your obvious retaliatory ANI against me, it was clearly revenge for the ANI I issued against you (I sarcastically used the term "revenge porn" because it's the vogue term of the day). Don't want to be insulted, don't do insulting things like issue revenge porn ANIs. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vjmlhds

    Started an edit war and violated WP:3RR and now blames it on me, who only restored status quo since no consensus was found on the controversial edit he restored over and over again at Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump Norschweden (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What a joke. First I didn't even come close to 3RR (the edit history can verify that); second, I'm not the one edit warring here - you're the one who insists on going against 2 editors (a little WP:Own on your part perhaps?); and third - can you be any more obvious about this being a "revenge porn" accusation? Vjmlhds (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how we got to "revenge porn", but this is clearly a retaliatory filing. I've merged the thread with the first one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray, you might want to remove or strike the last sentence of your comment; IMO it's rather inappropriate as it comes across as being OK with sharing porn that the subject's not OK sharing. Thanks. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 16:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. now i definatly think Vjmlhds needs a time out, calling me out for things he also does and then claiming my actions would be revenge porn, this is beneath contempt. he doesn't know how to behave in my eyes Norschweden (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG...I use a vogue term of the day to sarcastically describe your obvious retaliatory ANI, and you are getting offended?!?! SMH. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Request advice concerning FreeKnowledgeCreator

    I have tried unsuccessfully to edit the page A Thousand Plateaus. A person who currently uses the pseudonym @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, but who previously ruled the talk page as Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs) has adamantly refused that so much as punctuation mark and metatextual signs be modified. They have now been engaging me in a short edit war, in which I have attempted to make a number of improvements.

    diff 5)
    (diff 4)
    (diff 3)
    (diffs 2, 1)

    These five reverts are not the first time that FKC has edit-warred on the page. As Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs), they also engaged in pointless edit warring on this same sentence back in 2012 with an IP: diff 6.

    I also see them dominating the previous discussion of this page at WP:NPOV/N here. More eyes are need, especially those who might also know something about "continental philosophy". The full context of the current TP discussion starts a bit before here.

    Thanks for any productive advice on dealing with the incivility and ownership behavior. SashiRolls t · c 02:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The above is part of a content dispute that doesn't belong here. Essentially SashiRolls is unhappy because their edits were reverted. I am perfectly happy to discuss matters in good faith with SashiRolls, but the discussion doesn't belong here. Asking for a third opinion would have been fine, but an ANI post is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust those who look into the context of the TP can judge whether there is incivility on the TP or ownership behavior on the mainspace page on their own. I'm looking for a restatement of the words used by @Bbb23: back when you were blocked: "Finally, if there's any repetition of abusive editing by this person, no matter how eloquently they defend themselves, the same". Maybe you've kept your nose clean for a while, if so, that's great... let's just remember that you're not here to enforce your PoV when it has been consistently challenged, for years now, by multiple users on the TP. I don't take evidence of behavioral problems to ANI every time I see them. SashiRolls t · c 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pleased to hear it, but that doesn't make this ill-judged act of yours any the more appropriate. You can label disagreeing with your edits "abusive editing" if you want, but it accomplishes nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that in this filing, only the citation from Bbb23 contains the words "abusive editing". It's at the very end of this page: [147]. SashiRolls t · c 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In effect you implied that I was guilty of "abusive editing" for disagreeing with you. Someone shut this discussion down already and tell SashiRolls to pursue some appropriate form of dispute resolution. Waste of time for all concerned. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The two of you must stop bickering now, or both of you will be blocked for disruption. Drop your sticks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Humor? "Bickering" isn't a blockable offense so far as I know. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. You like to live dangerously. EEng 03:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. Bickering in this way is a form of tendentious editing and disruptive editing in general. You are at the very brink of a block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He was, too. See his SPI thread that almost got him blocked. Unfortunately, he didn’t get blocked. What a shame. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The blockability of bickering aside, it's my experience where there is substantial discussion from the existing participants of whatever dispute before anyone else has joined rarely lead to one sides action. Mostly commonly they simply have no action, sometimes said participants are all blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is why I thought it best to bring the behavioral problems up here before going to WP:3O, which I have now done. (I notice that the knowledgeable IP who tried to fix this page back in 2012 never returned to en.wp—at least as an IP—after their interactions with FKC.) I think it worth asking if misrepresentation of sources is considered a behavioral issue. Having a copy of Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge on my bookshelf, I decided to check the context for the statement that was used to suggest that the subject of the article was a nonsensical book. The result is here. In fact, reading the whole essay shows that Lyotard was holding the fluffy article in a weekly literature magazine up as an example of what Régis Dubray translates as a reactionary "slackening". It is difficult to imagine that someone wishing to accurately represent the book's reception would have added something so diametrically opposed to Lyotard's meaning into the article. SashiRolls t · c 14:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I should clarify my comment wasn't meant to comment on any possible action from Cullen328, but instead simply to suggest that when this happens, the people involved are probably doing something wrong. (Maybe there was no reason for the case to come to ANI, maybe there was but the arguing has meant no one is sufficiently interested in sorting through it.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the relevance of the past socking, unless there are new allegations. The extent to which there's WP:OWN going on is unclear. In a couple things, FKC seems to have a decent point, but in others (and even in those couple points) it's definitely not a situation with a clear black and white policy answer. Got to continue down the dispute resolution path, though; I don't think admin action is called for here. 3O is the most likely to help (I see it's there already). My advice is that you two should try to deterritorialize by hopping on the next line of flight out of the reception section and into the summary section. An unfortunate articulation of D&G's assemblage to have a reception section roughly six times the size of the material that actually summarizes the book. Granted, it's hard to separate reception from summary while keeping the rhizomatic read remotely reader-friendly, but maybe talking about how that could be done would be useful. Virtually useful? Either way, I don't see a need for admin action; just for additional people to get involved in the content dispute. (This didn't start off so self-indulgent, sorry). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Both parties appeared to have edit warred (Over how long?). I think taking a step back for a few days is a good idea for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing behaviour

    This user Mountain157 is repeatedly involved in pov pushing behaviour. Mountain157 does not adhere to the rules of WP:RS. Majority of Mountain157 edits are revolving around labelling Pakistan as ally of terrorist groups and provide non-credible sources to back his/her claims. So could someone take a look into his/her behaviour?

    Examples of his behaviour:

    On ISIS-K page Mountain157 added Pakistan as ally even though ISIS-K declare Pakistan as enemy [[148]]. Clearly Mountain157 is trying to push his own point of view on this page with a non-credible source.

    The fact that the sock claims my sources are "non-credible" itself shows his bias. In the Tolo News sources it references different people from the Afghan Government and Military that have said that Pakistan supports ISIS both indirectly and directly.[[149]] [[150]] [[151]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Similarly on Haqqani network page, Mountain157 was stopped from pov pushing by some other editors and was told to take it to the talk page. On the talk page there was no consensus on what do, and yet after some time he was back to his usual habit. [[152]]

    For Haqqani Network I put "alleged;but denied" after Pakistan.[[153]]Both sides are talked about so how is that "POV" as the sock claims?-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Again on United states invasion of Afghanistan, Mountain157 again resorted to the same behaviour [[154]] And what is more, the source Mountain157 cited does not support anything which he wrote.37.111.128.202 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is simply a sockpuppet of Abhishek9779. That is why he was reverted for his disruptive edits which the blocked evader has a history of.See [[155]] [[156]].-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mountain157 please don't making such false allegation against me without any proof. Also please stop evading the question of blatant POV pushing on your end. Much of your edits are one sided and are supported by non-credible sources.

    This block evader likes to claim that I do "POV pushing", when this user through their sockpuppet accounts has done this repetitively on the article Open Defecation when it comes to India.[[157]]-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    On Haqqani network page, you didn't reach any consensus and yet you made this edit [158]. You are clearly trying to push your point of view.37.111.128.202 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The block evader has yet again set up another sockpuppet account for the purpose of making disruptive edits on the article Open Defecation.[[159]]-Mountain157 (talk)

    WP:HOUNDING by User:Mathglot

    User:Mathglot is engaged in WP:HOUNDING against me, following me around by stalking my contributions (which is evident, given the pattern of Mathglot's behavior), and repeatedly undoing and inhibiting my work to the point where it has caused extreme irritation, annoyance, and distress. This has occurred on the Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage in the United States, and Gay–straight alliance articles, all of which are articles that Mathglot had not edited before I had edited those articles and followed me around to in order to undo my work. In the case of the Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States ([160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]) and the Same-sex marriage in the United States ([169], [170]) articles, all of Mathglot's edits were to undo my work and no other edits whatsoever. In the case of the Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States ([171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177]) and the Gay–straight alliance ([178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183]) articles, Mathglot blatantly violated WP:3RR (with seven reverts and six reverts, respectively) in undoing multiple edits of mine within seconds of each other, after stalking my contributions, but, unfortunately, I did not report them to WP:AN3 in the hope that they would eventually leave me alone. Many of these multiple reverts have been extremely frivolous, such this revert on the Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States with the edit summary "No, it's Equal Protection clause. Are you just guessing here, or doing whatever you feel like?" in which Mathglot reverted an edit of mine which corrected Equal Protection clause to Equal Protection Clause (which is correct as per the Equal Protection Clause article, which capitalizes the word Clause) or this revert on the Gay–straight alliance article with the edit summary "Not an improvement. Pointless reordering of terms in a series." in which Mathglot reverted an edit of mine that sorted a series of words according to alphabetical order. Mathglot's behavior has caused disruption to my enjoyment of editing. Mathglot's stalking of my contributions have caused me extreme irritation, annoyance, and distress. This is a clear violation of WP:HOUND. Please instruct Mathglot to cease violating WP:HOUND and to leave me alone. Please issue a restraining order (or whatever it is that is issued in these cases) against Mathglot in respect of the articles that I edit (which they have not edited before) so that I may edit in peace without them harassing me. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You've made no effort to discuss this on the user talk pages, and what discussion I do see an the talk pages seems to imply that you have an axe to grind. You've been warned for 3RR violations in the past, and frankly from what little I've seen I think you'd be the one more apt to be advised to stop the hounding. My advice: Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whom exactly have I hounded? That is a very serious allegation that is completely unsubstantiated on your part. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you hounded me back here for an explanation, so that's not getting off to a good start. Additionally, every message left to you on your talk page concerning your 'enthusiastic' editing seems to have been deleted mere moments after being placed there. That does demonstrate a pattern of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. And your edits are largely concentrated to the LBGTQ subject matter, not that its an issue, we all edit what we like here - however it does imply the possibility that you feel you know better than others about the material in question. Again, one mans opinion here, but from my persepctive it does look like this could be a boomerang. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to you in the same discussion in which you replied to me is not hounding. WP:HOUND defines hounding as "the singling out of one or more editors [...] to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. [...] The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing", which is clearly what Mathglot is engaged in. The evidence is clear and speaks for itself. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have a confession to make: I posted here in order to lure you and the other editors - @Ron 1987, EMachine03, Flyer22 Reborn, AussieLegend, and NatGertler: - out here because from the admin's perspective, its often as not the first person to whine and/or complain on a post when an admin either discounts or shrugs off a complaint that is in fact the one most to blame for the ongoing problems. It was just a matter of baiting the trap and waiting to see who came in first, and it appears to be you. First ignoring the talk pages warnings given by the above editors ([184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191]), then the great effort to define hounding in order to prove that your the victim here when its been brought to your attention that you've made no attempt to discuss this with the others to find consensus, nor does it seems you have any interest in taking advice from me or anyone else. This don't look good, and if it keeps up its only gonna get worse. Most ominously, you've already been warned about the discretionary sanctions in play here ([192]). This'll be your last chance: let it go. Bow out before it comes back to bite you savagely in the ass. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's silly. Of course I would be the first to respond to you given that I started this discussion. Of what relevance are the interactions with those other editors here? All of that is not directly related to the issue here. Are you actually insisting that Mathglot is not following me around by stalking my contributions and repeatedly undoing and inhibiting my work on articles which they have never edited before I edited those articles? Are you actually insisting that there is no violation of WP:HOUND in the evidence presented? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, the OP clearly has a poor understanding of WP:3RR; he does not understand that when an editor does seven undos right in a row, with no intervening action from other editors, that counts as one revert, not seven. But more importantly, an editor need not be seeking to harass JTF to be taking a close look at his edits and reverting them; JTF is someone who frequently makes problematic edits, and checking them is something that can reasonably be done for the aim of improving Wikipedia. If you see a user making problematic edits in one space, it is reasonable to check if they're doing similar elsewhere. He does heavy edits and basically never uses edit comments except when he's reverting someone, making it hard to untangle what he has done; I've yet to find the time and energy to undo the mess he made of opinion materials in Same-sex marriage, replacing everything with US-centric material, with strong POV and accuracy problems. That Mathglot is finding same-sex articles is not a surprise as they have edits in that realm dating as far back as 2010. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in WP:3RR does it say that "when an editor does seven undos right in a row, with no intervening action from other editors, that counts as one revert, not seven"? There is no such exception to the rule. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Really, it's right in there. All you had to do was read it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not state that consecutive reverts count as a single revert, but rather that ordinary edits that effectively undo the edits of others counts as a revert. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot understand that "a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" means that a series of consecutive edit counts as a revert, then we have the basis for a WP:CIR block, I reckon. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if you assumed good faith. That appears to be referring to edits that effectively undo the edits of others counting as a revert. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith does not mean assuming competence. His series of undos were a consecutive series of edits that undid the actions of another editor. That counts as a revert. The quoted sentence defines revert for revert-counting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is referring to consecutive edits that effectively undo the edits of others counting as a revert, not consecutive reverts counting as a single revert. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a clearer explanation from WP:3RR would be the line "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides that, let's ignore what 3RR says for a while and use common sense as there's an obvious reason why it's that way. The 3RR is meant to stop edit warring. We don't sanction people for technical choices unless it starts to cause problems, and besides of which that's covered under other policies and guidelines. A series of consecutive edits could have been made with one edit. Whether or not they were is a technical choice and not an edit warring issue. So we aren't going to sanction someone because they made a different technical choice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, if that's the verdict there, then that is not an issue. The WP:HOUNDING is the real issue here. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the real issue is your behavior. For example, let's take a look at that not-really-3RR on Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States. When you got reverted, how did you respond? By following the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle? No, you immediately undid his reversion, including a false accusation of vandalism in the edit summary. You then went to the talk page with another false accusation of vandalism. You continued to do the next six edits on the article without leaving a single edit comment. Since then, you did another set of six edits with no edit summary, despite the fact that you've had it repeatedly pointed out to you that this is problematic. Oh, and you futzed with the talk page so that all conversations disappeared into the archive in a week (which Mathglot appropriately corrected, but not before your false attack had been moved off into the archive.) Is there some reason you assume that other editors should ignore your problematic editing practices? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justthefacts9: what is up with your repetitive edits to your sandbox and user talk page [193] [194]? I was concerned at first you were trying to gain extended confirmed status but it seems you gained it long before then so it's just odd [195]. This may be a minor issue but when you come to ANI and get into an argument over the definition of 3RR, and then when people are looking a bit into whether others have expressed concern over your editing and find that weirdness in your talk page, it doesn't give a good impression I can tell you. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Eh, those are just edits in my userspace out of boredom. Anyone can edit their sandbox or other userspace however much they like. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually you're mistaken. Per WP:User pages, users are given wide latitude to manage pages in their own user space, but they belong to the community not you, so there are limits. Making such a large number of edits for the reasoning that 'you're bored', could reasonably be argued to be a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. It's also one of the cases I was trying to cover when I said above about how we may sanction people when their technical decisions cause problems. (I always like to be clear in my answers to cover exceptions etc as far as I consider reasonable which often makes them long, so I had no actual idea it would come up in discussion with you now.)

    While it being in your user talk page and sandbox puts it mostly out of the way, it may still clutter up edit logs and lead to confusion or unnecessary work. Especially on your talk page where people may reasonably and legitimately, be looking for older posts. And for that matter, anyone viewing your contrib history. The fact that you only do it occasionally, even if you do a lot of edits when you do so, makes it a little less problematic since it's easier to skip each session. But still while this isn't something I'd personally bring to ANI or call for a topic ban on unnecessary changes or whatever I suggest you cut it out if you want to demonstrate you are a good member of the community. Set up your own personal wiki, or find somewhere that welcomes that, if you really need it.

    At a minimum, this combined with the earlier pointless debate on the meaning of 3RR, is enough to convince me that at this time that your editing has enough concern over your editing for it to be reasonable for someone to engage in some limited following of your contribs. Especially to areas they've had active involvement long before you came along.

    BTW, I also noticed you seem to often make a large number of consecutive edits, including corrections etc, to pages and discussions. While I'm often guilty of that as well, and it can be advantageous in avoiding edit conflicts and making it clearer what each edit is doing; it can also clutter up edit logs, make edit conflicts more likely for others, and make it more confusing to look at changes. Note also the ability to understand each edit is significantly lessened when use of edit summaries is minimal. Consider using the 'show preview' function more and combining edits where possible. Especially for example mass adding episode numbers like this [196] [197], just edit the whole page and add a bunch in one go. (To be clear, there's no fixed rule on when to combine edits, and people sometimes complain when editors make significant changes in one go making it difficult to unwind the good from the bad, so I'm not suggesting you combine every single edit.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does Justthefacts9 have delete edits to this very board from today?—AdamF in MO (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    He doesn’t. That’s a revdel from the azeri thread. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is Bidhan Singh & why does a mobile editor from varies 24XX.XXX.XXX mobile accounts keep putting him into the Head of state article, while adding random whitespaces to President of India & related articles? GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A fair question, and one that has been recently much on my mind.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Head of state has been protected by TideRolls-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Vandal needs to be re-blocked asap

    24.34.85.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Is blanking and copy-editing pages, please give them a longer ban this time, thank you. Cards84664 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoa whoa. I am NOT a vandal. Nothing that I’m doing is deliberately harming Wikipedia. All of my edits are perfectly legitimate and are being reverted for no reason. I left a message to the reporter, who appears to have had problems with mass unexplained reverts before (per the talk message right above mine). 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the reporter has removed my talk message with no explanation whatsoever. I believe that they are allowed to do this, but them doing so suggests that they have no intention to communicate or be polite. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The block of 24.34.85.169 previously was a checkuser block due to LTA activity. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 18:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are some confusing terms you just used, but I honestly don’t care what the previous block on the IP was for, I’m a different person who is confused and getting frustrated by mass unexplained reverts. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you both edit the same Interstate Highway articles. I'm not buying it. Cards84664 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa. They're not actually vandalising anything, this is a content dispute (and so I've removed the AIV report). However the fact that this IP was checkuser-blocked previously, and looking at the previous contributions, suggests that it is a blocked editor, so I've blocked them. Let's get the terminology right, people. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Live score updates

    An IP-hopping user (currently User:2600:1000:B02E:73AC:38EC:1BCF:E9E2:DCB3, and yesterday User:2600:1000:B118:DF68:51D:B81C:C7C0:37DD) is insisting on adding live score updates to the 2018–19 NFL playoffs article. I have mentioned to them that Wikipedia is not a news source and there are far better places for people to get updates from. The game will be over in a couple of hours, so they should really be waiting until then to add all the relevant info, not just changing the score. I should also mention that this person has made a number of unwarranted personal attacks against me (see here, here and here). – PeeJay 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the article for 3 hours, that should sort out that issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Thanks for that. Chances are the issue will surface again for the later game this evening, so I recommend protecting the article for six hours instead of three. – PeeJay 18:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, just noticed that. Now protected until 2am UTC. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent NOTBROKEN vios, no communication

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

    Persistent and ongoing violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, after two warnings.

    At this point I tired of this tedious work. As of this writing there are about 22 later edits with edit summaries including the words "link corrections"; given the pattern, it is reasonable to assume that they include many more NOTBROKEN vios.

    • 19:30, 13 January 2019 - advised of NOTBROKEN by User:Mac Dreamstate. There has been no response and, given the pattern, it is reasonable to assume that none will be forthcoming and that the NOTBROKEN vios will continue.

    Requesting two things:

    • A block of sufficient duration to be noticed by the user and get their attention.
    • That an admin advise the user of the importance of communication with other editors, and follow up to make sure they received that message. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest edits seem to have stopped doing this. Maybe the IP editor is listening now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And still no acknowledgement. I don't see why editors should be required to monitor this person's edits until (1) it becomes statistically probable that they have seen the messages and have stopped violating NOTBROKEN, or (2) it becomes obvious that they have not, requiring another ANI complaint, at which point we would start all over again with the "let's wait and see" bit. That's just silly, and my requests stand. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oknazevad / User:JJMC89 (admin)

    I removed numerous segments to Road Warriors based on the fact that the points reported were not supported by ANY of the 53 sources on the article. Oknazevad re-introduced 5k+ characters of unsourced (not poorly sourced, but UNSOURCED) material and falsely claimed that my action was "vandalism" (even though I edited 18 times over close to 20 minutes thus weighing and measuring what was and what was not sourced). He then conflated "vandalism" with "retaliation" without deference for the fact that my edits were summarised and moreover, correct in what they were removing[198]. Without a moment's pause for scrutiny into the feigned claim, User:JJMC89 decided to disable my account for a week. During this time I called out to JJMC89 with a legimate question[199]. Seeing JJMC89 became active once more after my public message to him which he ignored, I called a second time with a reminder[200]. This was ignored as well. This is NOT the way to behave as a blocking administrator when a user wants to discuss the block. As regards Oknazevad, I challenged him over his re-inserting on 5k+ of unsourced material[201] but now he has switched tact with a false claim of sockpuppetry despite me neither having an account or using another network. If he suspected sockpuppetry he could just as easily have launched an investigation and cited the associated accounts/IP addresses. FTR I inform checkusers from now that yes, one person DOES edit from this same IP address with a legitimate account and that happens to be my father. I am his eldest son. HE (and I am not revealing who) is currently home in Ukraine (where he is from) and has been back there for several weeks as his mother (my gran) is very poorly, and he is not editing Wikipedia. If more information of veracity is required, I can come to some form of off-Wiki arrangement. But for now, we need to deal with his conspicuous prevarication. I was first fulminated against for "adding unsourced material". Then when I added sources, it became "poorly sourced", and five minutes later when I remove equally unsourced material, it gets reinserted and I get blocked for "vandalism"; when I try to discuss it with the admin, it gets ignored, and when I try to discuss the edit with the incendiary editor to claim vandalism, I have become a "sockpuppet". It's time the community put its cards on the table. If there is a policy that IPs should be brownbeaten and bullied, then the admins should find themselves the intestinal fortitude and just say so. If not, I suggest the community deals with the two accused persons. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has been blocked three times in escalating fashion by three different administrators, JJMC89 being the last on January 6 for one week. The first block was by Dlohcierekim last November for 24h, and the second by Cullen328 for 48h on January 3. Apparently, the IP is unhappy that they are not permitted to be disruptive and are thus challenging the opinions of three administrators, albeit mentioning only one, at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial disruptive editing to be pointy is vandalism. And this IP should be indeffed for this distrution and obstinance. oknazevad (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy prohibits indefinitely blocking IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do recall an IP6 being blocked for 5 years; I think static IP4s can also be blocked for a few years, but, even a static IP4 can change if the actual person moves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, one of the little frustrations of being an administrator is that we must treat disruptive IP editors more leniently than registered accounts, on the off chance that someone productive might come along and try to edit with the same IP address. So it goes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The prize-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. We are now BEYOND pro-wrestling. This thread is an investigation into obscurantist behaviour by an admin and a regular editor and my guess is that this would have happened on any article. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Oknazevad's reply is a chronicle of past actions involving sanctions taken on this account. This is an AN/I matter and he has failed outright to corroborate his addition of 5,000 characters of unsourced material, his false accusation of vandalism and his false accusation of sockpuppetry. Note also he is unrepentant. I suggest a block of this editor. I don't know quite how JJMC89 should be dealt with for his behaviour here. The previous two blocks in my case MAY have had some justification but following the second, I never again reinserted the point I was reverting. Of course, if Oknazevad believes that removing unsourced material is a petition for being "disruptive" as he states, then he can explain two things, 1) which policy is he observing? and 2) what was the difference when MY EARLIER contribution was being removed? Unless he can find asnwers, I strongly urge a block of this arrogant editor. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. May I also draw attention to one other aspect. The T&Cs of this very admin page compel the reporting editor to notify the accused parties of the discussion. I believe I fulfilled this criterion here. Please see what Oknazevad wrote to me directly in his following summary[202]. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing forbids a user from requesting that another user never edit their talk page again at all; that request then must be honoured. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 09:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve blocked the IP for a year. Registered users may login. If the IP wants to behave, they can request unblock. I recommend they do so without making biased accusations. Jehochman Talk 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Without going through the edit history, I'd like to suggest that actually discussing content on the article talk page, seeking consensus and dispute resolution would probably have been better than complaining here. I see no edits to that talk page. In my opening block notice, I wrote the following-- As you weren't warned prior to the block beyond edit summaries, I've made it short. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. If you agree to discuss and not edit war, you can be unblocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

    and just so you know--All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Please cite any change. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC) -- It is unfortuante that they did not heed my advice.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Without going through all the details, I checked one of the IPs cites for lack of sources and they are correct. The source cited did not mention any of the information they removed. Isn't that what we want? Source it or remove it? spryde | talk 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is the POINTiness and the refusal to discuss or cite as per my original block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Londonergezzer replacing nationalities

    RESOLVED
    Londonergezzer and all socks have been handled by a checkuser. --Jayron32 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In edits like this, Londonergezzer has been systematically replacing the country of someone's birth (e.g. English) with the region of their birth (e.g. Yorkshireman). I raised the issue on their talk page, specifically replacing nationalities with 'Norman', but they deleted my message without reply. I am concerned that they are not discussing their proposed changes, and causing other editors the extra work of reverting their controversial edits. See also Pinkbeast's concerns. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    He has not since the diff you list above, returned to the problematic behavior. I went through his diffs since January 7, and for the past week, he has not done it since. It looks like your comment worked and he's stopped on his own. Can you explain what led you to come here to raise this concern a week after he had ceased with the problematic behavior? If there is something else I am missing, please provide some more diffs and an explanation, because I don't see anything much since then. --Jayron32 14:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't bring this to AN/I because it's a bit illformed, but I still think something smells here. As discussed at Curb Safe Charmer's talk page, there also seems to be at least one IP (Special:Contributions/185.49.74.145) making very similar edits (which could of course just be Londonergezzer quite legitimately editing while logged out), and I'm aware of other accounts and IPs (Hopeful2014 the most obvious) who seem to keep turning up in the same places. I haven't gone to SPI for the same reason I haven't brought it here - I'm not sure what's going on, it just seems a bit dubious - but I think since it is here, it could be instructive to see how often those two accounts and that IP edit the same pages. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, on my way to drop an ANI notice on their talk page, I see Hopeful2014 was doing the same thing with nationalities in December - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHopeful2014&type=revision&diff=873034023&oldid=871942600. Hopeful2014's last edit was on the 23rd December, being warned that a block was possible on the 24th December; Londonergezzer started to make their rather similar edits on the 29th December. I wonder if this does warrant investigation? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, I think none of these three editors has ever used an edit summary or talk page, although sadly that hardly proves they are the same person... Pinkbeast (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32: my message to them was on 30 December, and the diff I provided showed that they deleted the message from their talk page without replying to it on 6 January. They then continued to make edits regarding countries, nationalities and regions on 7 January. @Pinkbeast: - the editor interaction analyser does show an unusual pattern [203] and as I type this, I can see that a checkuser has just blocked the accounts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the additional information guys. Yes, it does smell fishy; though now that a checkuser has taken care of it, this looks wrapped up. In the future, if this person returns, try WP:SPI to report them; that will get the attention of a checkuser as well. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Backlog at WP:AIV

    a priceless Steinway -- Dlohcierekim (talk)

    ... including 194.72.147.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a school IP that was blocked a few days ago, but is back at it again today, and needs a block until the end of term. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In the words of the immortal Peter Sellers: Not any more. GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Who? EEng 17:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: [204] GoldenRing (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Strange I never heard of this Peter Sellers person before. Apparently some obscure actor. EEng 19:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking EEng seriously? Seriously? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Kroll vandal, targeting User:JesseRafe

    Hi, this is a weird request, but I want to cast as widely an ABP as I can about an IP vandal who is not strictly sockpuppeting, but is obsessed with three things: Nick Kroll, ABC's Cavemen television show, and me (who undoes vandalism on the Nick Kroll page). They recently used three IPs to add nonsense to "random" pages -- except almost everyone of these pages was either created by me or is listed on my user page or was recently edited by me. Some of them are very esoteric and get almost no traffic:

    If this wasn't bizarre enough, it's also not the first time. I forget if there was ANI or SPI about this at the time, but using IPs one user was just undoing every edit I was making for a week or two in 2016. Again, stemming from Nick Kroll vandalism-undoing:

    Please feel free to let me know where this would be better shared if not here, so if any more strange WLs to Nick Kroll (lately under piping so the average user won't see them) show up, that user should be blocked immediately rather than given some number of warnings. Or if the 2604:6000:130D:202B range is quiet enough to block it if they keep using it? Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably best to protect the most commonly-vandalised articles. I've put a three-month protection on Nick Kroll (never heard of him before today!) so anons can't edit it. If anyone thinks that's excessive, please feel free to say so. Deb (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a couple range blocks, which should stop the vandalism for now. In the future, though, it'd be best not to open multiple threads about the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LittleRoman15

    WP:NOTHERE editor is forced to be not here by NinjaRobotPirate. SemiHypercube 23:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    LittleRoman15 (talk · contribs) - This user has been making minor, useless edits to their user page in order to gain the extendedconfirmed flag [205]. Is this considered as gaming the system? It also seems to be a WP:NOTHERE case since they are probably focusing on gaining rights. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that's gaming the system and an obvious sign of not being here to contribute constructively. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Keith-264

    Yet again false accusations of vandalism, & now "sabotage". Yet where are the sanctions? Nowhere to be seen. So he gets a free pass, & I get a block for "incivility". What a bunch of hypocrites. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any recent blocks in your log. What are you talking about specifically? spryde | talk 17:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since nobody on this page, or any Admin, is paying the slightest attention ao anything I say, notification was pointless. Accustions of vandalism, sabotage, & not assuming good faith, all made by Keith-264, are, by appearances, perfectly okay--so long as they're made against me. And his "discussion" of the issue in question, so far, has amounted to criticism of my actions & calling my edits an idee fixe, & scant actual discussion of the content, or why his view should prevail. Oh, wait, he thinks he doesn't owe me any. Evidently, no "administrator" does, either. So go ahead. Block me. Ban me. It's what you're just itching to do, isn't it? Just waiting for me to say or do something that will give you an excuse to ban me forever, right? At this point, I'm wondering why I put up with this garbage. So go ahead & do it. Prove me right: I can't get fair treatment. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (non admin comment) If this is about the Malta Convoys thing, I remember it being recommended that the content dispute at hand be appealed at the Milhist talk page for a wider range of opinion. This has not yet occurred, and it seems its time it should. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ♠I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue, & have been from the outset. The closed-minded one has been, & remains, Keith-264.
    ♠I also notice Andy Dingley & haunting my every edit, somehow. How, exactly, does he manage to keep turning up every time I create a page? Oh, wait, nobody here cares about that, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trek is playing the martyr yet he has got away with slash and burn removals of content. @Indy, yes it has. Keith-264 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You do know, don't you, that unsupported accusations of wrongdoing are considered personal attacks? Provide evidence or make no more accusations, both of you, or you may be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Provide evidence? False accusations of vandalism, vandalism, sabotage, not AGF, & lying (a knowing falsehood is a lie by definition). And you have the nerve to threaten me with a block! I was right! Every single admin here is a hypocrite! TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! All 1,190 of them? That's a lot of hypocrisy all in one place! Normally you'd have to go to Hollywood or Washington D.C. to get that level of hypocrisy, and we have it right here, in our own little corner of paradise. Amazing! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You may need to take a deep breath and count to 100, you seem a little agitated. Your post here is lacking a few things from you that would probably help your case - civility (in general) followed by actual proof of your statements. Instead of coming here saying "HA! I knew you wouldn't do anything" and then expect people to read your mind you could have presented actual diffs etc. to what the problem is. Admins are not mind readers, they are not omniscient and they are not all out to get you. So perhaps just calm down and there may actually be a chance you would be listened to. Five cents of advice from a non-admin. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And the diffs presented gives insight into the edit war, where both parties are quick to drop the "revert bomb" and there seems to be a refusal by one party to accept consensus that seems to have been attained. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the few editors to weigh on on the previous discussion, I've said it before and said it again it's wrong to say something is vandalism which clearly isn't. If Keith-264 is still calling things of yours vandalism which aren't, I would still support a block. But a quick look in the edit history didn't show any vandalism accusations after my edit. If there are some in your diffs above, I can't be bothered sorting through them. As others have indicated above, people would likely care more about this if your behaviour here wasn't so poor. As for other issues like sabotage accusations, it could easily be a personal attack, although it's a lot less clear than vandalism which as I said has a definition here on wikipedia which doesn't includes your edits whatever their quality. Again people would care more about this if your behaviour here wasn't so poor. Frankly even if I were an admin, and I did come across a diff of Keith-264 accusing you of vandalism after the discussion in the last ANI (yes I'm aware there was some initial problems, I'm talking about after that), I'm not sure if I could be arsed to do anything about it based on your behaviour. And it isn't even just in this thread. I said in the previous ANI that you two need to use some form of dispute resolution if you can't sort it out by yourselves. (I had a quick look at the history and others told you likewise.) I said in that talk page you two should cut out the personal stuff. Yet I visit that talk and mostly see more of the same nonsense. Slatersteven is trying to help, I'm not really sure how they became aware of the discussion but I'm guessing it wasn't due to one of you using some form of dispute resolution. (ANI is not dispute resolution.) Frankly I was thinking this last time, and I'm thinking it even more now, the simplest solution would just be some form of topic ban for both of you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I came over there as a result of an RFC notice on the Mil hist board. Personally I am not that impressed with either edd involved in this. But have no idea as to the history, OR WHO STARTED IT. Maybe you both need to take time off from that article. Or maybe an IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah so I see someone did finally try to get outside help to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately for TREKphiler, it's the person they're complaining about ..... Still the best solution was of course for both parties to participate in good faith in the discussion and try to put aside their apparent strong dislike for each other. Not come and moan here about how everyone else is evil or whatever. (To be clear, I'm not excusing any poor behaviour from Keith-264 either.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a case of personal enmity then I do not think it is possible for them to cooperate and this will just flare up again. You are both aware this is heading for an IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WesleyFricks (talk · contribs) This editor at his talk page concerning a dispute over Ty Cobb, wrote[206]- "I need the owners of this site to contact me without delay at wesfricks@gmail.com to communicate a direct phone discussion to avoid a more aggressive resolution". TY COBB'S NAME A LEGACY WILL NOT CONTINUED TO BE SLANDERED!"

    I am just reporting and let others determine if that constitutes a legal threat or note. Also worth noting, this editor appears to have a COI[207]. The above threat came AFTER the edit warring report was resolved and after his being issued a warning[208] by administrator @Doc James:....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mozart834428196

    Blocked indef. SQLQuery me! 22:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mozart834428196 (Contributions) - Resumed genre warring and addition of unsourced content since numerous warnings going back to September of last year, including "final" warnings. Dan56 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    January 2019

    December 2018

    And so on. Dan56 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have given that editor an indefinite block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=878547387"