Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1000

Article: Malta convoys


After this and this, & perfect willingness to discuss both times, I've effectively been told by User:Keith-264 there's nothing to discuss, because he's right. I expect another false accusation of vandalism any minute now from an editor who seems to believe he owns the page (judging by his numerous edits every day & refusal to acknowledge he even has to defend any of them). I also expect another Admin to look at my edits, & this notice, claim I'm just gaming the system, & do fuck all, just like last time. So this is probably a complete waste of time & effort, if not an open opportunity (yet another!) to block me for "incivility", which so many seem to be looking for. Funny, the edits I made from around 20 Sept (& which I can't find again in the history, as usual...) were perfectly okay when made by somebody else (take a look at the page now & day before yesterday, & compare). AGF? That's getting harder to do, when I keep seeing other people managing to do what I just attract rv & complaints of vandalism & indifference & accusations of "gaming the system" for. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  14:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Keith-264, please refrain from edit warring and from false accusations of vandalism. While you are right that the context is relevant, in no way does it make Trekphiler's edits vandalism; vandalism means deliberately disruptive edits made in bad faith. Sideways713 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If two of you are discussing and can't come to a consensus you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution and not ANI to resolve the dispute. That said, I'm highly concerned about the false accusations for vandalism by Keith-264. If they continue, they IMO should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll allow I've broken 3RR. So has he. And Nil, you've seen two more false claims in the space of 2 minutes. (I am pleased to see somebody cares about that.) He's also not responded here, tho notified.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) Incidentally, because of their false accusation, Keith-264 has just broken 3RR. (Since they aren't reverting vandalism the exemption doesn't apply.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I only broke it after he effectively said he had no intention of discussing. It appears to me the vandalism claims are an attempt to circumvent 3RR.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a resumption of the previous edit war from September 2017. Insofar as there was a consensus then, it supported Keith-264, though the closing comment of a relevant RfC specifically noted "no prejudice against further discussion about what else specifically could be removed." Discussion is the operative word here; Trekphiler, you should discuss the removals on the talk page, and try to establish consensus for all or some of them, instead of attempting to edit-war them in. If Keith-264 isn't willing to discuss your changes anymore, clearly that means he's a no on them and any support for them needs to come from other directions.

Trek made an unwarranted inference and yet again made a capricious mass removal of material, which broke consensus and is what I reverted ages ago becuase he was the one who stopped talking. Trek's edits in the context of earlier discussions and the long silence since, were clearly vandalism if not sabotage. If you take the trouble to look at the talk page you will see that I refused to accept Trek's framing and his tactics, not the principle of consensus seeking. I am willing to discuss the material he wants out but not from the position that he removes the material and requires persuasion to put it back in since this won't be forthcoming. My next suggestion was to be an exploration of the use of the note as a way of moving contentious material rather than removing it according to one editor's demands; trouble is, I've got Manflu so it will have to wait. Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS what happened to my comment here earlier today?Keith-264 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you can't establish that the consensus now supports your edits, don't push the matter too far, and remember that there are many other articles for you to improve. Sideways713 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Guys, get a room. This is a content dispute and is best solved by discussing on the Talk page with references to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Discuss & get consensus"? With somebody who refused to even answer any of my remarks the first time & called it vandalism, & this time said he had no position he had to defend & wasn't "beholden to me", effectively refusing to discuss this time, too. Discuss what? And I see false accusations of vandalism are perfectly okay, provided I'm the one being accused. And I see somebody else making the very same edits I did is perfectly okay. Did I start over with the same edit as a year ago? I must certainly did. I believed it warranted then, & I do now. I also knew this was going to be a wsste of time. Go ahead, block me for being "incivil", again. At this point, I just don't give a damn. Trying to improve anything here is like trying to hold back the tide.  Canute  I can see Shannon!  16:03 23:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two editors at loggerheads do not a consensus make. If the discussions here and on the article talk page aren't enough to make additional editors weigh in, you can try pinging the users involved in the previous discussion on this topic (given that they generally took Keith-264's side last time, no one could possibly consider it canvassing); or you could post a neutrally worded note somewhere like the talk page of the Military history WikiProject, requesting the input and views of uninvolved users interested in the subject.

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

User:Speedy Question Mark
User:Speedy Question Mark has repeatedly edited the All Elite Wrestling logo to change the background color from black to white. He claims this is to make it look better or fit into the page better or something, but regardless, the logo is black and it's unclear why he thinks he can just decide to make it a different color. After he finally dropped this and accepted using the proper logo, he then created a duplicate logo, with the apparent intent of hiding his edit/revert history. I reverted this change and marked the duplicate for speedy deletion, but he quickly undid both edits, apparently because he thinks we need to have a "discussion." He refuses to listen to other editors and this is all just horribly unproductive, I was hoping the admins could set him straight. Thanks! Wicka wicka (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it helps anything, it appears the extra revisions are soon to be deleted. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel a lot of the users on here are quite rude, aggressive and possessive when it comes to certain articles and it's a real turn off when trying to help out and edit articles, all I did was upload a version of the logo without a background which is usually done with many brand logo's on Wikipedia (the one I uploaded had the letters outlined so it could stand out from the white background) but for some reason on this very article It's being treated as if I'm vandalising it which isn't the case, the other users keeping making up this story that I'm apparently trying to hide something which I honestly don't even know what they think I'm trying to hide because there is nothing to hide. I have huge OCD so the reason I wanted to upload a new version is because the old image was full of reverts and it looked irritating. I've explained my side of the story many times but I honestly feel like I'm being ignored and pushed into a corner. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Behavioral issue, you kept reverting the image despite several people making comments. Piece of advice, if an edit is reverted do the folowing: Stop, understand the reasoning behind the revert, discuss a difference of oppinion instead of just reverting again. (And yes I admit I don't always do that myself) MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Ah, pro wrestling. The gift that keeps on giving. EEng 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, ain't it great? Considering how much time you have spent on a DYK related to a wrestling hall of famer I know you are a true fan. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And believe it or not we're on the verge of wrapping up. You might want to drop in and opine. EEng 02:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cena Augustus... --Shirt58 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many media sites have used the AEW logo without the background so it gave off the impression that is wasn't part of the logo. Sorry my mistake. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on the revision history, both side seem break 3RR by upload their own version 4 times, within a day. So, before the wrestling, would it better to use the talk page, dispute resolution chamber and/or page protection first? However, if both side willing to discuss the matter, then it is not that urgent to discuss in ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could delete the one's after the last stable version. Pretty sure the current version is missing its license.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I restored the last good version of the file and the appropriate page history leading up to it.--v/r - TP 19:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's happened here, it looks like you've reverted it back to the original high-res, uncropped version. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you wanted to cropped version, but I can restore that instead.--v/r - TP 20:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better. I'd have restored the uncropped version too.-- Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

nationalist azeri editor changes armenian name Yerevan
why you guys allow a [redacted] edits wikipedia articles? User:Aykhan Zayedzadeh tries to insert azeri propaganda in this article: changeing Yerevan to Erivan:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.105.139 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What was the city known as in 1650? The article suggests it was Erivan. Regardless, Erivan and Erevan both redirect to Yerevan, so the point is minor, and also a content dispute, so not something that needs to be here. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User:D.Lazard reverting continuously my edits without proper discussion in the talk page
This user is continually reverting my edits to Function (mathematics). I have also had to revert some of his edits and reverts. I have added corresponding sections one and two in the talk page of the article explaining what are the error that his edits/reverts would introduce/reinstate. Note, the lack of participation in the discussions. Only reverts after reverts. Cactus0192837465 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have 5 reverts in the last 24 hours and a history of revert warring on the article .  I strongly advise you to revert yourself and commit to use the talk page instead of the undo button before the next sysop gets here.  Otherwise you have a WP:3RR or WP:EW block.--v/r - TP 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have notified of this thread. Neither has edited since this thread began. Both have 3RR warned the other.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the procedure when edits introduce errors, I revert and add corresponding sections in the talk page explaining why the edits introduce errors, but the editors simply revert or re-add the erroneous information without visiting the discussion in the talk page? Cactus0192837465 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute. Stop reverting, attempt discussion, failing that, seek dispute resolution. At the heart of each and every content dispute are at least two editors convinced they are right and the other editor is wrong. Each of you has 3RR warned the other. Time to discuss. If an edit changes the status quo, the onus is on the person making said edit to justify the change.  gave you an ultimatum. I'd hate to be the one to execute it.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you can start a request for comment on the article talk page and request feedback at WikiProject Mathematics.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk)
 * I am not really been 3RR warned on my talk page by . What looks as a user warning is a copy on my talk page, made by Cactus, of the user warning that I did on his talk page, copy that includes the paragraph that I have added to the template, my signature and the time stamp D.Lazard (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the recent history of this edit war: the three first reverts by have been reverted by three different editors, including myself. More properly, they were not reverted, but edited, as these editors and two others proposed improvements of the disputed sentence. In each case, Cactus reverted to his preferred formulation without any tentative toward a consensus. Thus, after his fourth revert, I have warned him to his talk page, with the uw-3rr template, to which I have added On January 10, you did four times the same revert. It is possible that, before this warning, you ignored the WP:3RR rule of Wikipedia. Now this rule has been notified to you. So, the next time you will break it, I'll report your behavior to WP:ANI for an edit block. Then I have edited the disputed sentence , by changing a single word. The reaction of cactus was almost immediate: he answered first first on his talk page , with personal attacks ("your lack of understanding of proper grammar"). Then he made his fifth revert, and posted a long comment in the article talk page  (this diff contains also the answer by another editor, which is better than any answer that I could write). He also opened this discussion.
 * These are the yesterday evening events. I have discovered Cactus's reaction this morning, just when I was for opening a thread here. IMHO, this is a typical case for WP:BOOMERANG. D.Lazard (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just noticing that this is not WP:ANI/3RR. As it is WP:ANI/I, I should mention that Cactus uses to attack personally people who disagree with him by treating them of incompetent (see above quote), and by qualifying as wrong everything to which he disagrees. This is a problem of disruptive editing, which is not yet blatant enough for opening a thread here. In fact, this disruptive editing is mixed with technical matters, and is, therefore, difficult, for non-specialists, to distinguish from normal dispute content. This is the reason for which I have not yet opened a thread here. But administrators must be informed that this is a problem that can be, later, the object of a notice here. D.Lazard (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

I started a log of "highlights" here. The other problem is that this user logs out and edits as an IP from multiple ranges. These are listed via same link, and can be seen below the hounding info. Note how many blocks and rangeblocks have been applied. Any further help with this would be appreciated. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support one-way interaction ban to prevent Nainanike from editing an article or participating in a talk page discussion where Lugnuts has been active. Actually, if someone cares to do a bit more checking, I would also support an indefinite block because the creepiness has been ongoing for months—the NinjaRobotPirate warning was 26 September 2018. I checked Nainanike's most recent nine edits and they clearly are following Lugnuts. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure a traditional one-way IBAN is going to be effective here. The number of talk-page interactions are minimal and the chunk of edits I looked through in the interaction analyzer didn't contain many (any?) reverts - it is substantially more common for Lugnuts to revert Nainanike than vice versa.Looking through the results of the editor interaction timeline since September, there are a very uncomfortable number of Nainanike's edits where Lugnuts made the previous edit.  And the old interaction tool's results are rather worrying (though I seem to have overloaded the tool and broken it for the moment) - out of the top 24 articles where they have both edited, I think I'm right to say there is only one where Nainanike edited first (and that in the past few days - the tool itself seems to get this wrong sometimes, though, and you have to go look at the timeline to see who was first).  By my calculation, 1999 of Nainanike's 2,543 edits are to pages also edited by Lugnuts, nearly 80%.It seems pretty clear that Nainanike is following Lugnuts around; it is less clear to me what the intent is.  As noted, there has been very minimal interaction on talk pages or through reverts; it's clear that Lugnuts is finding the attention uncomfortable and unnerving.  It seems on a glance that Naianike's edits are generally useful (ie they are not a vandal-only or harassment-only account) though I haven't looked at this aspect in great detail.So what to do?  A block seems over-the-top for an editor whose edits are generally useful (if I've got that right, of course); can we ban someone from editing pages that have been edited by another user in the last X days?  Is that likely to improve the situation?  GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe there's zero interaction via talkpages (I'm happy to be proved wrong on that, of course). The issue that this has been going on for months and shows no signs of stopping, and has been told on multiple occasions, including once by an admin, to stop doing this. A block can always be lifted if they acknowledge this issue in their unblock request, and promise not to continue.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was including the 'User talk' namespace under 'talk pages'. GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Today's first edit. Sigh.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On top of what seems to be WP:HOUNDING, I'd like to point out that the user is also violating WP:TALKO by deleting other's comments on his talk page. here and here  Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a talk-page violation. With certain exceptions that are not relevant, there is no problem from removing comments posted on your own talk page. The issue should be simple: I think two admins have semi-warned Nainanike and all that is needed is a block when unexplained stalking recurs. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ontop of this, this editor also has a bad habit of updating things way before they actually happen, such as this. For thos of you not familar with the world of cricket, this edit shows that the ground in New Zealand had hosted a match on 11th Jan, with the edit made on the 10th Jan, some 7 hours+ before the game actually started. This isn't just a one-off and happens across similar articles. There's always a chance a game might not take place due to rain, and at worst, this is adding incorrect information into WP. I see it in the same light as an IP vandal who changes a DOB by one day, for example.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nainanike has ignored requests to participate here and has instead carried on editing cricket-related articles also edited by Lugnuts. I have therefore blocked for three days in the hope it will encourage them to participate here.  Any admin who feels the situation has been resolved to their satisfaction is welcome to unblock without checking with me, especially as I won't be around a lot over the weekend.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you GoldenRing. As I suspected, they've just gone back to editing as an IP. Note how that edit just adds the ref for the team but doesn't add the squad, similar to this edit by Nainanike. And it's from the 103.116 range in Gujart, India, which they've used before (amongst other ranges) to edit.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

email edit request
I received an email from User:Woyun (just created, no edits) that said "Article 'Gerard Mourou' // Awards and honors Please add hyperlink 'Nobel Prize in Physics'." I have never edited this article to my knowledge and find this request quite strange. Perhaps a sock? <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 15:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, and it is weird, but given the edit is both appropriate and uncontroversial, I've just done it. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that if you answer enough edit requests, people may sometimes start to consider you a semi-official point of contact for more requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No indications that the article is a regular sock target, maybe it's just someone who couldn't figure out the editor. My personal practice is to not do edits for editors who are not technically restricted from making the edit themselves, but to help them make the edit on their own. YMMV. Maybe that's why I don't get as many requests any more. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It just seemed so unusual for someone to create an account, then email a seemingly random editor to make a minor change that they could have just done. I see from their user page that they also contacted another editor by email to make a change to a different article. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 23:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MetricSupporter89
This user has repeatedly made edits to articles, particularly those relating to entities/locations/infrastructure shared between multiple North American countries, in order to push their POV surrounding instruments of measure (particularly, changing the prominence of the metric system). One example is Colorado River, whose imperial measures were changed to listing metric first because it partially lies in Mexico, and is thus subject to metric primacy as an "international" topic (thus trying to overrule MOS:TIES).

After I reverted one of their edits (which, despite nominally being based in the United States, changed the ESRB to be an "North American" organization in the lead because it is predominantly used in North American countries), they also threatened me and claimed that my username was a violation of policy because references to snakes can "frighten young people". I'm pretty sure that's not what the spirit of the policy meant. (Oddly enough this is only the second time my username has been called out like that by such a user. for the record it was mainly about the Dodge Viper.)

Their username is also a pretty blatant proof of their POV. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given this editor a final warning about their pattern of tendentious editing. Please inform me if the behavior resumes, and I will block them. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If Mr. MetricSupporter89 was as bright as he seems to think he is, he'd know that US articles use US Customary units, not Imperial. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that seems to be quite imperialist of them. I don't know by what metric would this user's behavior be considered acceptable. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 03:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And every inch 2.54 cm a king. (of course, that's more like your user page, talk page – the whole nine yards) <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Londonergezzer replacing nationalities
In edits, 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. 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 's concerns. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 ( 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. - the editor interaction analyser does show an unusual pattern  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)
 * 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!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:LittleRoman15
- This user has been making minor, useless edits to their user page in order to gain the extendedconfirmed flag. 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)
 * 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)

Mozart834428196
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)

January 2019
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

December 2018
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

And so on. Dan56 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given that editor an indefinite block. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by DBigXray
DBigXray has performed as many as 2 set of 3 reverts today and also on 8 January 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 while DBigXray posted over 11000 bytes of a reply lousy with unreliable sources such as "Lulu.com" to make his policy violation right. I have already made enough replies to make him aware of WP:TERRORIST and how his edits are improper but he is not hearing and when I detailed his use of self-published sources, he deceptively removed mention of "Lulu.com" when the message was already replied.

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.

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, he restored the content of 26,000 bytes 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)


 * 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.
 * 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 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.
 * 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 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 a bunch of youtube videos as references and  removed  reliable scholarly sources that did not support his opinion
 * On the same page Harmanprtjhj tried to misrepresent another source related to terrorism, when the source  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  to cite the actual line that supported his position, He started attacking me on the talk page about my other edits,.
 * 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC) [updated on 21:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)]
 * 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)


 * Comment it appears the first use of the word "terrorist" in the article was by an IP editor here: . 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)


 * 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 and now canvassing others to participate in this report. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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. 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) )
 * Just noting that the amount of WP:ABF and deceptive tricks used by these "brand new accounts" and the [Banned user using] 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 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC) [updated 13:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)]


 * 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. <b style="font-family:monospace;"><< FR</b> 15:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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 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)


 * 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 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to you, it is fine when you are seeking block against your opponent and requesting semi protection when I am reverting your disruptive edits. But it is not fine when your wilful disruption is being reported? 103.255.4.4 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. <b style="font-family:monospace;"><< FR</b> 09:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * There have been a couple additional problems here. First, 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:  I checked to see why and how it got deleted and saw that  had removed the post here: . 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)
 * After this comment, DBigXray went to ask an admin to remove the criticism about his editing above. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. 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.  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.
 * 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. Anybody can agree that it is an unreliable source only after reading the first paragraph of the source, 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" 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)
 * Not only is this comment an exaggerated WP:ABF but Wikiman5676 has resorted to outright lying.
 * Regarding the Book Unheeded warnings, I had already shared the Google book link that had clearly mentioned the publisher right on the cover, if the google book link isn't enough here is another noting the name of the publisher.
 * Unheeded warnings the lost reports of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. Vol. 1: Islamic terrorism and the West edited by Richard J. Leitner and Peter M. Leitner electronic resource, Publisher:  Washington, DC, Crossbow Books  cop. 2008, Edition: 1. ed., Description: 1 pdf-file (601 p.). ISBN: 9780615252445.
 * The source That is being repeatedly called "unreliable" without any reasonable logic is an excerpt from a reliable and highly cited book Punjab, the knights of falsehood / K.P.S. Gill., Har-Anand Publications, c1997. Subjects: Sikhs -- Politics and government, Punjab (India) -- Politics and government. Summary : Political outline of Punjab and the involvement of the Sikhs in its making. Language : English, ISBN 8124105693 National Library of Australia's online catalogue
 * Since ANI isn't a venue for content disputes, I will just point the refs and leave it at that. The sources and content related discussion are there in the talk page, I would request others to check the claims for themselves, and not rely on the deception and lies being presented above, with a clearly malicious attempt for getting sanction / ban. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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.
 * "You warn people even when they merely discuss your edits, " 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * DBigXray's interaction with others strikes me as bullying and harassment for which they have been warned following an extensive ANI.. 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". DBigXray replied Soman by writing an aggressive response, and also warned Soman on their talk page by falsely accusing them of throwing "ad hominem". 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", which was pointed out by other user. 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" despite significant participation of the user in the said discussion. Kraose (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kraose, It is interesting to see the nefarious way you are trying to spin up my AfD comments by showing half side of the picture. I first thought of ignoring your comment, but on second thoughts I felt it is better to address it.
 * This comment at AfD by Soman that says" Noted that User:DBigXray keeps initiating deletion processes on weak ground" on the AfD nom is clearly an ad hominem, without basis. I noted this and reminded  the editor about relevant policies that expects editors to avoid Arguments_to_the_person in deletion discussions and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Which is a perfectly reasonable response for such ad hominem. And you have tried to spin this incident as "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". This response from me was neither aggressive, nor my "reminder" to avoid ad hominem a " false accusation".
 * Regarding the accusation, "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',", Soman had made the AfD comment without providing any ref at the AfD to support his argument. Initially the article was entirely unsourced and marked as unsourced. When I had checked the 2 sources, I could not find the mention of the subject and accordingly I had noted this in my comment . When it was pointed that 1 out of 2 sources did mention the subject in passing, I immediately struck off my old comment and noted this change . And then I posted on PMC's talk page  who agreed that the second source doesn't mention the AfD subject, "even in passing". PMC then updated his AfD comment to note this . But I see that you have conveniently left the entire picture because clarifying it interferes with the deceptive story that you are trying to build up here.
 * " DBigXray appears to be trying to drive this editor out by disparaging them and falsely accusing them of misbehavior. ", Noting that these 2 are my only interactions with this editor, this line of yours actually gives more credibility to my assertion that you here, are trying to spin up a story using deception.
 * On the Talk:Khalistan Commando Force Harmanprtjhj has so far not responded to my specific questions on the talk page thread and is trying ANI litigation here, as a way out of this content dispute. He is even using ANI thread as some sort of approval for his actions on that page.
 * In the end, I would note that your turning up on this thread looks highly suspicious to me, especially with the manner and the deceptive tone of your comments. I note that you were also invited to comment in a recent ANI thread against me where you tried similar tricks, diff, diff in support of a group of editors, who are carrying out a sustained campaign against me with multiple ANI threads, every now and then, to exaggerate and crank up, content disputes in an attempt to make it appear something gravely serious and then use to as a way out of ongoing content disputes by calling for bans/sanctions. I also note that this is not the first time you have been seen commenting/voting "in support", and 'along' with this "group of editors" some recent diffs are  diff, diff diff -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Together with edit warring, POV pushing and righting great wrong mentality, you frequently throw personal attacks while you also leave ill-considered warnings on other editors's talk pages only for discussing your edits.
 * Your on-going pattern of disruptive editing is evidenced by many recent examples, which includes your 7 reverts on Rafale deal controversy by engaging in POV pushing and creating Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox by abusing autopatrolled user-right to evade full protection. History of this sub-article shows you made a few botched page moves to retain this misuse of article space. You also made 5 reverts on 1984 anti-Sikh riots by misrepresenting sources and using BLPCRIME as exemption[ to edit war when no BLP was concerned (December 2018). 4 reverts on [[Jaggi Vasudev]] for violating BLP (November 2018). 6 reverts on Khalistan Commando Force (January 2019) and all these pages resulted in full protection because of your lame edit war. What is even more interesting that your edits received no support from any other editor in spite of your massive bludgeoning on each of the concerning talk pages. Your disruption on talk pages has been beyond disruptive because you attack opponents, modify others comments, remove others comments and engage in typical IDHT. I note that how all of these articles attracted no controversy before you started disrupting them. It is clear that you can't edit without righting great wrong or harassing other editors. What about your creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir against consensus (December 2018) and your DRV against deletion of this CFORK with no one supporting your demand to overturn the result? Further disruption was also seen on Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears. It took you less than 2 months to produce all these examples.
 * You are moving into indef territory with your unhelpful bludgeoning. Qualitist (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been asked, as Harmanprtjhj observed above but didn't bother to notify me as they deployed my talk page as a weapon, to review this situation. Regular observers of this board probably know that DBigXray and I are not exactly kindred spirits, but I honestly don't see any merit to this one-sided presentation by a two-week-old account of a content dispute. Here is my very general review:
 * Harmanprtjhj is the aggressor here. I'm not a fan of describing organizations so prominently as "a terrorist organization" no matter what reliable sources say because it's an inherently political label (one man's Jesus is another man's Hebrew terrorist) but a brand-new account immediately going on a mission of replacing "terrorist" with "freedom fighter" and then taking out vendettas against users who get in their way is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, they're here to push a point of view. As DBigXray described, they've been doing this exclusively on organizations reliably and prominently described as Sikh terrorist groups.
 * Harmanprtjhj is obviously somebody's sockpuppet. There are just so many sockmasters editing in this topic area that it's difficult to pin down which this is, but I'll get there.
 * At a glance, it seems that DBigXray has responded suboptimally, but digging in beyond this thread it's reasonable to describe their actions as assertive but reasonable responses to an aggressive, tendentious editor (see my first bullet). DBigXray has been trying to discuss the content matter and has been met with only stonewalling which is well exemplified in this thread. If you look at any of the other discussions you find only users agreeing that Harmanprtjhj's edits are inappropriate, making this thread a good example of asking the other parent.
 * The other users coming here to dredge up old disputes are typical retrospective "twisting the facts" commentary that's just so typical of editors treating topics covered by WP:ARBIPA as a battleground. It's childish. It's this behaviour that's the time-sink. Go do something else.
 * In summary I don't see anything for admins to really do here, and I suggest that some neutral observer close this thread before we have another ANI ARBIPA blowup. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

IP Vandal needs to be re-blocked asap
Is blanking and copy-editing pages, please give them a longer ban this time, thank you. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * And you both edit the same Interstate Highway articles. I'm not buying it. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

Don’t know what to do, but...
broke 3RR on Angela Nagle, and he is trying to prove some point using primary references, one of which is a blog and another a satire news (?). When I reverted and told him that it was primary, he pointed me to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD (which is not a policy), as you can see in this diff. I only know that he edit warred and broke 3RR, but I don’t know about the content or his POV that he wants to push (?). Anyone willing to help and figure out? If I was wrong about the content part, I only know that he used a primary source, broke 3RR and NPOV, and edit warred. Need more input. Thanks. Oshawott 12 ==== Talk to me!  09:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably better at WP:AN/EW.  IWI  ( chat ) 09:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, less confrontationally, get third party input into the sourcing issue at WP:RS/N --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I wouldn’t want to piss him off by giving him another notice. Could we just do it here because it gains more traction?   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  10:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He has at least now opened a discussion on the talkpage, which is a step in the right direction. I also reverted the content, mostly because it's disputed (and so he should argue for its inclusion rather than just reinserting it), but also because it's so poorly written that it's pretty difficult to make out what he's trying to say. Grandpallama (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I'm not sure that blogs are always considered unusable. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed at WP:RS/N. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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 []. 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.[] [] [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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. []


 * For Haqqani Network I put "alleged;but denied" after Pakistan.[]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)

Again on United states invasion of Afghanistan, Mountain157 again resorted to the same behaviour [] 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)


 * 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 [] [].-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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.[]-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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


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

Backlog at WP:AIV
... including, 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 &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the words of the immortal Peter Sellers: Not any more.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * GoldenRing (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh. Strange I never heard of this Peter Sellers person before. Apparently some obscure actor. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking EEng seriously? Seriously? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ;-P <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I hear his real name is Schmerzeslieben.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merkwürdigliebe. Jeesh. Strangelove, not Painedlove. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Possible legal threat by USER User:WesleyFricks
This editor at his talk page concerning a dispute over Ty Cobb, wrote- "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. The above threat came AFTER the edit warring report was resolved and after his being issued a warning by administrator ....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "slander" (they mean libel, but meh) and especially the "to avoid a more aggressive resolution" is enough for me. Blocked indefinitely per NLT. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:WilliamJE and User:Black Kite. We need zero tolerance for this type of behavior. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He has proclaimed to be the 'entrustee' of the Ty Cobb league.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  04:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr. Fricks actually wrote Legacy not league. He is Executive Director of the Ty Cobb Museum....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It would seem to me that trying to defend Ty Cobb's legacy at this point is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has run away.... Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He can aggressively address the matter w/ the Foundation. Wonder if he knows Stempy.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not an American but is this really primarily over about 2/4000 and 1/2000 runs and similarly very minor stat differences which from what I can tell are largely inconsequential. (It's not like with one set of stats he's number 1 and with the slightly fewer he ends up number 1.) Okay there is some dispute of titles as well although that also doesn't seem to currently affect his relative position. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Why this is significant: In 1910, a car company offered a free new car to the baseball player who won that season's batting title. Ty Cobb and Napoleon "Nap" Lajoie were in the lead. Cobb was very unpopular; the public and media were rooting for Lajoie. But, Cobb developed a seemingly-insurmountable 8-hit lead by the end of the season. On the last day of the season, in what may be viewed as a display of arrogance, Cobb "sat out" or did not play in the final game. Lajoie, meanwhile, was playing in two games on the same day (a "doubleheader"), and in those two games earned 8 hits (which is a very high number of hits in a doubleheader, when players are usually tired for the second game, having just played a full baseball game earlier in the day). Though it seemed it was a tie, baseball officials broke the tie in favor of Cobb, declaring him the winner. This decision was not popular. Cobb ended up getting the batting title in 1910 and the car. Cobb holds the records for most batting titles (12), and also for most consecutive batting titles (9). The 1910 batting title was the 4th out of that streak of 9.
 * Some 70 years later, in 1982, a researcher discovered that one of Cobb's games in 1910 was counted twice. As a result, he had 2 fewer hits than was officially recorded that year. That means that Lajoie, not Cobb, should have won the 1910 batting title, and Cobb did not win 9 in a row, but only 5 in row, and thus the "most consecutive batting titles" record is not Cobb's to hold.
 * Another controversy is that most baseball statisticians have accepted this research as valid, and have revised Cobb's total hits downward from 4,191 hits to 4,189. Official Major League Baseball statistics have not been revised. Seeing as how MLB gave Cobb the award in the first place, its refusal to revise the official statistics is seen by some as an example of MLB refusing to admit when it is "officially" wrong.
 * Yet another aspect of this controversy relates to Pete Rose, who broke Cobb's all-time-hits record in 1985. Officially, if Cobb had 4,191 hits, then Rose earned hit #4,192 in Cincinnati, Ohio on Sep. 11, 1985. If, however, Cobb had 4,189 hits, then Rose earned hit #4,190 in Chicago, Illinois on Sep. 8, 1985.
 * Why does it matter? Because Rose changed his jersey for every game. So, the Sep. 11 "record-breaking" jersey is worth a ton of money; the Sep. 8 jersey is just another Pete Rose jersey. If the "official story" is changed to Rose having beaten the record on Sep. 8, then that jersey would skyrocket in value, and the Sep. 11 jersey would plummet in value. For whomever owns these two jerseys, this is a matter of millions of dollars. I don't know who they are, but I have a guess about who owns one of them. Levivich (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we have a WP:FORUM WP:NOTHERE editor.

 * Youtubebebe

This user appears to be adding original research and removing references in Cha University. Whenever somebody undoes the user's edits, the user will revert it right back. It's been like this since September 2018. It would appear that the user is WP:NOTHERE.

Here are a couple of examples:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5

What do you all think? - I Need Support - :3 00:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that this editor has been blocked indefinitely by, and that it is a good block. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder conduct
User talk:Jonathunder spoke in a less-than-desired way to me on a talk page. He thinks people can only be admins his way, in his style. What can we all do to help prevent incidents like what he did in the future? --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally feel you are in the wrong in this situation, after viewing the relevant talk page discussion this is clear. You stated you wanted to be an admin to help advance a political candidate is not a goal of wikipedia.... This is also a misuse of the noticeboard.... To be clear I stand by User:Jonathunder's edit. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? Diffs, please. What talk page? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated the link ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "less than desired" = Telling you what the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia are. Won't gain much traction with that argument on Wikipedia I am afraid. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I'm pretty sure this edit is the one in question, where I said "That's not what admins do here." By that I meant admins don't enforce a particular point of view on an article, nor do we have as much power as a newbie might think. Jonathunder (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the point, though. Speaking the way he did is unacceptable. Jonathunder-gate can't happen again! That's why I'm requesting getting assigned as this article's admin. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not how wikipedia works.... Feeling like this a bit off topic. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I need a new admin on this matter, given how dismissively you are acting. Do you have a supervisor? --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You aren't an administrator, and there's no such thing as an "article's administrator," which is what Jonathunder was trying to point out. Now that you know that, we can close this discussion before you dig a hole for yourself.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Norschweden


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)
 * Looks like they are talking now. Perhaps a block will not be needed.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, now the editor that originally made the edit to begin with 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * User:Vjmlhds and User:Norschweden, guys, neither of you is getting blocked for WP:3rr since it wasn't a 3RR violation, even though an edit war occured. Please continue the discussion on the talk page. BTW, if there are any "revenge porn" being circulated, please do share it in my mail, I'll be.. erm.. happy to look at it. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , 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. <span style="font-family:'Wreathe','Centaur','serif';color:#2a1657;background:#e2daf1">—&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 16:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Now look! NO ONE is to stone ANYONE until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even -- and I want to make this absolutely clear -- even if they do say "revenge porn"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "But I would not feel so all alone. Everybody Must Get Stoned"-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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. 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. Seeing JJMC89 became active once more after my public message to him which he ignored, I called a second time with a reminder. 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 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)
 * 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 last November for 24h, and the second by  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)
 * 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)
 * Policy prohibits indefinitely blocking IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * CONGRATULATIONS! You are Wikipedia's 100th ANI thread on pro wrestling (this month, that is). <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And here's their prize! Raspberry jam!-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A comment as pointless as the General Sanctions for wrestling seems to be.MPJ-DK (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing forbids a user from requesting that another user never edit their talk page again at all; that request then must be honoured. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 09:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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) 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-- .-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC) -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC) -- It is unfortuante that they did not heed my advice.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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? <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is the POINTiness and the refusal to discuss or cite as per my original block.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:66.161.137.115
I’ve noticed that a few of their recent edits were disruptive, and it is not just one edit, but a pattern of them, most recently being Operation Anthropoid. This is my first time requesting a block, so what would the procedure be for giving them a notice about this discussion?
 * -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One might obtain faster response reporting at WP:AIV-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, they've made on vandalistic edit this month and were warned for it. Perhaps WP:LTA?? -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:86.178.178.75
Hello, this user has been disruptive he has got a 36 hour block but I personally don't think that's enough. He has done 3 vandalism edits bypassing edit filters. Forres Harriers (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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 '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 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 and the Same-sex marriage in the United States  articles, all of '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 and the Gay–straight alliance  articles,  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 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 reverted an edit of mine that sorted a series of words according to alphabetical order. 's behavior has caused disruption to my enjoyment of editing. 's stalking of my contributions have caused me extreme irritation, annoyance, and distress. This is a clear violation of WP:HOUND. Please instruct 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 is engaged in. The evidence is clear and speaks for itself. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a confession to make: I posted here in order to lure you and the other editors - - 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, 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 . 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)
 * 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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * what is up with your repetitive edits to your sandbox and user talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Justthefacts9&dir=prev&offset=20181002052933&limit=500&target=Justthefacts9] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Justthefacts9/sandbox&offset=&limit=500&action=history]? 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights&page=User%3AJustthefacts9]. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Loud_House&diff=prev&oldid=860034083] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Loud_House&diff=prev&oldid=860034115], 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)

Why does Justthefacts9 have delete edits to this very board from today?—AdamF in MO (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He doesn’t. That’s a revdel from the azeri thread. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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


 * I agree with . The one and only time this editor attempted to engage other editors was at Help desk/Archives/2017 August 10. The advice they received was ignored, and they have continued their WP:COI and WP:OWN habits. They have also not responded to legitimate concerns about WP:NOSHARING and WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid the word "grooming" if possible, as it usually means something markedly different to what I think Walter's intention was. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 10:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would just like to second Fish and karate's request - I saw it and was half way to typing out the emergency email address while I scrolled down Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please could you post 2 or 3 diffs of problematic edits from the last 2-3 months? They don't need to explain themselves, but they do need to edit within policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=prev&oldid=791873201
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=prev&oldid=804191907
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&diff=877668973&oldid=877665306
 * Does this help? I mean, with only 36 edits to the article in question over eight distinct sessions, you could look at all of them, but I understand the need for examples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they look problematic. Support topic ban. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Th editor has made an edit to their own talk page,, and again to my talk page , 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)

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)

Mass deletion requests for images of signs
Pls see my post at commons.--Moxy (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What can be done at En.Wiki about deletion decisions at the Commons? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of the ways people banned here are able to be disruptive here.... and many admins here may notice the pattern and recognize who it is.--Moxy (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Report on ownership of content
is making Ownership of content having unsourced/unexplained changes to several gang articles, sitting on a 3RR warning and, so far, not discussing the issue. This user has also left a ref shown on the page see People Nation, this user reported me for a WP:3RR when I also added source material. - 154.119.79.254 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, what do "sitting on a 3RR warning" and "left a ref shown on the page" mean? Neither of these statements make any sense to me.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Figured out what "left a ref shown on the page" means, and, though that hardly has anything to do with ANI or any other noticeboard. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the second instance of retaliatory forum-shopping by 154.x, after two disruptive posts to AIV. Leave it at AN3.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...or to ANI here to potentially get a block for the OP if they're not careful. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 00:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This personal attack by the OP is noted.   Acroterion   (talk)   00:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * and the boomerang went "boom"-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather say the stick got bent into a boomerang. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 00:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And now they're blocked as a proxy, so this thread took care of that problem. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 00:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was looking into a block for disruption.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 v. Hijiri88 and Curly Turkey
Darkknight2149 was TBANned for six months from editing comics-related articles following two rounds at ANI, with a large number of participants:

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

Ever since, Darkknight2149 has been slandering and harassing myself and several others (in particular Hijiri88, Twitbookspacetube, Drmies, and Softlavender, whom DarkKnight2149 fantasizes as a sort of cabal conspiring against him). Examples:
 * a drive-by retaliatory attack comment against Hijiri88, which led to a discussion about possible hounding on Drmies talk page; not long after, he started another discussion there accusing Hijiri88 of hounding —not asking for help, but accusing Drmies of collusion and threatening to have ArbCom examine it
 * "one step away from being reported to the Arbitration Committee"
 * more accusations of collusion between myself, Hijiri88, Softlavender, and Twitbookspacetube, in a discussion I wasn't even part of, with more threats of an upcoming ArbCom case
 * accusations of WP:FACTION and WP:SANCTIONGAMING against the same group, with a reiteration of a "final warning" and more threats of a pending ArbCom case; this while trading information with a now-indeffed sockmaster who was attacking me
 * Even showing up at my talk page in a discussion unrelated to him, again talking about "bookmarking diffs" for this supposed ArbCom case (and reiterating his supposed "final warning")

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

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

At the very least, I'd like to request the community to ban Darkknight2149 from talking about me, since he does so only to harass me; I'll otherwise leave it to the community to decide how to deal with his wider behavioural issues, and to his other targets to speak for themselves. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't use the word slander or any of its forms to describe another editor's conduct/statements on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd honestly support any sanction the community sees as appropriate to deal with this disruption, but this time it should be indefinite (as I believe community consensus favoured last time; six months was essentially Drmies casting a supervote - I don't begrudge him that, but I think subsequent history proves it was not the right call) to prevent comments like this. And yes, slimey, empty threats meant only to harass and intimidate, like the latter part of that diff, are pretty characteristic. This time the community needs to be clear that his behaviour is unacceptable, and he shouldn't be allowed just wait it out while denying all wrongdoing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The diffs above are spread over nearly two years. This is not exactly high-intensity disruption.  But given that it's been going on that long, perhaps an indefinite community IBAN between DK on the one hand and CT and Hijiri88 on the other is in order?  GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The interaction ban, should there be one, needs to be two-way. While DarkKnight2149 reacted really badly to it, it was Hijiri88 (a frequent flyer here at ANI) who brought DK2149 up first, wholly unnecessarily, in an unrelated thread a few sections up (perma-diff here).  And then DarkKnight2149 for no reason decided the absolute best thing to do would be throw around terms such as " dishonest, passive-aggressive" and to unnecessarily tag someone else he'd been arguing with (Curly Turkey).  And then Curly Turkey decided the best thing to do would be to unnecessarily go in all guns blazing, managing an impressive 7 uses of the word "fuck" in one and a bit lines. It's all very personality-driven and exactly what an interaction ban is for. You'll notice I used the word "unnecessarily" a lot, which is exactly what this all is.  <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  15:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will add that this templated warning from DarkKnight2149 is really unnecessary, and inflammatory. If DK2149 can't understand when a templated warning is not a good idea, perhaps extending this incipient ban to also bar DK2149 from using templated warnings for a while wouldn't be the worst thing. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 15:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with F+K's iBan note. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with Fish and karate's reading. A lot of escalation from all sides. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've recently noticed Hijiri88 often seems to bring up editors they've had disputes with in unrelated discussions to make a point. Many of these editors are either under a site ban or indef, or have otherwise left, and yes, we do sometimes bring up such editors for various reasons but I have sometimes wondered whether Hijiri88 is overdoing it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree I could have reacted in a more measured manner; I don't believe that doing so would have lessened the harassment—it began without me, and the evidence shows DK has no intention of dropping this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right you could and should have, "sticks and stones" and so forth. That said, I do think that DarkKnight2149 bears a grudge against you (and others) and needs to be restrained. Paul August &#9742; 23:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As further evidence of that: "stay the Hell off my Talk Page, Curly. Your/Hijiri's frequent spammings from Feb 2017 are single-handedly why I abandoned my Archive box."—in response to the required ANI notice that I left with no comment (and which DK is well aware I'm required to leave). Here's the list of edits I've made to his talk page that he characterizes as "frequent spamming". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Drive by comments, after reading the diffs presented, I agree with F+K and think an IBan between the parties would solve the issue.--v/r - TP 00:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (pinging the admins who have commented: Drmies, Fish and karate, GoldenRing, TParis, Paul August, Bbb23)—surely Darkknight's changing of the discussion title from "Harassment by Darkknight2149" to "Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 v. Darkknight2149" is not the sort of thing ANI tolerates? That and the edit comments are more evidence to add to what I initially provided. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:Curly Turkey, but I'm actually OK with that--it's more neutral. That something was "harassment", for instance, wasn't proven; in fact, that's why you're here. "Charge of harassment" is different. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Drmies: The subject of the report, for which the evidence was presented, is an accusation of harassment, not an accusation of "X v. Y". Virtually every header at ANI is an "unproven" accusation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Curly: I, personally, don't think the title is important. Not the hill to die on.--v/r - TP 00:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "A rose by any other name ..." Paul August &#9742; 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)




 * TParis, Paul August: Were this a neutral third party with legitimate concerns about neutrality, I'd have nothing to say; but this is accused turning the header around to emphasize the accusers over the accused—not in the slightest an NPOV thing to do. Would ANI tolerate it if I were to reverse the title to "Darkknight2149 v. Curly Turkey and Hijiri88"?  That would better reflect the evidence provided and nature of the accusation, but I'm pretty sure it'd result in an instant block. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not DarkKnight vs. the entire community. I've changed many a header on ANI and on talk pages; they do actually need to be neutral. No need to ping me in this thread. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How could any comment made in this discussion (or the header) be construed as "DarkKnight vs. the entire community"? This is a non sequitur.
 * "Curly Turkey and Hijiri88" is not neutral—Hijiri and I are not a duo, Hijiri was not involved in the filing of the report (nor in the original disputes), and Darkknight's attacks have been directed at a larger "cabal".
 * I still believe the header should reflect the content of the report, but would you object to "Darkkight2149 v. Curly Turkey and others"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Either suggested name sounds OK, but why do some people insist on ANI threads being titled like a legal case? <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 02:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like a simple comma replacing "and" would suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did not consent to or support CT in opening this ANI discussion, and I did not (as implied above) bring up DK out of nowhere "unnecessarily" -- I was asked (in a not-so-polite fashion -- Ctrl+F "conspiracy theories") why I thought there were "unblockable" editors and linked to the best example that came to mind, but I could have mentioned any of about a dozen others. I was then subjected to a harassing comment out of nowhere, by an editor who was clearly monitoring me very closely (he and I hadn't interacted in almost seven months), to which I remained completely silent. I have had almost no agency in this matter, and see no reason why I should be named in the thread title. Therefore I would politely ask the community to give strong consideration to CT's requested title, and to leave me out of this. I said my piece above, and had every intention at that time of just leaving the matter to the community at that point. For the love of the encyclopedia, please just let me go about writing articles without subjecting me to yet more of this drahma. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, because the original named subject of this thread wanted to add me as a party, because forcing me to waste time on ANI fulfills his agenda of deliberately and repeatedly harassing me (again, how did he even know about the above, as he hadn't edited ANI in eight months?) he is allowed to? If he wanted to file an ANI report on me, he should have done so. He didn't. Curly Turkey filed an ANI report on DK, mentioned me, and then DK decided to add my name to the title. How on earth is that "more neutral"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems a decent idea. As an alternative if people still object, how about Curly Turkey, Darkknight2149 and Hijiri88? Alphabetical order, no vs. just the three editors this thread is mostly concerned about. Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hijiri's not a filing party, nor the subject of the report. Why not stick the names of DK's other targets in there?  This is how DK's disruptive tactics are taking root and a reason why the subject of the report should never be allowed to mess with the header.  But whatever—could we deal with the harassment?  The was a strong consensus against DK in the last ANI, and the only consensus here against me seems to be that I say "fuck" a lot—I sure as fudge haven't been following DK around to prod and threaten him, and nobody here has accused me of anything like that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How is Hijiri not involved when people are proposing to i-ban them below as a result of what has arisen in this thread? AFAIK you're an experienced editor, so you should know ANI discussions are not restricted in scope to the people named in the original report, but in fact the actions of anyone involved in the dispute are likely to be considered in the interest of fairness. If the actions of anyone else start to be considered in detail, then sure, name then in the title. So far this has not happened. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And how much has that been influenced by DK's manipulating the header? I  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)
 * 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)


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


 * Likewise, I'm not exactly sure why Curly Turkey is still acting like his frequent WP:FACTIONing with Hijiri88 is some sort of secret. It has been out of the bag for a while now:
 * Curly Turkey's talk page is practically a forum between the two of the them (I have even seen Curly post a new message on his own talk page, addressed to no one in particular, knowing that Hijiri will automatically know it's for him)
 * Hijiri88 has canvassed Curly Turkey to get around his editing restrictions, which included Curly making multiple reverts for him while he was under WP:1RR
 * Hijiri88 and Curly often show up at discussions where only one of them is involved to support each other. If fact, they always support each other or have similar positions in disputes.
 * Hijiri88 even admitted to bias at the lastest ANI report, saying "I'm probably not going to post here again... I'm gonna recuse myself from !voting in any of the below proposals because my past interactions with both CT and DK are a matter of public record and if I was accused of bias ... well, the accuser would probably correct"... Yet he actually did go on to vote, post regularly, make biased one-sided proposals in Curly's favour, and be one of the driving forces behind the dispute (later denying the bias altogether).
 * The persistent meat-puppetry between Curly Turkey and Hijiri88 is a matter of public record, yet administrators have been completely unwilling to address their behaviour. I highly doubt the Arbitration Committee will feel the same.


 * The TBAN that Curly Turkey is so fond of using as his "shining example" also isn't valid at this point, which will be a key point at ArbCom. Not only was the entire ban built on false pretenses, but it was largely driven by the tag-teaming of Curly Turkey, Hijiri88, and — 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 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 . He then promptly messaged every administrator involved in the unblock individually and accused me of "Wiki-lawyering" (an accusation that the unblocking administrator completely shut down). He then began smearing and gossiping me to other users, which he is still randomly doing nine months later. Now, he's exhibiting clear WP:DIVA behaviour by posting more lies about me on his user page and threatening to retire. Paul, do you actually think I want any of this?


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


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




 * And by the way, I never claimed that there was a massive secret "cabal", although I have pointed out Curly Turkey's tendency to WP:FACTION with other users. The term "cabal" was coined by Curly, and recently, Hijiri88 parroted it by saying I'm part of some exclusive group of "unblockable users".  Dark Knight  2149  20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to personally thank the subjects of this discussion for proving that an IBAN could not come soon enough.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, as a member of the Cabal, I am happy to assure you ''there is no cabal.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
DarkKnight2149 and Curly Turkey are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions. DarkKnight2149 and Hijiri88 are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions.
 * Support as proposer. Also, the next party to continue the lame edit-war over the title of this section is gagging for an EW block.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * GoldenRing: Darkknight2149 has gone and done just that, despite your warning. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had not seen GoldenRing's comment when I made that revert. Still, you did not gain consensus before changing it to Darkknight249 v. Curly Turkey, even though everyone (including administrators) told you it was fine the way it was.  Dark Knight  2149  21:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support both the two-way interactions bans (DK<>CT and DK<>H88), per my above. I have asked DK2149 for the rationale behind posting a templated warning to Curly Turkey's talk page, and he said that this rationale will be provided here. That'll be something that may influence whether I think the interaction bans are sufficient at this time. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 10:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for the rationale from as to why a templated warning was a good idea. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.  Dark Knight  2149  22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "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. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, if you didn't want the answer, then why did you ask? And yes, this sort of behaviour hasn't been exclusive to this dispute, which is why the template was necessary. I have already tried to exit the thread. If you don't like what I have to say, please don't press me for anymore questions.  Dark Knight  2149  17:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are doing yourself no favours, I suggest you put the bunny back in the box. If you continue with this you are going to get a block. You are losing any sympathy you may have.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to answer a basic question such as "why was using a templated warning appropriate" without making further backhanded swipes at other editors. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You continuously pressed me to rationalise a disruption template after I had left the thread, and then you threatened to block me when I accused Curly of disruption again. Unless your goal was entrapment, that makes zero sense. Likewise, if you are going to make massive assumptions like "backhanded swipes" and "All three of them are editing in bad faith", I want to see you provide proof of your own. Nothing I have said has been deliberately untruthful. Perhaps you should ask me for examples, instead of assuming bad faith. If you have a template sanction to propose, then propose it.  Dark Knight  2149  17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have done nothing wrong here, and do not accept an involuntary sanction for disruption caused by another editor who was hounding me. I know an IBAN would theoretically prevent him from hounding me, but experience has taught me that that is not how it would work out. GoldenRing is well aware of this experience -- I opposed his RFA because he had expressed the opinion that I should be blocked as a result of another editor hounding me and me complaining about it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This "it's never me it's always them" attitude is exactly why an interaction ban is warranted. Hijiri88, it was you who brought up DarkKnight2149, for no reason whatsoever, in a completely unrelated thread.  One could argue you "hounded" him there, but it doesn't matter; a two-way fault-free interaction ban stops you all endlessly sniping and chipping away at one another and allows everyone else to have some respite from this nonsense. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  12:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And you appear to be implying GoldenRing is suggesting this interaction ban in bad faith because you opposed his RFA. I am sure this was not your intention, so I suggest you tweak your wording there. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  12:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment According to his user page, Hijiri88 has now retired, but I feel that this should not preclude an interaction ban being imposed, both to avoid DK2149 continuing in this way in Hijiri88's absence, and just in case Hijiri88 opts to return at a later date. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 13:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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).  Dark Knight  2149  22:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 *  Support  Clearly, from the oppose above, users are incapable of interacting constructively and clearly there is a lack of self awareness as to how unacceptable this behavior is. I have little doubt we'll be back here with this issue in less than 6 months, but it's worth trying.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Wow. Switch to strong support per Black Kite-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Dlohcierekim and replies, and the title squabble isn't helping anyone's case. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  16:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a reasonable tool to prevent problems in the future from returning. One-way interaction bans aren't useful anyways, the unsanctioned user has no reason to interact with someone who is prevented from responding.  IBANS are a good no-fault way of stopping problems; to say the users cannot interact with one another doesn't mean they are equally at fault, but it does mean that there won't be problems going forward between them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose two-way IBANS, and Support some sanction for DarkKnight2149. I've seen enough from DarkKnight2149 to convince me that some sanction is necessary, an IBAN, at a minimum. I believe that this editor bears a grudge against several editors, and is unwilling or (as I suspect) unable to burry the hatchet. But, I'm unconvinced that any sanctions&mdash;even supposedly "no-fault" ones&mdash;are warranted, for the other two editors, diffs anyone? Yes, I understand the "plague on both your houses" mentality, but still. Paul August &#9742; 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You could start with the one I provided, above, showing Hijiri88 bringing DarkKnight2149 up for no perceivable reason in a wholly unrelated thread. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much here. I think I read this exchange between you and DK (I meant Hijiri88 Paul August &#9742; 13:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)) differently than you do. DK Hijiri 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 DK Hijiri 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 &#9742; 12:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 12:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 &#9742; 13:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Per my previous comment above. An IBAN would certainly keep them from continuing to lie about me, indiscriminately smearing my name across Wikipedia, stalking and harassing me out-of-nowhere, randomly showing up where they're uninvolved and attacking me for having an opposing viewpoint (which is how this all started to begin with), ETC. Though keep in mind that I'm filing the Arbcom case request over the weekend regardless. Between the lying and WP:GAMEing, the frequent meatpuppetry between Curly and Hijiri, WP:BLUDGEONING, canvassing of specific administrators, ETC, this isn't an issue that's going to get solved at ANI. And yes, I fully intend on filing the case request. If Curly wants to accuse me of bluffing, I really don't care. When it's up, it's up.  Dark Knight  2149  20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.  Dark Knight  2149  20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Per Goldenring. Hijiri88's comment above seals the deal for me that he should also be subjected to it.--v/r - TP 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * TParis: a word or two seems to be missing from your rationale, rendering it unparsable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It parsed just fine. Or finely cut parsley.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hijiri's seal the deal"? I'm sorry, but I don't speak this dialect of Gibberish. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Folks brought up in my RfA back in '07 that I tend to type faster than I think, and I fubar my comments.  I wish I could say things have improved.--v/r - TP 00:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad I'm not the only one. My left and right hands are always out of synch.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Paul August. The one diff offered in evidence, supposedly "showing Hijiri88 bringing DarkKnight2149 up for no perceivable reason", does not even mention any names. The fact that DK inexplicably noticed immediately is just further damning evidence against DK. User:Fish and karate's pissy attitude towards Hijiri ("We are volunteers, not your skivvies", apparently) suggests he is less than neutral here. zzz (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 have barely interacted before this, and I'd say he has been very neutral to both sides.  Dark  Knight  2149  19:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My original reply: 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  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.  Dark  Knight  2149  19:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't need to ping a name for the user to be mentioned. It's clear who Hijiri88 is discussing.  And the - ahem - pissy attitude was for Hijiri88 complaining because an admin had not responded to his ANI post.  You will note I did actually address the problem (the problematic editor was blocked). <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No complaining: he was making a joke. This was pretty obvious, but in any case, he immediately said so. I don't really see why you are still defending it. I notice you also accused him of making up "conspiracy theories" - hardly surprising that he would mention something he thought would counter that accusation. zzz (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A jokey complaint is still a complaint. I do admit I have a bee in my bonnet about users complaining when administrative processes take too long, and I do get more defensive about it than I should. I'll bear it in mind. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing how little effort the supporters appear to be putting into examining the evidence and context. The same thing happened initially at the ANI that got DK TBANned—there was even an early proposal to TBAN myself, until people started looking at the actual evidence and started interacting with DK.  Very soon, the community turned on DK, with community consensus for both a block and a TBAN (though only the TBAN was enacted).  Look how quick DK is to attack those such as Paul August who have also called for people to slow down and examine the evidence—that alone should be setting bells off. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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) .  Dark Knight  2149  23:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And predictably, as soon as another opposer turns up (Signedzzz this time), DK whips out another accusation of bad faith—supposedly we're also in cahoots because he !voted "per CT & SMc" in a deletion discussion? Again, this follows the same behavioural pattern DK displays throughout the ANI that led to his TBAN. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per all the involved parties behaviour and comments during this ANI. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I might have missed it, but I don't think Hijiri88 has participated here at all. Paul August &#9742; 01:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC) (My mistake Paul August &#9742; 01:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC))
 * He's commented here three times, Paul. He even voted...  Dark Knight  2149  01:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks I see that now (I was using the wrong search string). Paul August &#9742; 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Wait, what? Do I know you, ? 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.  Dark Knight  2149  02:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 — 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.  Dark  Knight  2149  03:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.  Dark Knight  2149  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)
 * 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.  Dark Knight  2149  06:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hence the need for the IBAN's. "All three" editors.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.  Dark Knight  2149  19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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.  Dark Knight  2149  23:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * LoosingIt: could you please clarify whether "shown by copious diffs above" means you clicked to through examine them? Are you referring to the  or the  of the diffs? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Amen. GoldenRing (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support at fault two-way IBAN for all involved editors as proposed, per the 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)
 * 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)
 * Can confirm I also received this. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 09:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Motion to close
Please? Someone? GoldenRing (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'ANybody?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Hello Hello Hello Hello Hello  <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  14:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On it. GiantSnowman 14:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, someone buy the man a beer. GoldenRing (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke, User:Davey2010, User:Emir of Wikipedia
Can I have some admin to fix Emilia Clarkes page, they keep removing England from the info box. For years and years it's always been England, U.K. yet they are not following MoS and have started to make up their own rules. It's really annoying that this has suddenly started being stupid even know I tried to explain to them. Govvy (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has shown where it goes against MoS. We are following the template documentation for template:Infobox person. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
 * as you have posted on both editors talk page about this you will want to read WP:FORUMSHOPPING in regards to this thread. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of forum shopping, I still would like some oversight, I don't understand why a manual of style that's been used for ages, no one seems to notice and then veteran editors don't notice or follow, even when someone points that out. Govvy (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (Post close comment/edit conflicted with close) Few points to make::
 * A) - We were discussing it here so there was absolutely no need to reinsert the disputed edit as an IP and there was certainly no need to escalate it here,
 * B) - The "UK" removal was done in October 2017 and seemingly went unnoticed - Prior to Oct '17 the infobox stated "London, United Kingdom" - It at point in 2017 stated her hometown, London, UK but it ended up being vandalised/changed repeatedly but the "UK" removal was made then and now without any sort of consensus - Like I said I wanted a guideline that stated this and other than a template documentation none was given,
 * I told you repeatedly to go to the talkpage although ofcourse on a technically I maybe should've done but I was not aware that edit existed nor up until now make it clear that this edit existed, Again all of this belongs on a talkpage. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland
Mass reverting and mass deletion nominations by User:Dennis Bratland. Can someone look into this? Oceanh (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm 99.999% certain this is an other example of prolific long term abuser . See Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. If not, apologies, but if it walks and talks and acts like a duck... Europefan has an extremely distinctive and unmistakable editing pattern, and this fits it to a T. I'm happy to pause and wait for checkuser confirmation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I had a CU check run recently on a Europefan sock, and this account wasn't detected. It's also been here almost 12 years. Home Lander (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dif's please.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In case this helps, I believe this is regarding 200+ reverts of Oceanh and {db-sock|Europefan} CSDing of pages created by Oceanh, listed here. <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Levivich, that's correct. Oceanh (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The only thing I have to add is that initially several editors worked aggressively to remove all edits by Europefan (probably not the original sockmaster, but that's what we call him), and after a few months the Deny recognition effort worked and Europefan went relatively dark for a couple years. More recently we've slowed down and have only blocked the socks as they appeared obvious without removing the edits, which correlates with an increase in Europefan activity. It appears to be time to clean house again. Oceanh might have been here for 12 years, but this sockmaster is has very likely been with us for at least as long. One of the reasons this kind of socking is so harmful is the collateral damage. Still looks like a duck though. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, dear God. I have my doubts, but DAMN! That's an incredibly serious accusation against a long term user-- been here about as long as I have.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Europefan has been around longer than you or me or Oceanh. Look at the histories of the many blocked sock accounts, and you tell me how much different they really are. Look at the global contributions. I understand why Oceanh could feel offended, but this sockmaster really is that bad, and really is that hard to manage. Like plugging holes in a collapsing dam. I do apologize to Oceanh if I'm wrong, but look at the evidence yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just declined a bunch of G5 speedy deletions of articles created by Oceanh and tagged by Dennis Bratland. G5, as with other speedy deletion criteria, is intended for obvious cases only. G5 speedy deletion tagging isn't an appropriate way to accuse a longstanding contributor of being a sockpuppet. These should not be tagged unless it's established that Oceanh really is a sockpuppet, and at 45,000 edits over more than a decade s/he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Dennis Bratland also tagged some articles which weren't created by Oceanh or any other sockpuppet for speedy deletion, where the only obvious connection was that Oceanh added a category recently. One was written by an admin.  Hut 8.5  22:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've closed the report at SPI as meritless. As an aside, Oceanh has been around years longer than Europefan.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I apologize. I'll be more cautious on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:LOCOJAYW
After making this revert and going to the user talk page for a warning, it seems either the user has never looked at their talk page or doesn't care or both, but it seems further actions are required. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. Swarm  {talk}  20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support :P  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it time to evoke the Captain's speech from Cool Hand Luke?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Talk:Pikmin 2
This is a slightly complicated case. There is an editor at Pikmin 2,, 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 [], 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. [].

Second, they have stated that they are erasing the phrase "underground cave" from wikipedia [], as they believe they are an expert and have judged the term redundant[], 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 []. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's totally an agenda. I am free to answer any questions, but the consensus I wrote on the talk page of Pikmin 2 was clearly my own interpretation of the discussion when Basil refused to answer my simple question. And no, I'm not avoiding an RfC, all things when I'm ready to do so. I'm not operating on Basil's schedule. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Battling to change "underground cave" to "cave" in an article about a game is pretty, umm, lame. Find something substantive to work on and forget that article. Perhaps people are dumb and do not understand your point, but it doesn't matter so forgetting about it would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I love a good argument, that I can't deny - so maybe it is lame from that perspective but you could say any mundane task here on wikipedia is lame and that's really not fair to those folks. Honestly, it's really a tempest in a teapot. I'm not arguing for much because my edits would equally be understandable. But the resistance to it is irrational. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing tautology improves the project, so I understand Leitmotiv's motives. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Leitmotiv was warned for long-term edit warring about the word 'underground' at Pikmin 2 per a complaint at WP:AN3 which was closed on 8 January. I have explained to him how RfCs work, though he has yet to explore that option. The AN3 seems to be an exchange of complaints that the other party isn't discussing properly. Anybody who knows how to open an ANI should also know how to do an RfC, so the way is open for the real discussion. Since both parties know what the real next step ought to be, I suggest this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this ANI isn’t about the edit warring, I provided it here for context. This ANI is 1. About the conduct of misrepresenting comments as my own. No editor has the right to speak for or as another editor. And 2. A pattern of disruptive editing at all articles with the phrase “underground cave” based on a personal agenda. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that removing tautology insn't improving the project, that it is a personal agenda? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I am saying I don’t agree with their assessment of “underground cave” as a redundancy. Early in this debate in the summer, another editor pointed out that the definion of caves include hillside caves, making a distinction between hillside and underground not redundant. In the example above, the owls burrow in underground caves, while without the term I think the average reader would assume a hillside cave. I disagree that their specific agenda is improving the project. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  17:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You may disagree with my reasoning on my edits regarding redundancy, but that hardly makes my edits disruptive nor an agenda - I'm improving Wikipedia in my own way, that's the only "agenda" I'm guilty of. If there is a special case needing closer examination, I'm happy to discuss the need for clarification/distinguishing certain types of caves in those instances, should they arise. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is an unacceptable use of english, but wont comment further. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be a good place to discuss the tautology of "underground cave" since Basilsauridae refuses to answer some fundamental questions I asked her at Pikmin 2, even though I know this thread is more about perceived slights. It's okay to use hillside cave as that is descriptive of it's locale, if there is a need for it. But a hillside cave is still underground. I've never deleted a "hillside cave" for redundancy. If there is a need to label a cave as "cave in a field" that too is fine, but it still remains that both a hillside cave and a cave in a field are both underground. The very thing that Basilsauridae cannot answer is why there is a need for distinction on Pikmin 2, nor any other editor on that talk page. There is nothing special about the cave at Pikmin 2, which contradict's Basilsauridae's concern for confusion on other pages, because she has repeatedly dodged answering why a distinction is important at Pikmin 2. For what it's worth - Cave den or cave burrow would also suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have answered the question several times, you just don’t like the answer. 1. It leads to an underground cave level. It describes the kind of level as well as location. 2. I disagree that it is a redundant phrase. And no, this is not the place for the Pikmin 2 debate, as you’ve been repeatedly told: the appropriate venue for that is an RfC. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  18:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it's okay for you to discuss it prior to my comments. You're still dodging why this cave needs a distinction when "cave" would suffice. Are there other types of caves in the game that could confuse the reader/player as to which cave we're talking about? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not be engaging in this debate with you here or outside of an RfC. I have expressed my opinion fully and reasonably on the talk page, and summarized here for anyone interested. That is not the purpose of this ANI and you are aware of the appropriate venue. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  19:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the question of tautologies (or not): sea cave, glacier cave, etc. --JBL (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A sea cave is always underground, even if it is also underwater. A glacier cave could be a particular exception in some cases, I suppose. Anything lying on the ground, could be considered a part of the ground, including the mineral ice. However, I could see some exceptions as a small possibility if somehow a reader was confusing a dirt ground with one of ice, though off the top of my head I can't think of any. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As always, ANI isn't the place for content disputes so not sure that the above discussion is helpful. IMO it's fine for an editor to change one or a few articles per WP:BOLD, and then participate in a discussion to defend that change if they are reverted. I would suggest that changing a large number of articles enmasse is likely to be disruptive unless there is an RfC or some other wider discussion that establishes the term is clearly wrong or unneeded. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary section break by an uninvolved editor
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 &#124; contribs 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  and drop it. The world will keep turning whether we specify caves are underground or not. -- a. spam &#124; contribs 22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Note: There is an ongoing discussion about this at ANEW, in which the involved editors and two admin have participated. Not sure if this thread here should be closed while that one there is resolved. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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,, 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)
 * 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)


 * The scholars of Google Scholar seem to think there's such a thing as an underground cave . See also the ngrams . I get the impression there's been a shift of usage over the decades, and Leitmotiv clings to some traditionalist definition. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think in most instances on this issue, I am persuaded by WP:YOUDONTSAY. Levivich (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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., 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Too many L's and V's. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  L Evivich  04:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh that is rich! literal lols over here. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's one of my favorite essays. I look forward to vandalizing it someday. 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)
 * 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 with three v's. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This thread has become A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE UNDERGROUND CAVES, ALL ALIKE. Can someone close? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Here we have a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT:
 * Ignoring guidelines set at WP:USRD/STDS and claiming they don't exist, even though they are visible in the hidden editor text
 * Repeatedly adding WP:POV & WP:ORIGINAL research
 * Ignoring multiple requests from other users to stop adding and reverting various edits
 * Blanking multiple talk page warnings

<b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The individual does have a 'heavy' revert button. I had some disagreements with him a few weeks ago at the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections article. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User is within his rights to remove warnings from own talk page per WP:BLANKING. Lorstaking (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging and . <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, this user makes numerous poor edits (such as adding multiple junctions for one town in one entry in the infobox even if the junctions aren't connected, which is misleading) and constantly reverts edits.  Dough   4872   14:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This user has now switched to an ip address,. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarification, the user keeps switching back and forth without making sure that they are logged in. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

-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. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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
 * , 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)


 * Unfortunately ignoring guidelines continues. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 06:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(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)
 * 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)
 * Indeed. This dif from above in response to being told they need to log in on both desktop and laptop lacks the collaborative, collegial spirit we all long for, and goes to show there is a problem with the user's ability to work and play well in this environment--  Q.E.D.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk)
 * PS. We are allowed to blank talk page messages, certainly. But there comes a time when it is clear user is not responding to valid concerns and refusing to discuss collegially.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User is constantly reverting me at Interstate 80 in New Jersey (See history) by adding cities that are not on signs to the exit list, which is in violation of MOS:RJL. User is showing little regard to the MOS for exit lists.  Dough   4872   01:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He's just violated 3RR on that page, so a block for that would seem to be in order. Maybe an extended one on account of his persistent unwillingness to understand and respect consensus. --Sable232 (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Could an (uninvolved) admin review this before it gets archived? --Rschen7754 01:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sooner than later. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Please close this. Now you've seen it firsthand at Super Mario. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, since I’ve reverted him twice, I’m now involved, but had I not, I would definitely have blocked him. He does not understand OR and edit wars to keep his OR in place in articles. Additionally, he has been warned, but has a WP:IDHT about it. I believe he deserves a short block. Sergecross73   msg me  02:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your turn. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh oh... what's going on in here, fellas? What do I need to look into doing?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ANI is pretty busy, we need someone to close this since Sergecross73 is unable to. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that. I'll examine the discussion here, the user's recent contributions and conduct, and other relevant information. I'll determine the action necessary and I'll close the discussion. Stand by...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion here, the user's recent contributions and conduct on Wikipedia, and the concerns expressed - I feel that the following can be asserted and based off of my uninvolved analysis and findings. :


 * 1) has a long history of violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while making edits and adding content to articles - the concerns expressed and the user's contributions show that he has repeatedly added unsourced content, original research, and content that does not comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
 * 2) has failed to take multiple discussions held involving his edits and the policies cited that Peterjack1 has been violating - and take the proper time to review, understand, and apply them to future edits to articles and content. This is prevalent when I read through the discussion held on Talk:Super Mario and the edits made to the article (as well as others) in response to those discussions.
 * 3) has not demonstrated a desire to take the feedback and discussions to heart and improve upon their edits. Some responses and comments made by Peterjack1 (even in this discussion here) show a battleground-like demeanor, and a belief that their edits are not problematic and that collaboration and consensus is not their desired goal.
 * 4) will likely not improve their edits without administrative intervention, and that administrative action is necessary in order to stop the behavior and prevent future violations of Wikipedia's policies.


 * Given my findings above, I am blocking Peterjack1 for a period of one month so that he'll (hopefully) take this time to self-reflect, review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and understand them fully, refocus their efforts and priorities to put the project's growth and expansion as a top priority, and work with other editors in a positive and collaborative manner to help to make Wikipedia a place for everyone to visit, read, and edit and with articles and content written in the highest quality, neutrality, accuracy, and verifiability that we can provide.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

post hoc discussion and socking follow up

 * You have a lot of us admins who can't block due to being involved very thankful for your decision. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 05:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding to the above editors' request for help so quickly and also for taking the time to thoroughly explain your reasoning. <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 06:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mitchazenia, Levivich - You're welcome. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

or, Now we have a solid case of socking, please take a look at , and toss out while you're at it. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * reported Spyro5478 at SPI.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In these situations where an individual is quite headstrong, many socks will likely be created. Heads up. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Peterjack1. note to archiver When archiving the main thread of this discussion, please include this subthread.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you archive a level2 section without including level3 sections below it? Natureium (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the 74 IP that he'd used previously. Sad,-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback tool abuse / 3RR
User:Plaba123 is abusing rollback rights and violated WP:3RR: 78.54.224.108 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&diff=879243744&oldid=879243707
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&diff=next&oldid=879243854
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&diff=879244168&oldid=879244145

Karkolekter
This account was created on 12th January. While their  seem constructive, their  is tagging a talk page with a WikiProject - which seems to demonstrate knowledge beyond a newbie. However, problems really begin on, where they create a draft talk page with contents "Stream THE HOMIE." The matching draft page has contents "Please stream me", created by. Since this particular account only made that one contribution on 3rd January, it's not in my opinion enough behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry. However, today, Karkolekter has been adding deceased wikipedian to User talk:Til Eulenspiegel, and. When I with them on their talk page, the response I recieved was. This seems to be fairly obvious trolling, but doesn't quite fit neatly into any other bucket, so I'm putting it here. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  20:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What response are you looking for? 209.152.44.202 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Absent convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, while not quite fitting a WP:VOA due to their early edits, I'd suggest a NOTHERE block for trolling. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The adding (and edit warring over) of a "deceased Wikipedian" template at might be a clue. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There's something there that you couldn't see, Bellezzasolo, namely that Draft:Rich White Man has a deleted history also. It was created by User:KyleDelGaudio on 11 Nov 2018, and at that time read like this:
 * Rich White Man is an American Rapper and Music Producer pseudonym of Kyle Del Gaudio from Southern California... etc — 9 lines of copyvio description of the fine qualities of this rapper have been removed.


 * That draft was speedied by RHaworth as an unambiguous copyright infringement, and on 3 Jan 2019 was recreated with only the text "Please stream me" by User:Real Rich White Man, a new account that had been created in the same minute as the new version of the draft. It seems very obvious that Real Rich White Man and KyleDelGaudio are one and the same, only here for self-promotion. I have blocked both as NOTHERE. It seems likely enough that Karkolekter is another sock (or friend) of KyleDelGaudio, but I don't feel sure enough to sockblock it. The Til Eulenspiegel connection inclines me to block it for trolling, though. Anybody else got an opinion on that? Bishonen &#124; talk 21:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
 * PS, yes, I've pasted in a copyvio above — the green text — but I'm morally sure that's only Kyle himself using his own rather boastful text. Oh, OK, I'll remove it in a while. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
 * (ec)Maybe this "deceased Wikipedian" notice has something to do with the fact that a conversation on WikiMedia was started last week asking for Til Eulenspiegel to be globally banned from all WMF projects. It seems unlikely that there isn't some connection. This editor(s) might be someone who knew, worked with or fought with Til Eulenspiegel. I don't think this was random vandalism. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Although, after reading Bish's messages, the fact that they edited such different topic areas might mean that I am incorrect! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or it might mean Til has a secret life as a rapper! Bishonen &#124; talk 22:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC).

Till Eulenspiegel- There's a name one does not see every day.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eng. Lit. major comment: Unless you've read V. that is, where one Rachel Owlglass, along with Benny Profane (a shlemiel and human yo-yo) is one of The Whole Sick Crew. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Karkolekter is probably, , and a bunch of vandalism-only accounts, including and. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And those names appear to show that it's this LTA. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 00:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * I've semi-protected the article for 3 hours, that should sort out that issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yep, just noticed that. Now protected until 2am UTC. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , the IP-hopper is back at it. Please re-semi, for longer this time? Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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 <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any recent blocks in your log. What are you talking about specifically? <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  17:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You know you're required to notify, right?  And that some diffs or links would help out those who are puzzled by reading this. There's also a really big risk of this getting treated as The Boy Who Cried Wolf otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I presume this is in relation to Malta convoys and Talk:Malta convoys Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I request that Trek be reminded of the the advice given to him here a few days ago to take it to RFC. He didn't, so I did and now he's laying blame again. I added detail to the article under Background and Prelude to get the ball rolling and he returned to peremptory content removals. I had another look at WP:vandalism which covers at least some of Trek's edits but I also tried to move on, in cooperation with other editors and he's ruined it. It's getting boring. Keith-264 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (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)
 * ♠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  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  23:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  03:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * So go ahead & do it per nom. Levivich (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment The unfairness bullshit and railing against all admins (temper tantrum throwing) has predisposed me against . A little less martyrdom and a lot more factual reporting would go a long way to reducing the drama and allowing the community, including us dreadful admins, to objectively read the situation. Even so. No one is right when everybody is wrong. Mutual IBAN's for these two and TBAN's for both from the article in question. Let the MILHIST people sort out the content.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * addendum per Nil Einne and per Slatersteven  and per MPJ-DK.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk)
 * My comment was not about this dispute, but another.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would oppose any talk of IBANs. I don't see that two editors with such obvious overlaps in interest would benefit at all from such a thing. I would encourage both to try and resolve this dispute though, and that's probably by both of them agreeing to run some sort of RfC through milhist, for both to pitch their standpoints and suggested texts, and for both to agree to stand well back from it thereafter whilst others agree something and write it. No matter what sort of 'hypocritical sabotage' either of them might think of the result. Otherwise it is likely to end in *BANs. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apropos vandalism, I had another look at the WP and find that Nil Einne's judgement is untenable. As for comments here, it seems to me that Trek is my best advocate. He's got his own way with the article, his peremptory edits have continued and yet he still plays the martyr. I have tried to move on with a RFC and engagement with other editors who seem willing to take my edits as they come, rather than to condemn them out off hand. I hope that this continues. I don't have this page on watch so if anyone wants me to see a comment pls ping me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Head of state & related articles
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)
 * A fair question, and one that has been recently much on my mind.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Head of state has been protected by TideRolls-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The individual continues to mess with other articles. I suppose there's no way that Wikimedia can track him down & perma ban. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP addresses can't be indef-blocked. Perhaps requesting an edit filter would be a better solution? –FlyingAce✈hello 14:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Evidence to support this:

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

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

After that, from August to October, he began adding side shots to articles. Again he never took side shots before until I did.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kia_Picanto&diff=863719283&oldid=862152307
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volvo_XC40&diff=855593190&oldid=855502294
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porsche_Cayenne&diff=861579492&oldid=860432902
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitsubishi_Eclipse_Cross&diff=862140498&oldid=860852053

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


 * Hello . 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bang on the money . I like learning., 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 , . 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Going easy is always a good approach and ambitious photographers are commonly unable to be neutral when comparing their own work to photos taken by another editor. Aggressive pushing of one's own work into an article is disruptive, and photographers should always defer to the opinions of uninvolved editors. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Given the number of editors who insist that everyone else must do things their way, it's startling yet somewhat refreshing to see someone insisting that someone else must not do things their way. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A good example of a discussion in relation to images is Talk:Audi_Q7, 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 -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


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


 * WP:BRD is technically an official policy. It is linked to WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:BOLD. I also have a problem with you too. Thats why I set out a compromise on Talk:Audi_Q7, 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


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


 * The point being is I did the exact same thing with OSX. However he didn't complain, but you seem to be the only one who cares about your images and only will allow reverts when a user lets you know. I told you the compromise, which would solve our issues. Its essential that policies are given to users because the fact remains your edit summaries when you revert, you don't even do or you think your image is "fine" when in fact it is not. The point of CARPIX is that it was told to me, 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. -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


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


 * I think thats the main problem with Vauxford, he wants me to focus on non-UK cars, so I believe hes the one thats being disruptive. You cannot stop anyone from picturing anything. It seems extremely inconvienent, and unfair because the same cars that exist on the Australian market can be sold in the UK. Vauxford, doesn't matter if a Holden Commodore in London or a Vauxhall Astra appear in Australia, whoever pictures the better one can be used. Its plain simple. I have a strong stickler for higher quality images. Vauxford has accused me of not able to make my own decisions. This is the type of annoyance that I see from Vauxford thinking he'd have the right to replace all his images. In addition, users are expected to let Vauxford know if they are to revert his images, without him seeing for himself. He believes all photographers should have their own styles. When i began in 2014, I was only using an iPad to take car photos and a crummy camera, but OSX helped me improve my photos. He also believes that his images are more superior to mine and accuses mine of being a "carbon copy" . 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 -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


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


 * I hate to be a grinch, but we have different ways of photographing cars. , 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 , 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


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


 * Remember, this is my right. I am allowed to do that if I wish. Remember the discussion we had with . 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nim - These semi-retired/retired templates are to be used when you're not really on any more or are taking long breaks away or are no longer editing here at all .... You added the template(s) to your userpage and then 7-8 hours later removed them,
 * 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. – Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be brutally honest, 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 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. -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


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


 * For some reason things like this come up every so often regarding automotive images. I admit I'm not entirely familiar with this specific dispute as it seems to largely involve late-model European-market cars so I haven't seen most of the edits in question (although this decidedly unhelpful one is among the few).
 * A large part of the problem is this: an image of a car spotted in a parking lot is rarely an excellent one. By nature, there's other cars, buildings, people, etc. as distractions in the background - and these images usually end up excessively cropped as a result. Sometimes one gets lucky and the car is in the right place and things work out (Vauxford has some very good ones), but generally the best photos come from the car's owner, who can position the car well against a good background and get the proper angle on it (many don't, but that's beside the point). However, most people aren't going to upload pictures of their personal vehicles, so that leaves the parking-lot ones. And most are perfectly fine for the purpose, but the result of that is what you see above - constant debate, and sometimes edit warring, over whose image is the most adequate. In a lot of the discussions I've seen, if the image were graded on a 100-point scale the debate would be over which is a 55 and which is a 56. While there is no "Don't change it if it's already good enough" rule, there does come a point where Wikipedia is not helped in any way by such an incremental improvement. It ends up being a revolving door of people wanting their own image showcased because there's not enough difference between the two to simply select one. Photography seems to attract the most eager ones; I recall in the past prolific photographers being followed around by others trying to become the same. The taunting noted in the above diffs is going much too far though - that sounds like some sort of grudge.
 * EurovisionNim, your comment of I can...supersede WP:CARPIX... is cause for concern. That guideline is (or was, until the massive back-and-forth changes over the past month) the product of consensus. Nobody gets to throw that out in order to fit their own photography. --Sable232 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Its not violating any Wikipedia policies, so why should I change? OSX expected all car spotters, including myself to follow his set guidelines to the highest standards. Through your addition of these images, I took the chance to build onto the discussion, as I saw some worse examples. Also the comment "...why can't you focus on cars not in the UK..." 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 -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


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


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


 * Vauxford - as stated by others above, it's perfectly fine for an editor to use the edit summaries, responses, and other content from others like EurovisionNim has been doing - remember that nobody owns any content on Wikipedia and everything is free for other editors to take and use for themselves. Over the many years that I've been an editor on Wikipedia, I've taken the good templates, scripts, responses, edit summaries, etc that I've seen others use and I incorporated them to improve my editing and how I communicate with others; they helped shape who I'm seen as and how I communicate to this day. If I were met with messages such as, "don't copy me or my things or I'll report you" (such as what you've been conveying to EurovisionNim here, on my user talk page, and in other places), I wouldn't be the editor I am today. This project and building this encyclopedia is what should come as first priority in your mind, and if someone uses your style of editing, adding edit summaries, communicating with others, or use of templates in order to improve this project and make Wikipedia a positive experience for others, you should be happy and you should be proud that somebody sees what you're doing in such a high regard and enough that they incorporate it into their edits and habits. There are editors (such as, , , 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)


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


 * A case like this does result a grey area so I don't expect any action to be taken anyway but I just want to have these complaints come to light about him. Another thing that I find irritating is that he stalks me everywhere I go. I know he does as proven when I made a edit on some Czech village that was razed by the Nazis and I added a photo. It couldn't be any more unrelated to cars or anything in his field yet he insist of making some form of edit, even when it wasn't necessary. What you said above is completely fine and I'm not against it but the way Nim does it on a scale equivalent of a parasite. I don't stalk and get right up Charles, Davey or some other editor's back on a daily basis. --Vauxford (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Vauxford - If an editor is doing everything that you do, that's an opportunity to assume good faith, understand that they don't have the level of confidence and self-esteem as you or many others do, and to mentor someone. Help the user to build their confidence and their self-esteem and be there for them when they need you. Is that truly and honestly something you can't do for someone who needs it? Saying to them, "you're copying me too much and that I'm going to report you for it" isn't going to help them become their own person as you mention above as something you wish they'd do. It's going to push them away and make them feel isolated and unable to apply their enthusiasm and their personal desire to improve the project and truly feel like they belong somewhere. I understand that Wikipedia is not therapy, but what EurovisionNim is doing isn't against policy. Just help him. You may disagree with me here, but I don't think that giving other users and editors praise and encouragement, the assurance that there's nothing to be afraid of, positive reinforcement for their good work and their growth, and the mentorship, words, and tools they need to build their self-confidence and their self-esteem so that they feel welcome on Wikipedia and that they belong here is something that I consider too much to ask of experienced editors who truly care about this project, want to see its popularity and participation grow, and want to be looked upon as a leader and an editor that the community respects and will "shush everyone in the room" when you stand up to speak because they all want to hear your words of knowledge and wisdom.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ., 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


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


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


 * Here


 * Here


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


 * Please remember, 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 -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


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


 * 3RR is a brightline - It doesn't mean you go up to that line, The moment you are reverted you go to the talkpage ....
 * I'm sensing a short block may be in order here.... – Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 02:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven’t been previously warned about 3RR in the last I think 4 years. How would a block be effective if I haven’t been warned. I mean I know about 3RR, but it doesnt mean that you should block. Besides I discussed this with 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. — Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * Personally, 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * No . 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


 * Comment - between this, the taunting, the calling editors out in edit summaries, and the fact that EurovisionNim's (thankfully now-removed) "images to avoid" section on the project conventions page was selected to be mostly Vauxford's work, it appears to me that EurovisionNim has some sort of fixation on and/or grudge against Vauxford. I'd strongly advise Nim to disengage in order to avoid making this issue any bigger.
 * Despite not being directly involved, I've also noticed that these ongoing image disputes are starting to frustrate other automotive editors. Something else for you to be mindful of. --Sable232 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * I've further made a compromise with Vauxford in relation to the Outlander image . 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban between User:EurovisionNim and User:Vauxford and topic ban for User:EurovisionNim on automobile related articles
I would like to propose a interaction ban between the two users at odds here since it seems they are both at odds and can't seem to find a common ground and at this point just seem to be yelling at each other for the sake of yelling. I also propose a topic ban for Nim on automobile related article for a short period as it seems they take other users edits and/or reverts on those articles way to seriously and is constantly getting into disputes over them. I believe the topic ban would give Nim some time to reflect and maybe find some other areas they are interested in on Wikipedia and alleviate disputes on those articles. TheMesquito buzz  02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nom, but I would agree with bellow, due to ownership issues that have popped up, I believe the TBAN should be idef due to Nim disrupting the Automobile project a ton.  TheMesquito  buzz  03:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum It would seems since this ANI is not going Nim's way, he is "throwing the toys out of the pram" and retiring under a cloud as per his talk page. TheMesquito  buzz  08:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Be aware that this is the 5th time Nim has "retired" throughout this whole ANI, he done it first when I was considering of creating a ANI and he said he taking a Wikibreak as well as requested a self-block, this lasted only 3 days. After I created the ANI, he "retired" again follow by a "semi-retired" which lasted no longer then a day. He then stated he cannot retire follow by another Wikibreak. When things started to not go his way, he "retired" again follow by a semi-retired which only lasted 2 days. I presume this "retired" stunt would be his last, seeing as he blanked his entire user page. --Vauxford (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he takes a month off and thinks about what he has done and addresses it (ie: no more obsessive ownership of photos and articles, and how he has been disruptive). Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

*Support but I'm going one step further and suggesting the IBAN and TOPCBAN should be for a year indefinetely - To be honest I want to say indef but I feel that may be slightly over the top ..., Anyway as there have been constant issues for some time between these 2 as well as with other users I feel an IBAN/TOPICBAN may be for the best for a year,
 * Whilst Vauxford does primarily update and replace images here (the same as Nim) as far as I can see no one's ever had an issue with Vauxford although I do object to him replacing ALL images to his own - That being said his images are much better quality than those he's replacing,
 * Nim on the other hand appears to have caused issues with a good few editors and doesn't seem to be listening to anyone and unfortunately at this point in time has become disruptive to the project,
 * I suggested to Nim a few days that he should take a break for a bit which seemingly went ignored so as such I see no other viable option than a IBAN/TOPICBAN. Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Indef TBAN and 6 month IBAN - As of late I've replaced a good chunk of Australian car images with European ones (because English Wikipedia goes beyond Australia and because I believe there should be a variety of images) - Nim had reverted myself and others on almost all articles and there are clear signs of IDONTHEARTHAT in his edit summaries as well as on my talkpage (here and here) and there's certainly a lot of oWNership taking place,
 * It's also worth noting Nim has gone to every single Wikimedia Project and has added all of their images to these various Projects which given this and their behaviour here I would certainly say there's a very unhealthy obsession here,
 * Given their mass-Wikimedia image replacements as well as their behaviour here I believe they should be TOPICBANNED indefintely from automobiles and anything and everything related to them - Outside of cars Nim isn't a problem and so despite their behaviour I would consider blocking to be OTT at this present time. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment A year would definitely seem excessive Davey2010. Wouldn't it be better if someone who's the first time being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard get like a short period of the ban say 3-4 months. One year seems overly excessive because on the first report, I haven't been blocked for anything, except for self-requested blocks . 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 . 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 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. had 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. -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support.  I see that EurovisionNim mentioned in one of hs rants on this page that I identified him as "Comrade Psychopath".   Guilty as charged. I might choose to say I intended it not necessarily as a diagnosis but more as a throwaway remark.   Ill-judged for people - and there are lots - who believe that psychcopathology carries or should carry a stigma.  But there are serious issues.   The fellow insists on uploading and linking mediocre pictures of cars to wiki articles on an industrial scale and reacts to disagreement by treating the wikipedia project and fellow contributors with contempt.   The way he assiduously wiki-groomed Vauxford over more than a year was border-line creepy, and seems to have ended in tears.   But either way, this is not what wikipedia is for.   Or am I missing the point of something here?   The more important issue arises where he risks degrading wikipedia by insisting on inserting own photographs most of which are not terribly good.   In the process he wastes huge amounts of other folks' time as here.   And there is no way to calculate the number of potential contributors who take one look at the way he behaves and wander off to do something else.   He says he is very young somewhere.   Maybe he is young enough to learn?   He must be.  But the evidence of the last few years suggests that he is a relatively slow learner.   No one reading simply this page will know the sheer scale of EurovisionNim's contributions to talk pages.   But wikistats can no doubt be interrogated.   And this page does itself, after a couple of days, give a reasonable flavour of the sort of thing we're faced with.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now that EurovisionNim has dragged me into this, its time to get some facts right. Back in 2014 EurovisionNim was going on a spree replace ok and good photographs with one that were of poor quality and would restore his own photographs when they were removed. It is clear that EurovisionNim doesn't take on any feedback or criticism given about his actions and behaviour. These are the reverts that I did back in 2014 and most were of vehicles not buildings;, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Bidgee (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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, 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. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it wouldn't have been raised at all if you never made the following statement, "I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014.", which wasn't truthful! What do you think I was going to do, leave it unchallenged? Though one thing to come out of it is that you haven't changed, you continue to push what image/photo you want, you can try and say its a totally different issue but its the behaviour that you have that is the problem and it hasn't changed from 2014 to present. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also going onto other people's talk pages is not a wise move. Bidgee (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I doesn't see like EurovisionNim can't let it go and is showing strong signs of having ownership issues. 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)
 * I agree, I'm almost tempted to start a different proposal for a temporary block alongside the TBAN/IBAN, this is getting ridiculous. TheMesquito  buzz  02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


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

Proposal: Article restriction
The suggestion:"If EurovisionNim wishes to use a different image for a given article, they are to start a discussion on the article's talkpage with both the currently used image and the proposed replacement for the purposes of gaining concensus. This discussion must run for a minimum period of 48 hours. Failure to engage in such a discussion will result in a one-month topic ban from automobiles, broadly construed. Repeat infractions will result in escalating topic bans of one week (ie: third infraction is one month + 2 weeks TBAN)." Would this be workable? Dax  Bane  03:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this idea better. Its more sensible and also it's easier as of course I'd like to contribute. In fact I'd be more than happy to. Would this be indefinite or something? I'll be happy to accept this topic ban voluntarily -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question, would six months without infraction before you could appeal be palatable?
 * Side thought: if the IBAN (one way or both) above is set down in concurrency with this proposal, perhaps a limited exception allowing both to participate in the consensus forming outlined in this proposal be a good idea? Dax   Bane  04:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually the 6 month waiting period is reserved if you have an indef block or site ban. A topic ban, i don't think specifies there, so if I wish to appeal, I could maybe do it in 2-3 months (so in March or April) :) I'm not sure. -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * fair points, it's just a proposal and there's no guarantees it'll be accepted by the community at large anyway. That said, if it does go ahead, and if there are violations then it can be dealt with swiftly without needing another AN/I report (at least, in theory) Dax   Bane  06:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Vauxford, he has an obsession and this has driven (no pun intended) people from the project. I have now very rarely uploaded any photographs of vehicles because of EurovisionNim unhealthy obsession and ownership that he has, so I know how you feel. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose while this a good proposal at heart, looking more into Nim's edits I feel like it would just be more of the same. I think Nim honestly needs a break from the automobile project for a bit in order to give the project time to breathe and give Nim a fresher head. Also I agree with Vauxford above, the retired template is not for when a conversation is not going your way. TheMesquito  buzz  20:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think a topic ban is appropriate here. Nim's editing has been disruptive, even if in good-faith, to more editors than just Vauxford. Nim has expressed insight that some edits have been disruptive and sincerely wants to step back, but can't seem to do it, not for very long. A temporary topic ban would also extinguish the interaction between Vauxford and Nim. The auto project would progress without Nim's involvement for a while, allowing Nim to see how a (hopefully!) collaborative and much less combative approach has worked to benefit the project during the term of the ban. RandomGnome (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: The above account, RandomGnome, was created on 24 December 2018. The above is their 17th edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


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


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

DE-Wiki
Apparently, EurovisionNim and Vauxford have both been edit-warring in the German language Wikipedia (i.e., , , , , , , ). 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. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


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


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


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

Vote stacking issues
It would seem now that Nim is trying to stack the vote by going to other users talk pages and asking them to come the the thread. Normally I would Assume good faith and just think they where notifying an interested party but seeing as how this ANI thread is not going Nims way, this smacks of attempted vote stacking. TheMesquito buzz  14:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Its also worth noting that in the talk page message they sent to 1292simon, it links directly to the proposed TBAN/IBAN TheMesquito  buzz  14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is getting worse. I feel like we should now, after a hefty discussion, just direct TBAN/IBAN him, and we have the votes anyways. However, we need to fix what he’s done in all the other language Wikis. We need a steward.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would almost agree, the amount of issues across multiple wikis are going to be hard to clean up without a steward, but is his replacements in other wikis bad enough to warrant calling one? TheMesquito  buzz  00:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


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


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

Socks?
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)
 * 125.160.209.22
 * 202.58.170.123
 * 120.188.65.92
 * 120.188.33.160

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

* Weak support I don't really want to see him blocked, but with the use of sock puppets and other issues, Nim clearly needs some time away from the project. Hopefully he will be given the standard offer and can return eventually. TheMesquito buzz  05:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Vaux TheMesquito  buzz  03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't hear quacking. There's no shortage of problematic IP editors in this space (as I recall from investigating Carmaker1 threads here) and the 4 IPs presented are obviously not all the same person; 120.188.65.92 reverted 125.160.209.22 at . power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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). – Davey 2010 Talk 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Fair enough. I suppose if the topic ban is violated it can be dealt with easily enough then. It appears there's consensus for an indefinite topic ban. --Sable232 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback tool abuse / 3RR
User:Plaba123 is abusing rollback rights and violated WP:3RR: 78.54.224.108 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&diff=879243744&oldid=879243707
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&diff=next&oldid=879243854
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&diff=879244168&oldid=879244145
 * Bbb23 blocked the above IP editor for disruptive editing. The IP editor evaded his block with 77.11.183.126, so I blocked this IP and semi-protected Wikidata.  That should resolve whatever is going on here for the short term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Request advice concerning FreeKnowledgeCreator
I have tried unsuccessfully to edit the page A Thousand Plateaus. A person who currently uses the pseudonym, but who previously ruled the talk page as 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, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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  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)
 * 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)
 * 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: .  SashiRolls t ·  c 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

The two of you must stop bickering now, or both of you will be blocked for disruption. Drop your sticks. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Humor? "Bickering" isn't a blockable offense so far as I know. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. You like to live dangerously. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&mdash;at least as an IP&mdash;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)
 * 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)


 * 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). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Request for admin-eyes-only summary
Whether the stale odor of socking is pertinent or not is an interesting question. Looking at another Deleuze & Guattari book review review I've never edited, I find the authorship info of our What is Philosophy? (Deleuze and Guattari) entry shows that the primary authors are:
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator: 68.3%
 * Polisher of Cobwebs: 25.7%

The content is eerily similar, isn't it?

As it turns out though, I would need admin-eyes to see that page since the battles that may have raged there have been revdelled. Could an admin summarize what happened, please? SashiRolls t · c 21:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Er...what? The revisions are deleted but the edit summaries aren't, anyone can see that there are no "battles raging" in the edit history. Also I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "authorship info". POC and FKC are the same person. FKC started editing the article after POC was blocked. There is no suspicious behavior there, and I'm not sure why you're bringing up socking that ended in 2014. This does appear to be a minor content dispute. When this situation arises, you're supposed to stop and discuss the specific points of disagreement. If you reach an impasse, you pursue dispute resolution. You don't edit war, you don't take a hostile tone, you don't make personal commentary, you don't bring up irrelevant misdeeds from over three years ago, and you don't drag your opponent to AN/I just because you can't resolve a dispute with them. You are expected to have the competence to work to resolve content disagreements. Swarm  {talk}  23:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Er... ok, there's just a whole host of inexplicable deletions, I guess revdel isn't the word. Perhaps it's just something simple.  But in terms of editing there, I'll pass for the moment, I guess that is a competence.  FKC has signed 38 pages where Bricmont & Sokal  are discussed.  That's kind of a lot.  I'd probably be safer elsewhere given the tone of many of those discussions.  And I see Roger Scruton or Bricmont & Sokal having the last word on too many major philosophical works for comfort. (Critique of Dialectical Reason, Deleuze BLP, A Thousand Plateaus (perhaps still, not sure), What is Philosophy?,...)  I think I'll steer clear, profusely apologizing for having blundered into those really clever "science wars" cites claiming that wide swath(e)s of post-1962 French philosophy were in fact pseudo-scientific claptrap all along.  What a relief! I'm feelin' positively w!k!fied that we discourage reading such "fashionable nonsense".  SashiRolls t ·  c 01:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They are revdels, but they are not "inexplicable", they're explained in the deletion log for the page. FKC had identified and removed copyright violations from the page, and the revisions containing violations were deleted in accordance with WP:CPI. FKC is conducting voluntary copyright cleanup on many of their articles. That's completely unrelated to your dispute. Like I said, you should be able to see from the edit summaries that there is no contentious editing history there. Regarding the content issue itself, there are tons of places to discuss this, but this is not one of those places. And, when I talk about competence to work through disputes, I do not mean you need to walk away (although WP:LETITGO is good advice sometimes). I just mean that you are not expected to just argue with FKC ad infinitum. Dispute resolution is about getting outside opinions, and if necessary, forming consensuses which deliver binding decisions. WP:RFC and WP:3O are helpful tools. If you have an issue which affects a wide variety of articles, you can conduct these discussions at centralized locations, such as WikiProjects or noticeboards, and get general rulings regarding fundamental article positions. Swarm  {talk}  22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Both editors are yet again at the precipice of 3RR. I acknowledge that the style of editing FKC is taking here can be frustrating. Most of us have been on the other side of an argument with a highly-active, highly-particular/fastidious editor enough to empathize with Sashi here, I think (which is not necessarily to say that I think the thrust of FKC's main points are wrong -- I'm not certain). Regardless, the options in response are not (a) edit war, (b) make it seem like FKC is not allowed to revert, or (c) try to dig for dirt in FKC's editing history. The options are (a) getting comfy on the talk page for as long as it takes to resolve it before adding it again or (b) working through other dispute resolution processes, like DR/3O/RfC/whatever. Might be worth leaving some WikiProject messages (WP Philosophy, for example), too. If this continues in the same direction it's been going, a block/ban seems pretty certain. It's clear you're both making good faith attempts to improve the article, and there are very few people able -- and even fewer people willing -- to edit Deleuze articles, so let's not get banned by continuing this thread. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits by IP 121.222.88.51
I am concerned about edits made by the IP 121.222.88.51. It looks like they went through and added a "History" section and added a expand section tag to a random assortment of articles over the course of the last few days. I want to assumed WP:GF but I think most, if not all of these edits should be reverted. Rbcshw (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding a section tag and expansion needed tag in the same edit does not seem like a productive move.MPJ-DK (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rbcshw, did you try talking to them on their talk page? IPs have talk pages too, and I see only your ANI notice there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Persistent NOTBROKEN vios, no communication
Persistent and ongoing violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, after two warnings.


 * 16:20, 17 December 2018 - advised of NOTBROKEN by User:FlightTime. There was no response.
 * 23:52, 11 January 2019 - advised of NOTBROKEN by me. There was no response.
 * 01:46, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios
 * 02:01, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios
 * 05:35, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios
 * 10:45, 12 January 2019 - at least one NOTBROKEN vio
 * 11:07, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios, at least one defeating a section redirect
 * 11:41, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The latest edits seem to have stopped doing this. Maybe the IP editor is listening now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 09:13, 14 January 2019 - at least one NOTBROKEN vio

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

FTR: I complained to User:Awilley on his UTP. I didn't get a block, but at least I got some admin action (thank you) with the possibility of a future block. Yet another piss-poor performance by ANI. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, if you want an immediate block I'm probably not the best admin to approach about that. I've made only 39 blocks in my $5 1/2$ years as an admin. ~Awilley (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

MLearry and abiogenesis

 * -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

has to stop his/her WP:ADVOCACY about abiogenesis. Does not seem to WP:HEAR our advice. Has become aggressive with Mr./Ms. Rowan Forest, there is no Theory of Abiogenesis yet. Stop delusions (and stop cheap attempt at poetry)... . Deals in creationist canards, like The article of an encyclopedia state the facts about research conclusions, their limitations, quote opinions and state future research, but it doesn't play with words to hide the limitations of some hypothesis so that "any believer in God note we are atheists", and My point has been, and still is, that there is no need to be bias and furnish a slowly ingrained "atheist" slogan in this encyclopedia article. . Such accusations show WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and push a WP:PROFRINGE POV. And, oh, that old tired creationist canard about Pasteur and abiogenesis,. Or (are you so naive to think NO single scientist believe in God?). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I have the right to comment here. I apologize if I don't have, I guess I have it. But I exhort those listening to consider that there are aspects ( and also a context, along with sentences made by me) not mentioned by Tgeorgescu in his previous message here, and  those aspects, further sentences & context change significantly the reasons and/or intentions, and any potential blame, suggested. The implied  messages are at my Talk page, and from me are mostly replies, not conversation starters. Thank you for your time. MLearry. January 2019.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It might amaze you, but I believe in God, there is no contradiction between God and abiogenesis. Of course, if you reduce God to a cosmic magician, he is incompatible with abiogenesis. Also, the suggestion that atoms would have souls (panpsychism) has really nothing to do with abiogenesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: God and/or Panpsychism, both notions, are in a sense antagonistic with Abiogenesis (as presented today, 2019) since they (God and/or Panpsychism) represent an origin of life that is not entirely an accident, while Abiogenesis (in its most common & popular interpretation) suggest that life is the by-product of luck, an accident that lead to an emergent system "prolonged in time". There are various different interpretations of Panpsychism, and, under one interpretation, is not atoms but macroscopic systems what have the property of processing information in a subjective (but not necessarily anthropomorphic) way (and thus capable of somehow influence outcomes in a non-random but non-magical fashion; when I say systems, is not just necessarily the known biological ones, nor merely the artificial  automaton created by sentient intelligent beings; consider that some systems tend toward maintaining some chemical equilibrium, as a non-exhaustive example). If one day the hypothesis of Abiogenesis acquire such a level of evidenced that is too hard to dispute (and becomes a theory, formally speaking), it will be inevitable that some atheist will argue that life is the product of accident, and that the belief in God is just a superfluous & rampant denial of the clear truth. God and/or Panpsychism can be regarded as having an inverse correlation with the hypothesis of Abiogenesis (and by that, I mean Abiogenesis as presented today, in 2019; Perhaps other ideas differ in that regard, but they much less popular). That's why I do believe they are pertinent to the topic when discussing the philosophical implications of Abiogenesis. Sometimes, someone suggest something that immerse others into those philosophical positions, even indirectly... For my part, I simply think that an encyclopedia article that focus on empirical research should stay away from fostering somehow those inconclusive debates, unless such article has a title that prepares the reader for less  neutral positions, like "Philosophical implications of Abiogenesis", or "debate in Abiogenesis"", or something like that). - MLearry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

 * moved from AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

seems to have a really hard time being civil recently and assuming good faith. They've already caused problems with this behavior before and some users have left messages on the user's talk page asking them (such as [this post] from from December) to start assuming good faith and cease the apparent edit-warring. User has already been blocked for edit warring by User:NinjaRobotPirate, albeit this was about a year ago. Notably, this user has never participated in Talk page discussions OR User Talk page discussions or taken up other's requests to start those discussions. (such as DisneyMetalhead's request). This behavior has continued into this year, in the editing patterns and the blatantly uncivil behavior in the edit summaries, including personal attacks, which I happened to notice in the page histories for Aquaman and Shazam!, and these instances have all gone unnoticed and or/undealt with.
 * " It is a rumor. A leak. And it does not belong in the cast section. Have a little bit of common sense before trying to impose your point of view AGAIN and AGAIN)"
 * "How in hell the reviews are mixed when they are way above average? You can check plenty of wiki pages from movies with rates lower than Aquaman and they're cited as mixed to positive or generally favourable. Stating otherwise it's absolutey unfair)"
 * "The statement is a false narrative, conveniently picked from some few sources. What are you? A Marvel fan?"
 * "Currently the film Glass holds a 36% RT and yet the Wikipedia article reads ""mixed reviews". Just another example of bias against DC, in this case coming from user TropicAces."
 * "You're not being objective. You're being bias"

Some gems from December (as found in the contributions; I only went back a month, So I'm unsure what exists before that):
 * "Moving these films to the Development section, where they belong. Thanks to user Guy1000able for deleting them for the future films table. Unfortunately we all know that user DisneyMetalhead will come and add them AGAIN as he/she has done over and over and over, against everybody's opinion.)"]
 * "you cannot overrule other people's opinion just to impose yours. What is wrong with you?" (having looked at this one due to the amount removed, it appears to be borderline vandalism. User removed an entire section that was sourced without any valid reason)
 * "Nonsense. It is a limited theatrical release, as WB does with every DC home release. Take the time to check the others before lowering the quality of the wiki page again"
 * "These films obviously don't belong here and that's why everybody keeps delete them after user DisneyMetalhead re-adds them over and over again. You don't get to impose your thinking here)"

Edit: Noticed this discussion from last week about the user and their editing behavior, specifically reverting, at WikiProject Film:. It's also notable because the user was pinged and did not address their edits. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  02:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * tagging relevant users, . - R9tgokunks   ⭕  02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * not *quite* sure why I'm tagged here (aside from having had my edits reverted by the user in question) or what (if anything) is being deliberate upon, but yeah, I was getting annoyed (as much as one can be over a Wikipedia edit haha) by OhsalveelCesar (especially by the hilarious "just another clear bias against DC" line). So if this is a vote to see if there is a groundswell to have him blocked, I'm all for it. If I was only tagged out of obligation because my name is involved in the edits...then I suppose have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)TropicAces
 * Sorry, I should have been more clear about it. I am tagging you and others because of your many run-ins with him, as well as his comments directed at you. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  02:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor has participated on an article talk page and on their user talk page albeit not recently and not often. They are not currently active and I'd like to see if they respond here. Their remarks are clearly dismissive and uncivil but do not rank as personal attacks, at least to me. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , these are unrelated to any content or editing disputes they have had.
 * Their comments on their own user talk page are 2 posts due to confusion about being blocked, not attempts at consensus-building or collaboration or resolving disputes.
 * Their 2 edtis on the article talk page for Birds of Prey (2020 film) are merely for one post to support a move, not resolving editing disputes.
 * I should have made it clearer, so that's my mistake. Point is they've never been interested in dispute resolution. I indicated my error above. Also, see my edit to my original post, there is a discussion they never took part in.- R9tgokunks   ⭕  06:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , there are pretty clear personal attacks, as noted in WP:NPA. For instance:
 * "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" - "The statement is a false narrative, conveniently picked from some few sources. What are you? A Marvel fan?"
 * "Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)" - " You don't get to impose your thinking here"; "you cannot overrule other people's opinion just to impose yours. What is wrong with you?"
 * "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki." - "Currently the film Glass holds a 36% RT and yet the Wikipedia article reads ""mixed reviews". Just another example of bias against DC, in this case coming from user TropicAces."; "You're not being objective. You're being bias" - R9tgokunks   ⭕  06:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm required to comment or not, but I have indeed tried to resolve editing differences with the stated editor.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Board glitch
This edit by archived one discussion, while describing it as another, which had alredy been archived immediately before. I am sure this needs to wind up elsewhere eventually, but I wanted it up here first to explain the sudden reappearance of the original thread. Qwirkle (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice in the diff, two different editors were using OneClickArchiver (which is FABULOUS -- everyone should install it) within seconds of each other. Unfortunately under those conditions there's a race condition which can cause the wrong thread to be archived. It happens to me about once a year. There's probably some very complicated way to fix this, but it would never be worth it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I just try to use OneClickArchiver and I get "reported" to ANI for the first time you know that a ping is not sufficient for notification!) <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube  01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, if I were reporting you for misconduct, I doubt you’d be using those scare quotes. You aren’t really the subject here, the “glitch” in the title is. Qwirkle (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But I'm involved, aren't I? <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 02:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you’d really like to be, I suppose you can volunteer for it, because, like most automatizing software around here, there is probably a disclaimer pointing out that you are responsible for its effect if you use it. You really should, in fact, have checked the edit after the fact, probably. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This feels like it should be on the talk page rather than on the main page. I.e WT:AN/I not WP:AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ....and it would be a fine thing to move it there now, but the thread revival demanded some explanation first. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Village pump under technical?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In dentistry, this is referred to as the Domino effect.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I appreciate the info-- I thought it was magic or my hallucinations catching up with me.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Minor point, but if re-adding a thread for whatever reason and you want to explain why, it's probably least confusing to everyone if just leave a quick reply in that thread. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would anyone uninvolved care to close this? I don't see it going anywhere.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

something wierd at bottom of kraft page
its listing random things can someone remove it, it does not seem to be removeable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.31.111.143 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Warring and SPAMing by User:Planethunter91
User:Planethunter91 is a single-purpose user with a conflict of interest (COI) by promoting his YouTube channel in articles and sections hardly appropriate. The consensus on the Talk page at Talk:Exoplanet was unanimously against him, yet he says the opposite and continues warrying with multiple reverts on a few pages where he keeps introducing his links and text. Specifically, he repeatedly introduces links to his YouTube Channel and Quora Answers to promote his channel. 1) At List of potentially habitable exoplanets, he introduced this ; The spam was noted and removed, but he reverted this twice in this page alone: and.

2) At Exoplanet, he has made about 15 reverts and other contentious edits, even after the consensus was reached

3) And over here, he inserted a link to Quora Answers (hardly a reliable reference) in which he is again SPAMING his YouTube Channel.

4) The early consensus was to create a sanitized version at Methods of detecting exoplanets, but he deleted it entirely.

Thank you, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The linking to his own YouTube channel alone is a COI action and definitely needs to be stopped, I have not read the diffs yet to give you an opinion on anything behavior related, but clearly COI actions here. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: this thread was inadvertently archived and has been restored. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 02:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note - removed this section completly trying to play it off as a personal attack on him. I restored it, but the behavior of the user is important to note. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the second time they deleted this thread; I restored the first one.  I left a note on their talk page about it, and noticed there are three new 3RR warnings for these pages:   . Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 05:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User seems to not be listening to anyone, perhaps a short term ban would get the editor's attention? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any objection if I just give them a short block for edit warring? Removing threads from ANI is hard to AGF over. I left a fairly stern note on their talk, but they've not edited in an hour. Is there any possibility that they are linking to a reliable source? We should try to work in content from reliable sources if we can. The first requisite, though, is they stop edit warring and discuss.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not an objection but add'l info that may be relevant: seems like it started as a content dispute in which both filer (RF) and target (PH) engaged on the talk page (where PH denied COI), then there was some reverting at the article. PH filed v. RF at AIV, which was declined with instructions to go to DRN b/c content dispute not vandalism. He filed at DRN asking for page protection (poor choice of words), and that was declined b/c filing wasn't filed right, and page protection req's should be made at RFPP but requires "edit warring, vandalism, or other misconduct" and there was no edit warring or misconduct. Filer was pointed to WP:DR, invited to re-file at DRN if they wanted a moderated discussion, or "any of various other types of requests can be filed in the appropriate places". Then PH started edit warring on the article, followed by this filing by RF v. PH, followed by PH deleting it. So, while this could be forum shopping, it might just be a new user misunderstanding the various instructions given to him (as in, if you want a page protected, start an edit war) and then getting frustrated by the outcome (and not knowing how serious deleting threads is from this talk page, as opposed to one's user talk page). I think the test of GF or not GF will be in how the editor responds to your message on their talk page and what they do next; since they haven't edited yet, there seems to be no urgency, and if the editor is blocked now, we won't be able to see how they respond to your talk page message (instead, we'll see how they respond to your block). Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 06:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By no means I own any youtube channel and by no means I'm promoting anything. I have added sources from several youtube channels that I consider professional (university professors). I have requested a Dispute Resolution since there is no consensus on the talk page. I have also requested a partial ban to Rowan Forest, since he is suffering from Tendentious editing. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planethunter91 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And continues the edit wars at Exoplanet and List of potentially habitable exoplanets, now reported at WP:AN3. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can rule out newbie confusion or contradictory instructions. The editor is now very aggressively edit warring over two of these articles despite the three lv4 warnings left on their talk page last night, which are very clear in their instruction. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked. They removed this ANI thread twice. I've blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC).
 * And has now apparently created at least one sock, . SPI opened here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 19:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I just want to thank the editor for answering all of my earlier questions. COI, edit warring, SPI aside, I want to also raise the issue of WP:SPA, as all of the editor's edits have been about amateur Planet Hunters looking for exoplanets. I guess for now no further action is needed, but if the SPI doesn't make this issue moot, I wonder whether a TBAN would be appropriate, as it could reduce the workload at ANEW, ANI, AIV, DRN, and now SPI, etc., and if the tban were violated, an admin could take more permanent action. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 20:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The SPI has been concluded and finds Voyager95 technically unrelated, but identified two socks of the instant editor (neither of which appear to have participated in the present conflict). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (One of which, however, created Draft:The Exoplanets Channel, which channel is referenced in the edit that the subject editor has been warring over.) <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now blocked indef as a confirmed sockpuppet of, which concludes this matter. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Threats
O3000 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * diff - Legal threat
 * diff - Threat on TP


 * That second diff is almost certainly impersonating a body which has nothing to do with this nonsense. The notion that a library would step in to defend somebody abusing the internet access they provide, rather than kick them out the door for the good of the other library users, is implausible. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's block evasion by Special:Contributions/108.178.78.26 and Special:Contributions/71.91.178.54. I blocked 31 hours, but it's easy to extend if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I have redacted the contact information in the second diff above. I am aware that IP talk pages generally cannot be found by search engines, but I'm not inclined to chance a random person deciding to send the librarians nastygrams or other harassment. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 02:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell
There seems to be some fishiness at this AfD. The first Keep has been blocked as a sockpuppet already, and the third one's second edit is to the AfD, with every edit since being to footballer articles (as if to try and make themselves not seem like a sock). Could I get some eyes on it? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a "notvote" to the top. If a CU could stop by.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a clear cut case of vote-fraud so I have filled the SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Neerajmadhuria72014. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 04:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing other editor's comments
. This topic ban shall be in effect

Edits in question:

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The entire section is worth reading: Talk:Microwave auditory effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * He recently posted Editor assistance/Requests, in which he outlines his point of view (he accuses WP of being "biased towards science"). It's a pretty clear case of WP:GREATWRONGS, though he certainly got more belligerent today. VQuakr (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we have a place where the other accounts associated with are listed? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic Ban for PaulGosar?
Would a topic ban from pseudoscience be appropriate here? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Related: . -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support TBAN. Sometimes proponents of fringe ideas can help us understand them better and document them from a reality-based perspective. And sometimes they are only here to WP:BLUDGEON bullshit into articles. This looks like the latter kind of editor. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this would fall under pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. It doesn't look as though the editor has been alerted to those sanctions, but once they have, AE is the right place for this.  I'd suggest alerting them, leaving a courteous note summarising what will happen if they keep disrupting articles, and seeing what happens.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bellezzasolo posted the DS alert. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they are utterly puzzled that the community finds them disruptive and do not know how to edit otherwise in this subject area. A TBAN will allow us to try to retain and repurpose a potentially constructive member of the community.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN. Enough please, we have reached WP:EXHAUSTION. After months of having policies explained to them on Talk pages, they are still on the same mission to right WP:GREATWRONGS. The primary wrong they want righted is Wikipedia's bias in favor of psychiatrists and mental heath professionals regarding the treatment of people who say the government is beaming voices into their heads . - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Username Issue? On my talk page another editor mentioned the similarity between this username and Arizona politician Paul Gosar. I am reluctant to take that first "talk to the user" step as recomended in Username policy while in the middle of an ANI report. It kind of feels like piling on or throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just filed at UAA. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On their user page, they explicitly state that they are "Unrelated to the Arizona politician Paul Gosar". I think that is sufficient.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They created that page on 19:13, 16 January 2019 [UTC], so at least we know they are following this ANI case... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support TBAN: I was on the fence but I reviewed their edits again. What I am not seeing is even the slightest attempt to listen to advice given by multiple experienced editors. A classic case of WP:RGW and WP:IDHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN Editor has demonstrated a repeated refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy when editing in this topic area. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN It would be nice to have some response from this user. The oblique request for help referenced above is sad on the one hand and revealing of a lack of ability to function in a collaborative environment on the other. Hopefully, they can now turn to constructive pursuits.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN I had reservations and wanted to hear what he had to say about a possible path forward first, but he's acknowledged the notice of this discussion without choosing to comment. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The issue in question is whether I unfairly deleted another user comments, not whether I can 'work with others' etc. A user accused me without evidence that I had a sockpuppet. I consider this a serious personal attack, so I removed the comment. Under WP:TPOC, this is acceptable behavior - unless you think another accusing me of sock puppetry is merely uncivil, in which case the deletion would not be so egregious as to warrant a ban, but merely controversial --PaulGosar (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * no one accused you of creating a sockpuppet. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * --PaulGosar (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit in that diff is not directed at you, Paul. JamesWatson was flagging an edit made by an account that was determined to be a sock so that anyone assessing consensus on the talk page would give that due weight. It was not an accusation that it was your sock. I can assure you if that account was a sock of yours, you'd already be blocked. TelosCricket (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see, I have misunderstood then. --PaulGosar (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Do not mischaracterize me. I am for science. I am for psychiatry. I am against cherrypicking facts. Most of what I have added has been from sources already cited. Just because other users disagree is no reason to censor notably well sourced information. Read the talk pages. Read the archives. Read my suggestions. I have not intentionally violated any wikipedia policies.--PaulGosar (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * However, a ban would be par for the course for GuyMacon, LuckyLouie They have suggested bans for any user that has disagreed with them on EH or MAE. Even sirlanz an editor with an 11 year track record. Look at the archives. --PaulGosar (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sirlanz was briefly blocked for edit warring, not for disagreeing with anyone. To the best of my knowledge, neither GM nor LL requested the block. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Odd that in 11 years and 1000's of edits sirlanz had never been accused of edit warring, but was accused only when it came to the editors policing the EH. Strange. --PaulGosar (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence that the administrator who issued that edit warring block was wrong, talk it over with him on his talk page, and if that doesn't resolve the issue, present your evidence in a separate section. This ANI report is about your behavior, not sirlanz's. Your transparent attempt to deflect the conversation away from your behavior is a good example of the Law of holes at work. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "in 11 years and 1000's of edits sirlanz had never been accused of edit warring". Paul, you need to open User talk:Sirlanz and search "edit war". "LuckyLouie They have suggested bans for any user that has disagreed with them on EH or MAE" As I have explained to you before, I can't ban anyone, I'm just an editor. If you are referring to user Jed Stuart's TBAN, yes I did endorse it (for good reason), but as you can see I was just one of many such editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What I find interesting is the implication that if I recommend blocking or topic banning an editor that multiple admins will go ahead and apply the block whether or not my recommendation has any merit. Oh well. I might as well admit it. I regularly use electromagnetic weapons to transmit thoughts into the administrator's heads. All thoses times that an admin has disagreed with me are just me covering my tracks -- it would be too obvious if everyone always agreed with me. . --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Constructive, brava. --PaulGosar (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * PaulGosar is still pushing his fringe POV, even after this ANI case was opened. (Don't know why he is using strange formatting, but I have asked him to stop.) It looks like we have two choices. Either change Wikipedia so that we no longer mention the multiple sources where psychiatrists and mental heath professionals talk about people who say the government is beaming voices into their heads, or impose a topic ban to stop the ongoing WP:RIGHT WRONGS and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. Should this be snow closed, or would more discussion be of value? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for having an opinion different then yours, your highness. What I find particularly egregious is the inclusion of these two sources as reliable. The study in question observes 10 anonymous accounts and makes a broad assessment about the medical diagnoses of a group based on the links 10 anonymous accounts have posted. Consensus has agreed to include a full paragraph about this nonsense, complete with weasel words, as seen below. This is no way to write an encyclopedia.


 * "As part of a 2006 British study by Vaughan Bell, independent psychiatrists determined "signs of psychosis are strongly present" based on evaluation of a sample of online mind-control accounts whose posters were "very likely to be schizophrenic". Psychologists have identified many examples of people reporting "mind control experiences" (MCEs) on self-published web pages that are "highly likely to be influenced by delusional beliefs". Common themes include "bad guys" using "psychotronics" and "microwaves", frequent mention of the CIA's MKULTRA project and frequent citing of a scientific paper entitled "Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy". "
 * --PaulGosar (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Law of holes. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Call for snow close
...To stop PaulGosar from pestering the fine folks at Editor assistance/Requests. See --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly bizarre accusation of edit-warring in Wikipedia talk:Spam
In this edit, has made an accusation of edit warring. Given that no one has made more than one relevant edit to the articles under discussion, it’s rather difficult to simultaneously assume good faith and competence. A look at it would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you ask him what he meant? Natureium (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks clear .... WP:EDITWAR.


 * --Moxy (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, . those are each separate articles, each with one and only one edit by those involved. There is not the slightest trace of edit warring, as actually defined in the policy you cited, anywhere, by anyone. Qwirkle (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I'd say he added back book spam.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you add in the links to the difs or tell us who made the edits. I'm far too lazy to chase them down. ANd too fat to catch them.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * for he's the most rationale of us all.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, he's the only rational one here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Qwirkle. Even a proponent describes it as an "edit-war".--Moxy (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything actionable here. An argument over what is/isn't book spam. And going behind someone and reverting their removal of said book spam might not be edit warring, but it might be something else.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, one shouldn't confuse "edit warring" with "breaking the 3R barrier". One can argue that Qwirkle is sort of edit warring in that they're reverting a whole lot, and I certainly disagree with their edits (and I am glad Ronz does too), but this isn't (yet) something we should call on the Parrot Brigade for. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that they were the same edits that you had reverted, I suppose that someone could argue that you were sort of edit warring...that is, if the idea of a single edit to an article constituting an “edit war” were not inherently fatuous. Qwirkle (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I adhere to 1RR for most things. Looked like bookspam to me, but I can see how others might disagree.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing spam is good; adding it back? meh.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Placing 'the' seminal work on a subject in articles connected with it strikes you as spam? A single revert of another person’s revert of a third persons edit strikes you as edit warring? Qwirkle (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said that. Never said either one. Still don't see what action you are seeking.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you just did. You may not have realized it, perhaps. Emanuel Raymond Lewis’s Seacoast Fortifications..&cet is the first major scholarly retrospective on the subject covered here, and 5 decades on, it is still the starting point for study of it. And I surfaced Ronz’s behaviour here because he claimed, to paraphrase as I did above,  that single revert[s]of another person’s revert[s] of a third persons edits - that’s what occured there - was somehow “edit warring”. you appear to be endorsing that idea. Qwirkle (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, no.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is indeed the case, I think it odd that you would be asking, in effect, what I see wrong with this picture. We see a series of implicit or explicit accusations of bad faith, from spamming to edit-warring, that appear to have no substance to them. Ordinary editing is described as misbehaviour; poisoning the well appears to be rather a norm for WP:SPAM if this mess is typical. And there are unfortunate overtones of ownership as well; there appears to be an assumption that the spam project puts ordinary editing on hold.

Sorry, but rather than calling it "edit warring", it would have been better to bring up WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Given the context of the discussion, calling it "Using reverts to restore the same material on multiple articles without notifying anyone of the reverts, after multiple editors have expressed their opinions that the material may be spam in a ongoing discussion about the material" in order to be more precise would just add too much to an already overly-lengthy discussion. As I've already brought up WP:IDHT and WP:FOC to the discussion, I think a reminder of WP:NOTBATTLE is appropriate now that we're at ANI over terminology. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we are at ANI over use of inaccurate, pejorative, descriptions of other’s editing, poisoning the well by describing a rather good source as book spam, or a routine revert as edit-warring. That sort of thing. Qwirkle (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * So we agree-- it's not edit warring but something else.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit peace-keeping? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit police action? We in the States were very big on that at one time.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now we just name our wars with inspiring patriotic titles spun up by the DoD's PR department. Edit-Enduring Freedom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit-liberating.🇺🇸 <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 23:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit mutually assured destruction. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

War!! What is it good for!?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing (uh), say it again y'all. (Sorry, I tried, I really, really tried, but the impulse was just too strong.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if it's used as a source, it should be linked to. I think if it's just added into the See also section that that section should be reserved for internal links to other articles. I can see why if added not as a wource how someone could mistake it for book spam. Though I think that is probably for some other discussion ? -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * " describing a rather good source as book spam"-- but it wasn't used as a source in the articles? Just added to "See also"? See above.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Passing over the minor errors of fact (“Further reading” is not quite the same as “See also”), this might have justified someone reverting with a summary of “looks like bookspam”, but when someone else restored it, accusing them, inaccurately, of edit-warring is poisoning the well. At that point, the burden of proof is soludly on the other foot, and a simple trip to Worldcat ot even Goo-Goo Books should have ended it there and then. Qwirkle (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Spamming Youtube-links in edit summaries
The editor has so far made 137 edits here, edits that, at first look at least, seem constructive, but all have a Youtubelink in the edit summary, added after a normal edit summary (like these: "minor corrections: https://you tu.be/XSBqDhYHntI" and "reverting vandalism: https://you tu.be/M-SrZPwWyXY"; note the space in each link, added to evade edit filters), with a different link in each edit summary. Which seems like a sophisticated way of spamming without technically violating any rule that I know of here. So what do we do about it? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a good explanation, I'd be inclined to block tbh. GiantSnowman 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's ASSUME GOOD FAITH. If you actually watch the video as provided in each link, it's a short video of the edit being made. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's still spam. GiantSnowman 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Youtube still pays you for every view, right? Or have they done what I have long predicted and stopped paying for many/all views? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that whether they are getting paid for it is rather beside the point. It serves no useful purpose, and is irritating to say the least to be presented with a link which looks like it might be an explanation for the edit, only to find it isn't. Given that the added space can only be a deliberate attempt to bypass the spam filter, I'd suggest that Youwikitubepedia be blocked unless and until they can give a satisfactory explanation as to why they consider such links compatible with the stated objectives of Wikipedia. There may not be explicit rules against such links, but one really isn't needed, per WP:NOTHERE. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC) — 86.147.97.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To get monetization on Youtube you need 4000 watch hours and 1000 subscribers I think. At the moment they have 31 subscribers so I do not think they are getting paid for the videos. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems rather odd but I am not sure if it breaks any policy. It might break WP:SPAM but it could be argued that since the videos are of them making the edit and some I saw talk about why they made the edit it might be okay. I would like to hear their explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd consider it a violation of SPAM, SOAP, and COI; and would have brought it to RSPAM if I'd run across it. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like about half of them have been WP:REVDEL by as spam. PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I ran out of time, someone else fixed the rest. All done now. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * N.B. - I had responded to this user being reported to AIV for spamming and issued a block. Upon noticing this discussion, seeing that it is ongoing, and looking more deeply, I unblocked the user and left them a note to please comment here.  I had also revdel'd some of their older edits summaries with the links as spam (similarly as JzG did).  I did not follow any of the links until seeing 's comment as I was concerned they could be malicious/booby trapped.  While the videos are technically promotional, they are fairly benign promotion and I agree that it does not look like the YouTube account has monetization enabled (due to a lack of subscribers at the very least).  Upon reflection, I could see an argument that as the changes are productive and the videos are of the edits being made that they could be allowed as illustrative and instructional.  Best, Mifter (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s no point, too late, they’ve all been revdelled and the account blocked. For no valid reason at all. Someone providing videos of their edits while explaining them could have been a really educational way to encourage new users and spread awareness of how easy it is to edit Wikipedia. But that ship has sailed. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  22:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * May be the new user edited wikipedia as an ip user, before creating "Youtube+wikipedia" account. However, if he is not, then it violate sock , as in Sock puppetry: "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account. Templates such as User alternative account or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose. ". Unable to determine the purpose of creating a brand new account and teach people how to edit as an experience user, or is it within the scope of "would defeat the point of the account" when disclosing the master account is? Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support 3-6 month Youtube linking topicban - Personally I would say it's spamming and as such I support the revdelling, There's no specific policy that says "You cannot post Youtube videos in edit summaries" however it's still spamming,
 * Instead of supporting a reblock I instead support a ban on them inserting any Youtube link anywhere on this project - This would include articles, talkpages and yes edit summaries too,
 * Judging by their edits they're clearly HERE to improve the project so I don't see a point in reblocking however I feel monitoring them for a few months or so may be a good idea. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having given this some more thought and having read the below comments I have to agree in that they should be warned and if it continues then indef them, A topic ban seems rather excessive considering they don't appear to have been warned for the disruption, I still think indeffing now is more punitive than preventative. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of their motivations, they can't include Youtube videos in their edit summaries. As long as they don't do that going forward, there's no need for any punishment. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of their motivations, they can't include Youtube videos in their edit summaries. As long as they don't do that going forward, there's no need for any punishment. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support indef block. from the guy who report the user to WP:AIV. The edits (e.g. Special:Diff/874823736) were not so necessary piping change and the ture purpose is spamming stuff in edit summary, for all edits. Matthew hk (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, consider the username is a word play of "wikipedia + youtube" and 100+ edits on inserting link as spam. Matthew hk (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand what this looks like, but I think it's harmless and potentially educational. It would be better if they had provided an explanation up front. I notice there wasn't any attempt to discuss with them before this thread was opened and consequences were applied. I suggest waiting for a response before taking any more action; as it is we don't know if they're trying to be helpful or promotional. If there's none in a sufficient time frame, then maybe do something. On the other hand, changing link targets to not be redirects is indeed useless. ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with F&K. I don't understand how a YouTube video showing a Wikipedia edit being made is "spam", or why anyone would be opposed to such a thing. YouTube videos are how people teach other people to do things. Why wouldn't we want YouTube videos showing how to make edits? Why wouldn't we want to link to those videos in the edits and vice versa? <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 02:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You think that people who don't know how to edit Wikipedia will be looking at broken YouTube links in random edit summaries in order to find out how to do it? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — 86.147.97.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, Wikipedia. Where anyone can edit. But do so using an IP rather than registering, and someone will immediately assume you are using a sockpuppet account, even when there is no remotely logical reason why you should need one. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It seem odd that an ip that without any edit outside ANI, made he/she first edit in ANI and so far all edits are in ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what a dynamic IP address is? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit, but god help you if you try something inventive to help others edit, it seems. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 14:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A WP:NOTHERE indef block would obviously be the correct outcome (AGF does not apply to actions indistinguishable from trolling). However, since this is Wikipedia no action is currently required other than the warning is at the user's talk. If they do anything like this again, they should be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How in the name of all that is holy can someone making instructional videos of making edits that improve Wikipedia be construed as being "not here to improve Wikipedia"? I am at a loss, I really am. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  14:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't making instructional videos. The issue is placing broken (deliberately, to get around Wikipedia blacklisting software) and entirely unexplained links to such videos in edit summaries. As a tool for providing instruction to people who want to edit Wikipedia but don't understand how, they are almost useless, since the chances of anyone in such a position finding them and then following them are remote. In all other circumstances, they are a distraction at best, and a potentially serious liability at worst. If this contributor is to continue to create them, logically others would be permitted to do the same. Which would leave Wikipedia as a host to links to multiple unchecked YouTube videos, any one of which could violate Wikipedia policies in multiple ways. There are multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines in place which regulate the appropriate use of edit summaries, and none of them have exceptions which justify such malformed and off-topic links. If it were ever to be decided that linking to an instructional video in an edit summary was appropriate, simple logic would suggest that a way to make an unbroken link was found, and that such links be confined to a limited number of videos which could be verified as actually appropriate. Frankly though, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would ever consider such a proposal though, since it would be far simpler and less confusing to add such a link elsewhere on the editing interface, and leave the edit summary for its intended purpose. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for my own reference could you link to the polices that support your position? PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The most obvious policy is What Wikipedia is not. No, it doesn't explicitly state that Wikipedia edit summaries are not a repository for broken links to YouTube. It does however state that Wikipedia is not a repository for external links. Which I would assume would include deliberately broken ones placed in edit summaries. This policy likewise states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Which such links clearly are, since they don't in any meaningful way contain the information one would expect an edit summary to. Beyond WP:NOT one should probably consider the WMF's statement in the Terms of Use that their websites should not be used for spam. Which these links clearly are, given the fact that the contributor has not only attempted (by breaking the links) to get around blocking software, but has entirely failed (despite there being room in the edit summary) to inform any readers what exactly the links link to. As for guidelines, start with External links, which explicitly states that a contributor should "avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". I'm quite sure that other guidelines will apply too, but I'd have thought that I've provided quite enough already. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay none of those directly or even indirectly cover this situation. WP:NOT clearly is not intended for this as it is not a repository of external links. It is a history and explanation of edits. Same reasoning for indiscriminate. I do not really see WP:ADV as an issue either. They are not promoting their product or service. They are also not actually benefiting at all personally for doing this. I am really starting to struggle to see the actual harm caused here and you have not provided any rational for your position that is not based on bad faith or misunderstanding policy. PackMecEng (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait for an explanation (because we are all curious) and cessation of comment spamming; then block if both are not forthcoming or adequate. I am pretty sure this is some sort of conceptual art or advanced programing project. If each video really does represent the actual edit it is connected to, it's an impressive piece of coding (screen recording, uploading to Utube, getting the link and passing it back to WP...) You can almost picture him/her presenting it to their Advanced Scripting for Web class. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Either you're easily impressed, or you didn't watch the YouTube video before posting a comment calling for a block. Here is the edit, and here is the video (www.you tube.com/watch?v=XSBqDhYHntI) showing that edit being performed. It's the user's most-recent edit. If you watch the video until the end, you'll see they never hit "publish" in the video, they just typed in the descriptive part of their edit summary ("minor corrections"). We can infer the user stopped the video there, then posted it to YouTube, then finished the edit summary by inserting the YouTube link and hitting "publish", thereby accomplishing linking an edit summary to a YouTube video showing that edit being performed. I really do see the value in this as an educational tool. At the very least, I see the good faith. <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 04:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh relax. He/she is obviously using WP to promote their Youtube channel, rather than being here to improve WP. If it's an educational tool, it can stay on YT. If they don't stop that, they clearly need to be blocked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why "obviously"? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  14:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * May be wikipedia need a new video tutorial guide, but not doing so by a new user without informing any wikiproject or admin, and spamming all video links in edit summary. Even new video tutorial are created, those link should listed in the namespace wikipedia, but not in edit summary. Those edit plus edit summary, definitely promoting the YT channel as an unofficial tutorial of the wikipedia. But it still spam and promotion. Matthew hk (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be discussed, but I don't see it as spam (or promotion, unless all YT content is considered as promotion under the logic that it's all on somebody's channel), or a reason for sanctions. I am relaxed :-) and I'm saying: relax on this editor, and let's assume good faith. <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 05:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned how anyone can think this isn't spam, so I added "Avoid external links" to Help:Edit summary. We can discuss on it's talk page if needed.--Ronz (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaannnd reverted. PackMecEng (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe putting external links in edit summaries is in some cases encouraged if not required, and there have been cases of editors being warned/reverted/blocked for not putting an external link in an edit summary. (Rightly or wrongly, I don't know.) <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss at Help_talk:Edit_summary --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * People put url in edit summary to indicate the discovery of copyvio, as the rev would be hidden but the edit summary did not. Also, when i am too lazy to put citation in the article, i put it in edit summary as the evidence of my edit. Or sometimes, the citation and url are already inside the article , but posting the url again in edit summary to justify my edits were based on the url as citation. Matthew hk (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned how anyone could think this was spam. WP:SPAM - "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed".  No product or website was being promoted.  I imagine we have lost an editor here who was making constructive edits and was trying an interesting new way to spread awareness of how to edit Wikipedia, because the immediate assumption was negative and mistrustful.  A real shame. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "No product or website was being promoted" is technically incorrect: Wikipedia was the website being promoted, logo and all. You gotta admire folks who are so anti-promo as to also be anti-WP-promo. Someday this project will die when Wikipedia editors decide that Wikipedia editors are COI'd from Wikipedia. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich '''<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 15:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It might possibly be worth taking note that the YouTube channel that User:Youwikitubepedia has been promoting, under the name 'wikipedia edits' (see ) is predominantly displaying a trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logo on each linked page, in direct contravention of Copyrights policy. Nowhere on that channel is any indication whatsoever given that it is not an official Wikipedia project. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia logos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. As attribution is clear, this is not an issue. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the logos are absolutely not under any such license. See Copyrights which clearly states that such trademarks "are not freely usable without permission", and see also the Wikimedia Terms of Use . Or if you prefer, contact the WMF and ask them. As for 'attribution', I can't see any, though I can see what looks to me like an attempt to pass off a random YouTube channel as an official Wikipedia project. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read and the boilerplate of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg.  "You have the right to use marks to Truthfully describe a Wikimedia site, Accurately report news, Create artistic, literary, and political works, or Link to Wikimedia sites". Unless you really do think this is trying to claim to be an official Wikipedia project, which is crazy, and in which case I don't see any point in trying to continue a discussion, there's no copyright issue. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  11:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From the trademark policy you have just linked: 'When reasonable, please include this notice when you use a mark outside the Wikimedia sites: "[Wikimedia Wordmark / name of logo as listed here] is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation and is used with the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are not endorsed by or affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation... Regardless of whether you use a notice or a trademark symbol to identify your use of Wikimedia marks, please make sure that your use does not suggest endorsement by or affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation.' AS for whether you consider there any point in continuing the discussion, feel free not to. Meanwhile, I will continue to use this thread to bring to the notice of Wikipedia admins an apparent attempt to portray a YouTube channel as an official Wikipedia project. I may also contact the WMF directly to do the same thing. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have now emailed the WMF regarding the copyright issue, and await their response. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you accept the answer when they tell you that you don't understand how copyrights, trademarks. and the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license work? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So far they have told me no such thing. Which leaves the clear and unequivocal statement on the Wikimedia Trademark policy that use of their trademarks is conditional on compliance with specific terms as the only thing I have to go on. A policy which incidentally, I have just noticed, also states that "You need a trademark license to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production." Whether a YouTube channel is an 'online production' or not may be open to debate, but I think it might be wise to let the WMF decide for themselves, considering that the policy also states that "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". Or in plain English, whether the usage of the trademarks is compliant with WMF policy or not is beyond the scope of WP:ANI. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have zero understanding of what trademark is and what constitutes trademark infringement, and I strongly suspect that you are both willfully ignorant and ineducable on the issue. If the alleged infringer is using the mark to identify the mark owner (which he is in this case) then the use of the trademark falls under fair use. You may not build and sell cars with the distinctive Ford trademark on the grill, but you certainly can take a picture of a Ford that contains the logo. This editor is clearly not claiming to be Wikipedia. He is simply identifying Wikipedia as the website he is editing. That's allowed under trademark law. He isn't doing anything illegal. If he was, then every Youtube unboxing video would be illegal as well. (Whether we allow him to link to the Youtube video in an edit summary is another issue.) Go ahead and pester the WMF if you want. You will soon discover that when people make silly claims the WMF legal team ignores them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Copyrights and trademarks are two entirely different things. A copyright is a perceptible, fixed embodiment of a creative work; a trademark (or service mark) is an indicator of source—a "HELLO! I Emanate From _____" badge, if you will.  I view this as a huge trademark problem and a copyright nonissue.  Somebody has this conceptual art project going (or whatever) in which they created a YouTube channel showing videos of Wikipedia edits being made, and the Wikipedia edit summaries link to the videos.  Nobody's copyrights are being infringed (or, if they are, the infringement is de minimis, of  largely unprotectable material like the visual depiction of the Wikipedia GUI, and probably protected by the fair-use doctrine).  The Wikipedia marks are the bigger issue, and query whether that is the community's responsibilitiy to police or the WMF's.
 * Legal issues aside, though, as a philosophical issue, this is WP:COI self-aggrandizement, in my view, and not appropriate; it's like spamming links to taxi companies in Mallorca or QuickBooks help-desk (800) numbers into edit summaries. Not okay. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I note that the YouTube channel discussed (see ) is now using a modified form of the Wikipedia logo, with the word 'EDITS' superimposed. Whether this is a result of seeing this ANI thread, or the result of a communication from the WMF, I have no idea. Likewise, whether this is acceptable to the WMF (which clearly states in its Trademark Policy that "The logos should not be modified without separate permission from the Wikimedia Foundation"), I have no idea. I would suggest however that the lack of on-Wikipedia response might be seen as evidence against claims of good faith. If Youwikitubepedia is aware of the issues, why not reply here? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Still willfully ignorant about US trademark law, I see. Superposing text in a way that is a clear addition is not the same as modifying a trademark. There are websites where you can learn what the actual rules for trademarks are, you know. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but what website can we send you to to teach you to play nice with others. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  03:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Superposing text in a way that is a clear addition is not the same as modifying a trademark" says Guy Macon. "There are websites where you can learn what the actual rules for trademarks are, you know." says Guy Macon. Indeed there are: "The United States Patent and Trademark Office defines a trademark as a design, word, phrase or symbol that distinguishes the goods and service of one company from another. This applies to logos, which can be either words or images. The practice of altering a logo is known as material alteration. The Law Office of Bambi Faivre Walters, PC, notes that U.S. Trademark Rule 2.72, 37 C.F.R §2.72 establishes the basis for what constitutes material alteration. This rule was established in the 1983 case of Visa International Service Association v. Life-Code Systems, Inc. If the modified mark contains the "essence" of the original mark, material alteration has occurred. The basic change that occurs is small enough that it creates the same commercial impression. Alteration in this manner is copyright infringement." Given that Guy Macon appears not to understand the law he proclaims his expertise in, I suggest we leave it to the WMF to decide what the law is. Though judging by their Trademark Policy, as I have already quoted, they already know the law well enough, and don't need it explained here. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it time to close this thread? The edit summaries in question have already been redacted and the editor hasn't edited in five days. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 05:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request
Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place I'm not entire sure where to ask,

Long story short, and  have all been replacing content on various article talkpages with what I consider to be crap  - One IP was blocked however they've simply jumped to a new IP/device meaning the blocks are useless

so I was wondering if a rangeblock could be applied so that they're blocked on all devices ,

Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:C8B:7500:0:0:0:0/64 for one week. Let me know if you perceive the same problem in any additional ranges. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're a legend thanks EdJohnston!, Okie dokie will do, thanks again, – Davey 2010 Talk 03:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly bizarre accusation of edit-warring in Wikipedia talk:Spam
In this edit, has made an accusation of edit warring. Given that no one has made more than one relevant edit to the articles under discussion, it’s rather difficult to simultaneously assume good faith and competence. A look at it would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you ask him what he meant? Natureium (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks clear .... WP:EDITWAR.


 * --Moxy (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, . those are each separate articles, each with one and only one edit by those involved. There is not the slightest trace of edit warring, as actually defined in the policy you cited, anywhere, by anyone. Qwirkle (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I'd say he added back book spam.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you add in the links to the difs or tell us who made the edits. I'm far too lazy to chase them down. ANd too fat to catch them.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * for he's the most rationale of us all.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, he's the only rational one here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Qwirkle. Even a proponent describes it as an "edit-war".--Moxy (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything actionable here. An argument over what is/isn't book spam. And going behind someone and reverting their removal of said book spam might not be edit warring, but it might be something else.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, one shouldn't confuse "edit warring" with "breaking the 3R barrier". One can argue that Qwirkle is sort of edit warring in that they're reverting a whole lot, and I certainly disagree with their edits (and I am glad Ronz does too), but this isn't (yet) something we should call on the Parrot Brigade for. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that they were the same edits that you had reverted, I suppose that someone could argue that you were sort of edit warring...that is, if the idea of a single edit to an article constituting an “edit war” were not inherently fatuous. Qwirkle (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I adhere to 1RR for most things. Looked like bookspam to me, but I can see how others might disagree.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing spam is good; adding it back? meh.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Placing 'the' seminal work on a subject in articles connected with it strikes you as spam? A single revert of another person’s revert of a third persons edit strikes you as edit warring? Qwirkle (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said that. Never said either one. Still don't see what action you are seeking.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you just did. You may not have realized it, perhaps. Emanuel Raymond Lewis’s Seacoast Fortifications..&cet is the first major scholarly retrospective on the subject covered here, and 5 decades on, it is still the starting point for study of it. And I surfaced Ronz’s behaviour here because he claimed, to paraphrase as I did above,  that single revert[s]of another person’s revert[s] of a third persons edits - that’s what occured there - was somehow “edit warring”. you appear to be endorsing that idea. Qwirkle (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, no.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is indeed the case, I think it odd that you would be asking, in effect, what I see wrong with this picture. We see a series of implicit or explicit accusations of bad faith, from spamming to edit-warring, that appear to have no substance to them. Ordinary editing is described as misbehaviour; poisoning the well appears to be rather a norm for WP:SPAM if this mess is typical. And there are unfortunate overtones of ownership as well; there appears to be an assumption that the spam project puts ordinary editing on hold.

Sorry, but rather than calling it "edit warring", it would have been better to bring up WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Given the context of the discussion, calling it "Using reverts to restore the same material on multiple articles without notifying anyone of the reverts, after multiple editors have expressed their opinions that the material may be spam in a ongoing discussion about the material" in order to be more precise would just add too much to an already overly-lengthy discussion. As I've already brought up WP:IDHT and WP:FOC to the discussion, I think a reminder of WP:NOTBATTLE is appropriate now that we're at ANI over terminology. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we are at ANI over use of inaccurate, pejorative, descriptions of other’s editing, poisoning the well by describing a rather good source as book spam, or a routine revert as edit-warring. That sort of thing. Qwirkle (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * So we agree-- it's not edit warring but something else.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit peace-keeping? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit police action? We in the States were very big on that at one time.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now we just name our wars with inspiring patriotic titles spun up by the DoD's PR department. Edit-Enduring Freedom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit-liberating.🇺🇸 <b style="display:inline-block;transform:scale(-1,-1);">Levivich</b><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 23:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit mutually assured destruction. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

War!! What is it good for!?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing (uh), say it again y'all. (Sorry, I tried, I really, really tried, but the impulse was just too strong.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if it's used as a source, it should be linked to. I think if it's just added into the See also section that that section should be reserved for internal links to other articles. I can see why if added not as a wource how someone could mistake it for book spam. Though I think that is probably for some other discussion ? -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * " describing a rather good source as book spam"-- but it wasn't used as a source in the articles? Just added to "See also"? See above.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Passing over the minor errors of fact (“Further reading” is not quite the same as “See also”), this might have justified someone reverting with a summary of “looks like bookspam”, but when someone else restored it, accusing them, inaccurately, of edit-warring is poisoning the well. At that point, the burden of proof is solidly on the other foot, and a simple trip to Worldcat ot even Goo-Goo Books should have ended it there and then. Qwirkle (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

CharlieNgo2002
CharlieNgo2002 has been stating his point of view continuously in Venezuelan politics-related articles (e.g. Juan Guaidó, President of Venezuela, Vice President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro) and even the article of the country itself with misleading edit summary (which all of them are "Fixed typo; Fixed grammar; Added links"). It seems that he wanted to start an edit war. After checking his contributions, in my view, he is probably a single-purpose account. I also doubt if he is a sock puppet of someone, but I can't sure. Sænmōsà<font size="1.5" color="grey">I will find a way or make one. 01:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also thanks and  for helping revert his edits. Sænmōsà<font size="1.5" color="grey">I will find a way or make one. 02:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for forty-eight hours, and explained why on its talk page. It's not impossible that this is a redeemable, good-faith account, so we'll AGF for now and see how it behaves once the block is up. Steve Smith (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Sænmōsà<font size="1.5" color="grey">I will find a way or make one. 04:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Block Evasion
Hi there, apologies first if there's a better place to ask this. This topic covers a few things so I wasn't sure where to post specifically, since edit warring and suspected sock puppetry are both involved. There have been edits to the article Dakota Johnson which have a long history of having her personal life edited (specifically, with removing her relationship with Chris Martin) mainly by one editor geolocated in France (for multiple IP addresses) who's already been rangeblocked at Special:Contributions/2A01:CB04:493:C300:0:0:0:0/64, but continues to delete the same information with no explanation. Currently, the IP address the user is using, 92.184.96.183, is engaged in an edit war with the same deletion pattern. I've already warned both users on edit warring and to take the issue to the talk page, but after looking more into the page's history, this has been happening for a while already with this user. I'd appreciate any advice for action that can be taken. Thanks, Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 04:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP editor for a week. I can semi-protect the article if you want, but it seems like this might clear up the problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Semi-protection would probably be best; it was previously protected for a week back on December 20, 2018. Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 11:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Another IP showed up, so I semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Indef or topic ban for John1427
I suggest user John1427 be either indefinitely blocked or topic banned from religion (broadly construed) as per WP:NOTHERE. The user insists on changing the article Jesus in what I can only see as either vandalism or failure to understand Wikipedia, ,. I am also somewhat concern by the user's habit of going on the talk page of every user who comments on them or revert them to leave messages in what is starting to look a bit like harassment, , , , , , , , , , , ,. As Tgeorgescu points out, the user clearly states they don't believe in WP policies, further showing they are not here to contribute. Last and least, requesting to change one's user name twice in less than a week does not look serious,. All the evidence suggest that this user is not here to contribute. Jeppiz (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree since this editor thinks that his/her own religious POV trumps WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to let you know Jesus loves you, but I don't agree with anything you said. The Wikipedia policies are flawed and flexible, as shown in the five pillars. And just because one Christian says one thing about following hard on the policies, doesn't mean I do either.

Highbrow isn't very persuasive to commonfolk, whom 95% of the world belong to, so the academia doesn't sway me either. I forgive you. John1427 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Quoted from User talk:Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagree 1st, there I see an unfounded case for vandalism lacking reasoning. 2nd, WP:HA; Does anyone not want a kitten post? I would understand. 3rd, name change "does not look" serious is a far fetched perception, and carries no weight on the argument. Fourth, Wikipedia clearly states to use common sense in the articles, in which I have exercised in editing Jesus, and have been confronted to have vandalized Jesus who claimed Himself to be risen? To conclude, no policies have been violated, whether I believe or disbelieve is irrelevant, just as whether you believe or disbelieve the Gospel is irrelevant to the consequences of eternal damnation, and "harassment" has been put on kitten photos and boba tea pictures, and I prospect name changes could clearly imply John1427 is ready to get to work here. John1427 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not ask for your forgiveness, so forgiving me is a token of contempt (conceit), for me and for the Wikipedia community. Besides, nobody wants to change your own beliefs, but we require you to act as an adult. Teaching you WP:RULES certainly does not mean that I have harmed you. You simply don't belong in our company. This isn't harm, as I have been in no way harmed by being denied membership of the Rotary Club. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree per Tgeorgescu. The editor appears to want to apply his own religious morality and POV to the encyclopedia.

It's a Deeper Issue. Georgia Pastor Jentezen Franklin + 10,000 person congregation = passes WP:GNG? NJ Pastor John Wagner + 10,000 member congregation = fails WP:GNG? I criticize Wikipedia for its sense to invite pornographic actors on WP:PEOPLE instead of men who serve and follow the LORD our GOD. Resolve as you wish. John1427 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Quoted from Articles for deletion/John Wagner (pastor). GPL93 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree per Jeppiz,Tgeorgescu and GPL93.John1427 keeps trying to change the Jesus article from "Jesus was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "is the only begotten son of God" and then sends whoever reverts that a picture of a kitten with "Jesus loves you" to their talk page. I don't know if he is for real or just a troll or what but it is a nuisance and dealing with it is a waste of time.Smeat75 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from religion, broadly construed. This person mistakes this neutral encyclopedia for a religious tract, and their disruption must be stopped. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indef - This is someone editing with an agenda and not here to improve the encyclopedia. Show him the door. WaltCip (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indef If they want a pulpit, I suggest here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As an aside, the username is a bible verse, specifically John 14:27. Rather asinine for someone who espouses a my-way-or-the-highway demeanour to be referencing a bible verse about easing others' troubles. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:TAGTEAM
and have been WP:TAGTEAM on Indus Valley Civilization article. Please see edit wars here by FF, here by Ashlin, here again by FF, and here again by Ashlin, no one else undid my work during that timeline. FF accused me of edits I did not make. But, I pointed to him, it was not me. After I proved he was falsely accusing me of edits I did not make, he came with a petty grammar excuse here, which was very small, it was over adding a first name, however, I fixed it. Then came and undid my work without an explanation. As you can observe from the diff, which Ashlin and FF WP:TAGTEAMed -- I just took out unreferenced content, fixed spelling and added references; added these two references, one by Gregory Possehl and other by Shearer 2010, FF did not dispute these two references in talk when we discussed. As mentioned, instead accused me of edits previous done by WP:CONSENSUS, not me, afterwards he dodged by finding a petty grammar excuse. Again, if you look at edit history for the past few days, it was largely edit warring on FF's behalf. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC))


 * Looks like a content dispute. There is discussion on the article talk page. IVC stuff is quite well-known for being contentious but I don't think two people disagreeing with one necessarily makes for a tagteam effort. I know Fowler was absent from Wikipedia for quite a while, as indeed I have been, so perhaps your edits stood because they were simply not around at the time you made them? I'm not delving into this but I think dispute resolution will be the way forward. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , please point out the content dispute undone by Ashlin here without an explanation. I just removed unsourced material, fixed spelling and added two references (These two references I would have gladly removed if mentioned in the long talk discussion, but was not). It was just about keeping the version FF likes, as he stated many times, "I wrote this article" and something similar, etc. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC))


 * I agree that this is a content dispute. However, there is also an edit war going on while the dispute is being discussed. I have therefore fully protected the article for one week so the editors can resolve the dispute, either on the Talk page, or, if not possible, through some other means of dispute resolution., your last edit to the article was a rollback, which was not justified. Continuing abuse of the privilege will result in the loss of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * has also recently started reverting / removing cited text from the Slavery in India page on the regulation, and prohibiting slavery, failing to participate in the article’s Talk, page, and blanking their own: talk page, which is not what i’d expect from one of the most prolific editors. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, Highpeaks is not the only editor who has reverted you, and your edit summaries labeling other editors' edits vandalism constitutes personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I am flabbergasted by this ANI thread. I'm not even sure where to begin and how deep to dive into this slough of Farce.   is very likely unaware that  is one of the most respected Wikipedians around.  AshLin was one of the main organizers of the First Wiki Conference India in Mumbai, 2011, at which Jimmy Wales was the keynote speaker, and at which I was nominated in absentia for Awesome Wikipedian, though not awarded, however, later receiving a Indian barnstar of National Merit, which along with last year's Pakistani barnstar of National Merit, are among my proudest possessions.  Highpeaks35 is unaware that AshLin is a senior retired officer of the Indian Army, and has served as lead judge of the photography contest Wiki Loves Armed Services (He appears in the link under his own name.)  AshLin, moreover, was the winner of the Nature Forever Society's prestigious Sparrow Award, 2017.  (He is the one holding the snake.)  It's one thing that Highpeaks35 is badmouthing me, for I'm used to a level of discourse on Wikipedia that seldom rises not just to the level of graduate students I have taught, not just to that of the occasional undergraduate class, but not even to that of the rare high school student that appears at our institution as a summer intern.  But it is quite another when without understanding AshLin's edit summary, Highpeaks35 is imputing a motive to the edit, which by virtue of roping me in, turns out to be tag-teaming. It is best to quickly close this thread; for the more time it is open, the more I will seethe at this calumny, and the more I will consider delving into Highpeaks35's own not so stellar edits that have been the bane of India-related pages lately.  Seriously, there is a limit to what the WP community will put up with.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , please see what has noted above: "AshLin, your last edit to the article was a rollback, which was not justified." Now threatening me with personal attacks like: "best to quickly close this thread; for the more time it is open, the more I will seethe at this calumny, and the more I will consider delving into Highpeaks35's own not so stellar edits" is unacceptable behavior. Using your past repeteur to justify your current behavior and racist-language/choice of words like "Hindu garbage" against me and my work is unacceptable. Your threats and racist language like "Hindu garbage" is not acceptable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
 * PS My ineractions with Highpeaks35 are usually more along the lines of the exchange in Talk:Great_Famine_of_1876–1878. Note that when I did post examples of plagiarism at WT:INDIA, Highpeaks35 had lost all interest in the topic.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PPS It is not that Highpeaks35 has not been warned by other editors, sympathetic ones. Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  21:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * commenting on your edits is not a personal attack. See WP:WIAPA. Furthermore, BOOMERANG exists for a very good reason. Then again, ,

"Unmitigated garbage. All stitched clothes were introduced to India by the Muslims; all garments of gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheons in Hindu temples in North India are made by Muslim tailors. Indeed the profession of a tailor in north India is usually associated with Muslims. What is all this Hindu garbage. The Hindus wore only draped clothes before the Muslim conquest of India. This is documented in several books on the history of clothing in India."

- Fowler&amp;fowler


 * is beyond the pale, in my opinion, although from what has been evidenced here, seems to be a one off. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PPPS As for racism and Eurocentrism, I hear the refrain at least once a day, here though is the context in which it was said. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , You accused me of promoting plagiarism is moot . I used a source from Dr. Bimal K. Paul, a professor from Kansas State University. His book Food and Famine in the 21st Century, edited William A. Dando, who is a Professor Emeritus, Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology, Indiana State University and published by a notable publisher. Meets WP:RS. Now blaming me, is moot . Also, do not change the subject. You promote a Eurocentric POV push and called me and my work "Hindu garbage". I do not tolerate such words, like "Hindu garbage" . Saying those words "Hindu garbage" is unacceptable ( in any circumstance ); and now threatening me with BOOMERANG is just plain wrong. I can't image using "Jew garbage" or "African garbage" in any circumstance. Period! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
 * You might want to read law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Bidhan Singh vandalizer
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE, before the administrators of Wikipedia do something about the mobile editor who keeps disrupting India-related articles? How many times & how many pages must I request 'semi-protection' for, before the administrative community finally does something? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What IP address(es) and/or account(s) is this editor using? What are some diffs? It would be helpful if you said it, lest you violate WP:NPA and risk a WP:BOOMERANG. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 17:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Check my contribs history. You'll see how many times I've reverted the range of mobile edits & how many times I've requested page semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To SemiHypercube: see here and here for discussions pertaining to this Bidhan Singh vandalizer. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Inviting, , , and  to discussion, as they've recently reverted disruptive edits, by the 'mobile editor(s)-in-question'. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think an edit filter specifically to check for addition the string Bidhan singh and/or addition of arbitrary newlines by IP editors in India related articles would go a long way to curb this sort of mindless vandalism. Semi-protecting an indeterminate amount of pages for short periods isn't a solution for somebody who is singlemindedly focused on vandalising Wikipedia. <b style="font-family:monospace;"><< FR (mobileUndo)</b> 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur about a filter. First noticed pointless newlines being added at the beginning of Google Earth, so not just India articles. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the alert, GoodDay, even if it was a little obscure; the readers here aren't necessarily aware of what you have already said at WP:RFPP and elsewhere. Apparently there used to be a User:Bidhan Singh, who was indeffed in 2014 by Ponyo, and who has ever since been adding his own name to articles. Here is a typical edit. Sneaky! I agree with the previous speaker that a filter seems to be the way to go. We can't have all these articles on permanent semi. Filter editors please take note. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

(post-close comment) I'm pretty sure I mentioned edit filters when the issue was last raised here at ANI... –FlyingAce✈hello 14:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not working..... <b style="font-family:monospace;"><< FR (mobileUndo)</b> 15:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * zzuuzz or any other Edit filter admin, please also include the string "Bidhan Singh" and its capitalizations (Bidhan singh, bidhan Singh, bidhan singh, BIDHAN SINGH, etc) in the edit filter. there is no notable person or author with the name "Bidhan Singh" (only a narcissist vandal) so we are safe on any collateral damages from this filter. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess the filters aren't working, because Mr Singh is back, causing more disruption. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: I'm no longer going to request page protections, as administrators there seem reluctant to permanent semi-protect or long term semi-protect attacked articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, why do you think that page protection will help here ? since you know about this vandal more than me, can you guarantee that once the long list of pages, you want protected, are protected then this vandalism will be stopped ? I hardly believe that will happen. Bidhan Singh will simply move on to other pages and indulge in self glorification. IMHO, the Edit filter is the most optimum response for this situation. Perhaps some more tweaks to the edit filter are needed. So let's help the admins like zzuuzz, Oshwah and Bishonen in solving the problem, they are trying to help without causing massive collateral damage. Dont loose hope and let the vandals win this one.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I did some testing logged out, and it seems the peripheral portions (addition and removal of the FLC date) which allowed the edit to pass through. <b style="font-family:monospace;"><< FR (mobileUndo)</b> 18:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to sound pedantic or giving too much away, the discussion above requested a filter to prohibit this phrase in articles, and that is exactly what was implemented and is working absolutely perfectly. If you want a prohibition of this phrase in pages instead, I'll need to have a little think about where to put it (as well as whether it's efficient or useful). This is why, elsewhere, I requested some facts about typical edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I would point out that this also seems to affirm that simply semi protecting some pages wouldn't help. In fact, we would have ended up semi protecting talk pages and the editor would just move on to other pages. Meanwhile a poorly implemented blanket ban on the term anywhere by anyone would have made this discussion and any future discussion of this difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * zzuuzz, I think enabling it for only article and talk namespaces would be enough for now to stop the vandal for now. <b style="font-family:monospace;"><< FR (mobileUndo)</b> 04:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What has technically happened is that I've adjusted one of our omnibus filters, with all its pre-existing conditions (which I'm not going to go into great detail about). Creating a dedicated filter for one vandal is really a last resort, and requires quite a bit of information. So far, the filter has registered (and prevented) 9 relevant hits. I'm going to watch what happens with this filter for a while. Not only will it register a likely list of IP addresses and targets, it will also probably indicate to what extent talk pages are a problem and potential evolution of the vandal's behaviour. I appreciate that this vandal has already added themselves to talk pages, but getting rid of vandals can often be achieved more effectively by subtle adjustments and not wielding a big banhammer. Let's see what happens for a while. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Trillfendi
I'm reporting the above user for blatant incivility for no reason at all. Today I had reverted the user from two articles' GAN nominations since per WP:GANI "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." I left a polite note on the user's talk page explaining the scenario as well as on the GAN talk page. The user then had a really battleground reply on his talk page and proceeded to personally attack me on the GAN talk page and other profanity. This is seriously gross when an experienced editor resorts to simply name calling and not taking time to understand why he/she was reverted. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry that you’re offended by the female anatomy, which isn’t profanity, or idioms that you’re unfamiliar with—no one called you a “name” anywhere, stop projecting. And it’s “her” not his, all that time you’ve spent on my page today it takes all of two seconds to see the right at the top it says “this contributor is female so don’t call her a male”. And no you weren’t polite at all, so I came back with the same energy. Just because we have different interpretations of the policy, in which we’re both right, doesn’t mean you should lie. Trillfendi (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please show with differences where I made personal attacks to you Trillfendi, or called you "dumbass". Regarding your pronoun, no I did not check your user page where it is written that you are female (which I can see now). And no, other users in GAN agree with my actions, so stop with the mighty attitude and learn civility. I will leave the rest to administrators. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ]
 * You’re not a psychic. You don’t know what edits I’m going to make anywhere at any time. I interpret anyone can nominate as such. Knowing there’s a backlog almost a year long, it’s not like anyone was going to start reviewing it anytime soon anyway. So go snitch somewhere else. And anyone can nominate means just that, so my interpretation was indeed right. If anyone can’t nominate then the policy must be changed. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you just changed your story 180 degress, implicitly agreeing that you were not a significant contributor prior to GAN, reallying making your attitude over this even more questionable. The natural assumption is that an article nominated for GA review is believed to be at GA level already. I could nominate Lucha Brothers now and in the next 8 months bring it from a newly created skeleton to a Good Article, but that's not how it works. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Article Marvelous Marvels of Marvel (movie) is also not eligable for GAN, at least not to anyone else. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the female anatomy was the objectionable part of that reply. Anyone familiar with vernacular English understands the subtext. I honestly think someone has been overly sensitive and overly reactive.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * “Tough titties” is just sarcasm. No one is taking anything sensitively besides the person running to administrators about such saying. I didn’t say “GFY”. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think Trillfendi's response was not in keeping with a collegeal environment, I'm not sure it warrants admin action. Some deep breaths and self calming might help.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I never look to see what someone's preferred gender pronoun is. Being a dinosaur, I sometimes lapse into the collective "he". Mostly I use "they" or "thay". Some users gender remains a mystery to me and I enjoy a certain mystery in a relationship.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in my relationships I prefer to know the gender, to avoid surprises at awkward moments. But that's just me. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IndianBio's initial reverts were almost guaranteed to get anybody's back up, but fundamentally they were not wrong. I see that has acknowledged the need for discussions before they nominate articles they haven't edited much. As such I'm not seeing anything actionable here at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. . "Please", "thank you", and "I'm sorry to bear ill-tidings, but", can go along way to not upsetting other users. Calming breaths. Then cpmpose your massage.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright folks, I’m eating lunch. Back to your regularly scheduled editing pursuits. Much bigger problems out there right now. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Trillfendi should be more precise in their plea to elevate the said articles to the status of Greater Article Ever. According to a Google list of synonyms, "rough titties" can be parsed as: durable titties, strong titties, resilient titties, sturdy titties, rugged titties, solid titties, stout titties, long-lasting titties, heavy-duty titties, industrial-strength titties, well-built titties, made to last titties, ruffian titties, thug titties, goon titties, hoodlum titties, hooligan titties, roughneck titties, hood titties, heavy titties, bruiser titties, hardman titties, yahoo titties -- and, why not, google titties. Which one to use ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think from the subtext she meant "industrial-strength titties".-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's Neelix when we need him? This gives me an opportunity to link to this titillating DYK item. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For those who don't understand, see this ANI thread. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 16:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Liones 123
This edit on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. (Liones 123's sole edit) merits admin attention. It was reverted by as "gibberish," but in fact it's hate speech. Please ping me if you need me for anything. R2 (bleep) 18:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them as not here. If anyone wants to unblock or give them advice, feel free. Doug Weller  talk 19:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015


This is a frustrating one; O-Qua makes a lot of minor, but still constructive edits. However, the editor seems to be on a mission to change any occurrences of spelled-out numbers greater than 9 to their numerical equivalents. This is despite the fact that multiple people (including me, just yesterday) have pointed out MOS:SPELL09 and MOS:RETAIN. In fact, looking at their last twenty (or 20?) edits, 12 of them have been of this type (diffs:, , , , , , , , , , , ), quite a few of which were made after my most recent message on their talk page. I've brought this to ANI now because of their continued lack of response to my (and others') concerns. Note, English doesn't seem to be the issue here, since I did find a tiny handful of Talk and Wikipedia namespace edits among their other edits, and they seem perfectly capable of communicating, just unwilling to do so. Their talk page is a long list of template warnings, and they've had a couple short blocks in the past, but I'm not sure any of that seems to have made any impact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked contributions and what the OP says is true: he's on a mission and has been warned repeatedly. A block is needed at this point. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked them to not edit further w/o responding here. However, I see prior block notices but no feedback from the user. This must be MOS Ignorer week.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Love Suicides at Amijima
I stumbled upon this article, and upon running the copyvio checker, it appears to be largely a copy of. I can't get this link to load, however, so I'm not sure if it could be a copy paste from the article. Requesting evaluation and revdel if necessary. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like it needs an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that PDF you linked looks like it's based on Wikipedia page to me. So I don't think the article is a copyright violation. The text on page 11: E.g. "Milwaukee, WI-based Dale Gutzman (book, lyrics) and Todd Wellman (score) debuted the musical adaption AmijimA in 2007. Listen to the WUWM interview with the creative team." sounds like it is supposed to have a link in it, which the PDF doesn't (just states that as prose). Also the "See also Sonezaki Shinjū, a 1978 film based on the same story." (p. 2, again with no links, and referencing something that's not discussed in that PDF). So I'd say it was copied out of Wikipedia probably, rather than the other way around. <span style="font-family:'Wreathe','Centaur','serif';color:#2a1657;background:#e2daf1">—&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 19:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So is it the chicken or the Egg?Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Truncated by BBB23 and template:copyvio placed till matter resolved. I think the article is the chicken.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say a Wikipedian chicken laid an egg legally, then it hatched into an unattributed copy at the above link. <span style="font-family:'Wreathe','Centaur','serif';color:#2a1657;background:#e2daf1">—&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 19:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Love Suicides at Sonezaki looks the same. I'm assuming all four are. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It maybe an idea to use a copyright checker on the text of the articel, just in case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article was created in 2005, but that PDF was created in 2013 (click on "properties"). The evidence strongly points to the PDF being the copy, rather than our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can read the file just fine and it is titled "FOUR MAJOR PLAYS OF CHIKAMATSU" and contains the sections The Love Suicides at Sonezaki, The Battles of Coxinga, The Uprooted Pine and The Love Suicides at Amijima and closely follow the structure and content of the linked articles. -- Auric   talk  16:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a little bit of investigating. Some of the text from the very first version of the article can be found in the .pdf.  The original article was created by User:Kamezuki, who hasn't been active since 2006.  A large plot synopsis was later added by User:Marudubshinki (later renamed to User:Gwern).  Both text from the original article and the addition of the plot synopsis are found in the .pdf.  Pinging  (who's still active) in case they have any comment on the matter. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote the plot summary myself. I certainly didn't copy any 2013 PDF from half a decade later (and why would a native Japanese speaker writing up the play be citing Keene for basic info like currencies anyway?). --Gwern (contribs) 15:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds's signature
I didn't want to bring this here, but I've tried to communicate with Flooded with them hundreds on their talk page about it and got brushed off, and they are continuing to use the signature, so I believe this may need community attention.

An example of the new signature can be seen in this diff.

Flooded is a prolific recent changes patroller, and does a lot of good work in that vein; however, they also (by necessity) become the first person to make contact with a new editor, by leaving a template on their talk page. I believe that this signature would be very confusing for new users - it smacks of conflict and bitterness, and for people who intend to edit collaboratively (and are getting a template for making an honest mistake) it will be positively off-putting.

WP:SIG says that anything that's not allowed in a username is not allowed in a signature; I don't believe that a username along the lines of 'AdminsTreatMeLikeDirt' would survive a nomination to UAA. I'm not looking for Flooded to be blocked or anything, I just think that they should change this signature, or at the very least stop templating new users with it and potentially driving people away from the project. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A tricky one. Possibly violates WP:SIGLENGTH (as being too long) and WP:CUSTOMSIG (which states "a distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users"). However there's no actual disruption as far as I can see, no personal attacks or incivility etc. GiantSnowman 13:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - for clarity, I am not accusing Flooded of incivility. I'm just concerned that a new user, reading that long and snarky signature, would be either confused or put off. And, given the nature of the work they do, a template from Flooded with this signature attached to it is the first contact from the community that a lot of new users receive. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not ideal, but I'm stumped as to what we can do about it. GiantSnowman 13:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The operative element of the signature is (sig inspired by Hullaballoo)—and is to whom you must go. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified. GiantSnowman 14:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's better than Flooded's previous oversized signature. (And there's really no point in engaging Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in a discussion about it, there'll be no joy there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Username policy actually states that "Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia and will be immediately blocked if they...are...long..." Rather ambiguous, given that how long 'long' is isn't actually defined. Probably needs clarification. Would be rather unfair to block anyone on that basis though. It might however be wise to suggest to Flooded that even if there isn't currently a policy or guideline banning his username, one might turn up if he doesn't find a way to be a bit more subtle with his gripes. Definitely offputting for a noob. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The point, all, about me directing you to HW was not to discuss anything with him (why? it's none of his business), but to intimate that, perhaps, the issue has already arisen? This discussion—and there have been others of a similar vintage—pretty comprehensively tanked the question. And hypotheticals like "scaring noobies" is little more tha an exercise in Project Fear. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you about Project Fear, and I actually think the two cases are rather different. HW, from what I can see from a quick look at their contrib history, mostly works on content, and doesn't use talk pages much. Flooded is a very prolific patroller - they template tens or hundreds of IPs and new accounts every day. We are all encouraged to be welcoming and communicative with new editors - that message does the exact opposite. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the issue is the message being sent out, the cases are clearly exactly the same; by your logic, the issue would be resolved if FWTH stopped patrolling. Would that be an improvement to the encyclopaedia? ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Have we treated Flooded like dirt two years before they created their account? Good to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is User:Zawl I believe. --Izno (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be a clever trick,  ;)  but, more mundanely, I think it just refers to the previous (3?) usernames.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to Serial Number 54129's question above - yes, this particular issue would be resolved by their ceasing to patrol; no, that wouldn't be a benefit to the project; and that's not the outcome I want. I just hope to convince them to stop posting what amounts to a complaint about how Wikipedia is administered on the talk page of hundreds of new users every day - that's not what warning templates are for. I brought it here because I hoped that, if it was clear that the community wanted them to change it, that might carry a bit of weight.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally,, I probably ouhgt to emphasise that I am actually in agreement with you on at least one aspect of this: I think the signature is childish, petty and with a certain arrogance. But I think consistency and fairness to established editors are as important as ?civility to new editors, and however much I personally dislkie those sigs, I object to condemning one without the other: condemn both, if the community wants to return to it.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I originally had an issue with his purple sig (which I thought what this thread was all about) but having seen 3-4 people already raise it with him on his tp I figured me leaving another sig message would be pointless, I feel like this editor is intentionally trying to be disruptive .... He caused issues with the purple and now here we are a new signature and still more problems,
 * FWIW Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's sig was also raised here a few years ago but nothing was done about it - If anyone deserves that signature it's TRM!, Anyway there's generally leeway given to sigs but I feel this is rather pointy and quite honestly childish,
 * Just my 2p anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Genuine question - Do you have diffs where you were "treated like dirt" I'm genuinely curious. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently I missed the part where this thread is about his sig and welcoming new editors - Doesn't really fill the newbie with confidence does it .... "Welcome to Wikipedia, I've been treated like shit for 3 years" ..... Don't welcome new editors (unless you change the sig) = Problem solved. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's say I was welcoming new editors, ending every welcome message with "By the way, the administrators will treat you like dirt!". Not in a signature, just at the end of every message.  I would imagine a topic ban from welcoming new editors would be forthcoming.  I don't care if FWTH has it in his signature day to day, but the welcome template should be welcoming.  And that welcome template includes the signature, we should not be hung up on the fact the phrase is within the signature, we should be considering the fact it's within every welcome message FWTH leaves.  It's proselytizing and not an appropriate message to give to potential new editors. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FWTH is well aware of this conversation and has shown no inclination to participate.  I imagine he's loving the attention.  I would hope FWTH could voluntarily choose to stop welcoming new editors until he changes his signature. If he doesn't then he needs a topic ban from doing so. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the OP here, who has for all practical purposes been editing for well under a year, could explain why this is a matter of such moment that it called for escalation from a talk page post to a drama board fracas in less than one hour, and why they apparently did not consider another part of the policy they cite, Username_policy. Moreover, since their real concern is that the signature Sends The Wrong Message to new users, it is probable that their purpose violates WP:NOTCENSORED. Finally, we have enough jackass editors here who blithely treat new users with appalling callousness and arrogance; it seems quite odd and counterproductive to ban signatures which send the message "Don't let the bastards grind you down" merely because it might tend to offend the bastards' tender sensibilities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED is for encyclopedic content. We do not censor encyclopedic content because we are here to be a reference for people on a variety of topics. This does not extend to things posted elsewhere. For example, you cannot insult people, share viewpoints in support of things like Nazism or pedophilia, and you are supposed to avoid biting new editors. (And if we really wanted to be more friendly toward women, we would not allow degrading sexual content in userspace, but that's another matter.) This is not censoring, this is having a modicum of professionalism when it comes to getting work done on wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (and I see F&K has made essentially the same point above) I think it more useful to frame this issue in terms of disruptive anti-vandalism patrolling than a WP:SIG violation. Suppose someone, instead of using uw-vandalism1, left the following:
 * on the talk pages of new users. Certainly that would be regarded as disruptive? I don't see the point of having the clause Signature use that is intentionally and persistently disruptive may lead to blocks. if we can never enforce it, either. (and since Hullaboo does not do anti-vandalism patrolling to my knowledge, there would be no selective enforcement here). I would argue that while Flooded can use this signature in other contexts, in the context of leaving newbies message, he should not be allowed to (he should use a different signature when doing anti-vandalism patrolling) and should be blocked if he continues to do so (I suppose that would be regarded as more admins treating him as dirt). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - yes, I'd be glad to explain. As I said above, Flooded is very prolific - you just have to look at their contribution history to see what I mean. I raised in on their talk page, and they made it pretty clear that they had no intention of changing it, so I wasn't sure what else to do:: I suppose I could have waited and asked them again, after they'd put it on a few hundred more people's talk pages, but I didn't really see the merit in that. I did consider leaving well enough alone, and rejected that idea because I was genuinely concerned about the potential for harm to the project. I have no axe to grind with Flooded, I appreciate the work that they do, I just wish that they would do it without putting that negative, snarky message (which I did not read in the spirit you assert is intended) on the talk page of new users.
 * I agree with Galobtter and F+K - I've got no problems with Flooded using that signature in other contexts, but not when templating new users. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out what else to do, so I blew this dispute up as much as I could -- that does not exactly provide confidence in your grasp of policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I have not been editing that long, and my grasp of policy is not comprehensive; I hope you can also see that I'm doing what I can to develop it. Your mischaracterisation isn't fair - I am not trying to create drama, I'm trying to stop something from happening. I saw someone doing something (very frequently) that I thought was counterproductive; I asked them to stop, in what I hope was a friendly and respectful way; they brushed me off, and carried on doing it; so, thinking that it was urgent because of the sheer frequency with which they were doing it, I brought it here. I have never raised an ANI report against another user before, and I'm not calling for sanctions - I have no beef with you, or with Flooded, I just want them to stop templating people like that. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC) (Feeling somewhat like he's been treated like dirt by HW since earlier this afternoon)
 * It seems to me an editor raising a concern (Flooded's signature) here which has been brought up over a period of time by multiple editors and has, arguably, now gotten worse, has a good enough grasp on how Wikipedia operates to recognize a "chronic, intractable" dispute. Considering a number of longtime editors agreeing with the concerns raised here by Girth, their posited lack of experience does not seem to have caused them to misstep in this posting in anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty childish to me, but nonetheless, the signature seems to only cause potential harm to Wikipedia if it is present while Flooded is welcoming/warning new users. A block should be enforced if he continues to persist in this. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty childish to me, but nonetheless, the signature seems to only cause potential harm to Wikipedia if it is present while Flooded is welcoming/warning new users. A block should be enforced if he continues to persist in this. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a newbie who has had early issues with some admin, when I saw 's signature, rather than finding it off-putting, I found it quite encouraging. It was nice to know that I wasn't the only one who felt a certain way. I encourage other editors to question their assumption that this signature is a negative message that would be off-putting, as opposed to a positive message of encouragement (yes, seriously). As Hullaballoo said: ...we have enough jackass editors here who blithely treat new users with appalling callousness and arrogance; it seems quite odd and counterproductive to ban signatures which send the message "Don't let the bastards grind you down".... Nobody should believe that FWTH's signature is what's going to determine a new user's opinion of WP or how people treat people on WP. The new user will form that opinion on their own anyway, indeed most new users already have formed an opinion before ever editing (new editors are not new readers), and long before they'll have seen FWTH's signature. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? !  16:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At least you should close the bold on your sig (I did it for you, but you should still close it up) <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 16:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed, and thank you for point it out to me (and cleaning it up here). Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , who told you that new editors are not new readers?
 * Unless you've gone batshit crazy, do you seriously wish to claim that a newbie editor makes a round-trip across random user-t/p(s), ANI threads and all the backstage-drama before choosing to correct a typo or insert a line or whatever?
 * And, by the way, what's your previous account or did you have an habit of maneuvering through the trenches, prior to your excellently competent edits? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no new readers of Wikipedia. If you ask your phone or computer a question, the first thing that pops up is a WP article. It's the #5 website on the internet. Every student and every other internet-connected person in the English-speaking world looks stuff up on enwiki. This is not an encyclopedia, this is the encyclopedia, and has been for years. I'm not sure how you can imagine that somebody would start an account here who hasn't previously read Wikipedia, although I am starting to understand why you're so mystified by newbie proficiency, if you think that before starting an account, new editors basically have never read the encyclopedia before. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  Making many veterans jealous with his amazing markup skillz since registering his first and only account in November 2018. <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 19:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you were claiming that most new users already have formed an opinion before ever editing. And, that's not remotely equivalent to the nuanced strawman, that you defended above.
 * I am quite unsure as to how an average reader of WP (who types a string into Google, clicks the first link,reads the WP article as TRUTH® and closes the session without bothering about any other non-mainspace-stuff) who is yet to contribute to the site, has formed an opinion about how this site is run or all the backstage stuff.
 * Years back, a A/B testing from WMF'S side did exhibit a greater newbie retention rate, when the RC-patrol-templates were more friendly and to-the-point. And, my experiences over Quora et al leads me to believe that an average reader of WP has hardly any ideas about how the stuff is written, how welcome they are to contribute to WP and what our internal policies are.
 * Also, now that I remember your request for arbitration, certain hazy stuff becomes clearer. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad we agree on something (friendly welcome templates are welcoming). Quora is not Wikipedia. How do people know about the backstage stuff of Wikipedia? From the media. Examples from this week:, , , , , . Plus the studies, books and films. From the main page, even when logged out, click "Community portal" and the very first link at the top is "Dashboard" which lists everything backstage, including this page. If that doesn't convince you, here's 300+ examples of significant coverage in RSes of WP's backstage. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 06:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , meh. I surely did not know about Quora not being WP (so, thanks for the info); I was pointing to the questions raised over there about different aspects of WP. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well, if you're judging me or other newbies based on your experiences with people who ask questions about Wikipedia on Quora or other websites, then you may want to rethink whether that's a representative sample. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 08:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, now that I remember your request for arbitration, certain hazy stuff becomes clearer. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad we agree on something (friendly welcome templates are welcoming). Quora is not Wikipedia. How do people know about the backstage stuff of Wikipedia? From the media. Examples from this week:, , , , , . Plus the studies, books and films. From the main page, even when logged out, click "Community portal" and the very first link at the top is "Dashboard" which lists everything backstage, including this page. If that doesn't convince you, here's 300+ examples of significant coverage in RSes of WP's backstage. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 06:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , meh. I surely did not know about Quora not being WP (so, thanks for the info); I was pointing to the questions raised over there about different aspects of WP. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well, if you're judging me or other newbies based on your experiences with people who ask questions about Wikipedia on Quora or other websites, then you may want to rethink whether that's a representative sample. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 08:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well, if you're judging me or other newbies based on your experiences with people who ask questions about Wikipedia on Quora or other websites, then you may want to rethink whether that's a representative sample. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 08:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hullabaloo's signature is clearly allowed, if for no other reason than the length of time it has not been challenged. I don't see any reason to force FwtH to change their signature either, but they should know that willfully antagonizing a large part of the community is unlikely to benefit them. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Replying to: the issue would be resolved if FWTH stopped patrolling. Would that be an improvement to the encyclopaedia? The answer to this rhetorical question is simple. Yes, this would be an improvement. Flooding the talk pages of alleged vandals by messages that only call for more vandalism is surely not what should be done.Pldx1 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A fellow editor wrote to me privately about this ANI discussion, my reply to them is the following: "My friend! How are you doing? Thank you for writing to me. It's great you've done so in advisory of the recent signature issue that arose on my talk page hours ago. You are absolutely correct that the signature may be frowned upon by everyone but I am hoping for there to be consensus which allows me to use it, as I am a strong supporter of individual rights and I am of the opinion that my exercising of the right to voice out in the name of freedom of speech will not be as disruptive as one or more ANI participants have suggested. As you can see, a past discussion linked in the ANI discussion, involving another experienced user, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whom I have taken inspiration from by the use of this signature, has shown that the community may be accepting of the said signature in contrary to the views of the original poster, which suggests that the signature may scare off new users. That may be true, but that may also be false. It is very subjective. One may argue that my signature could actually make new users feel like home, as it shows informalcy on how regular non-admin users are treated by admins. Moreover, I believe the signature is rather subtle and that newbies will not even notice it. Sometimes they don't even notice the entire message because they're newbies who are more likely to be elsewhere than on their own talk page. You are correct, I am absolutely pissed. I am pissed about the bias against new editors and how admins have treated me and other non-admin users terribly. I do not wish to go further on specific incidences but I would like to say that I am not happy and I have tried taking a break for two weeks but apparently I seem to have been suffering from wikipediholism. Changing my signature might easily solve the ongoing case at ANI but it will, however, make my efforts to exercise my freedom of speech void. But of course, if there is a community consensus to prevent me from using this new signature, then I shall change it or revert to my old one at extreme reluctance. Best wishes to you."-- <u style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:7f2ed1">Flooded. Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 (sig inspired by Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Essential reading, for those not familiar with it: Free speech. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFREESPEECH - you are free to complain about admins elsewhere but not on newbie talk pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am curious as to where exactly should one complain about the omnipresent admins? In all seriousness, I feel like that would be WP:FORUM behavoir. Maybe there is a Talk Page I am not aware of? &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * While I've enjoyed working around Flooded with them hundreds, I agree this signature is disruptive, pointy, battlegroundy and insulting. Free speech is one thing (not actually practiced here); walking around with a chip on one's shoulder is another. Please stop with the dirt! -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yes, this is a horrible message with which to greet new users.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So I have been looking this over, is there any sign of anything actually happening with new users in relation to the signature? PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unmeasurable.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We could always ask the new users who have been templated what they think of the signature, and what effect, if any, it had on them. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be worth a look. If there has been no impact is there actually a problem? Personally I am not a fan of non-stock signatures in general but eh not a big deal for me. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the concern here seems based on an assumption that something is bothering somebody else, but there is no evidence that any new users are actually bothered by this. In the meantime, this discussion has inspired me to update my own signature. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  Treating many admin like dirt since 2018. <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich, PackMecEng, you're right - the concern is partly based on assumption, rather than any objective evidence of harm; however, the signature runs contrary to the whole objective of templating. Patrollers (including myself) don't just template obvious vandals - templates are also given new users who are acting in good faith but who aren't aware of our policies and guidelines. At the point when a brand new (good faith) user gets their first template, they most likely don't know what an admin is - they need a friendly welcome, information about why their edit was reverted, and what policies they should read to avoid making the same mistake again. Adding that signature on to such an important first contact is, I believe, frustrating that objective. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree welcomes should be welcoming, of course. But looking at this recent example, it seems like the signature is the least-unwelcoming of all the unwelcoming templates. Even this first template   is unwelcoming IMO. (Compare to  or the {welcome} template, both of which are actually welcoming.) The standard warning templates, even the info-icon ones, are not welcoming. When I look at, the signature, kind of an obvious joke, softens the harshness of the template, rather than making it worse. When I saw Hullaballoo's signature for the first time, it made me feel more welcomed and less alone. So I personally don't think it frustrates the objective, I think it may even promote the objective. (More to the point, I think the templates need an overhaul to be more welcoming.) I interpret it one way; you interpret it another way; I don't know how new editors by and large interpret it. So I think it's good that you brought this up for discussion, as it's definitely something worth looking at, I just don't see it as obviously a problem (or obviously not a problem). Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 20:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * When we welcome people, we need them to... feel welcome. Like they want to join the Wikipedia community. Many of us have had a job or volunteered somewhere where there's someone who feels mistreated and wants to let you know that every chance they get. It quickly becomes tedious/obnoxious (unless you come to feel the same way, of course). That person is never the person who welcomes you and shows you around. If it were, that person would be fired/dismissed/whatever. Grumpy Gus keeps his job when his job doesn't depend on making people feel like a welcome part of the community (and if it goes as far as "I do what I want even if everyone complains" I would presume it would be hard to find a long-term home in a place built on collaboration and community). So yeah, I think the role someone takes for themselves here does matter when looking at something like this. There are plenty of examples, for better or worse, when we tolerate something in one situation but not another, e.g. there's more allowance for some harsh/profane language when in the midst of a heated content dispute, but take the same language and direct it at newbies while welcoming them, and it wouldn't be ok. F+K has a good point that if this were a typed message to each user rather than part of the signature (no difference to them), it would be a clearer problem. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe they have been treated like dirt.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think a failed RFA is a good reason to wear a chip on one's shoulder, especially given the impossible standards the community sets these days.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - (without making a judgement on the primary issue) - the community having impossible standards would actually increase the justification for a failed RfA to initiate chip-wearing. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this, although I don't think a signature like that is the way to go. Natureium (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's an RfA. I haven't participated for a long time but is participation now restricted to admins? If not, was there a substantially different outcome between the !votes of admins and the !vote of non-admins? If neither of these are true, I don't see it as being good evidence admins treated them like dirt. Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no, they haven't been treated like dirt by admins. I would say the community has been pretty patient with this user. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The admin/non-admin distinction is really besides the point, isn't it, because if he changed the signature to "Treated like dirt by many editors since 2016," that wouldn't really assuage anyone's concerns, would it? Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well there are two questions here. One is whether the signature is okay. Two is whether there is evidence for the signature. Above someone else asked for evidence for the signature. The RfA was presented as evidence for it. I fundamentally disagree since it isn't evidence specific to admins. For people who will allow the signature, but only with evidence, then it probably matters to them. For people who will disallow the signature, evidence or not, then I don't think it matters, it may still be an interesting question to some while others may consider it off topic. As long as evidence is presented, it seems fair to challenge that evidence, regardless of personal feelings of the matter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes I'm aware some would argue if both admins and non admins treat someone as dirt then it technically still applies. My view is that if when you single out a group, you're implying there something special about the way that group treats you, or at least you have insufficient evidence about people outside that group. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Point well taken; I hadn't considered the aspersions aspect, as it is an unevidenced accusation. Yet, "like dirt" is so subjective... and if we went that way, we'd have to require everyone with such a statement to provide said diffs. I also agree with your points (far) below that the editor should want to change their signature, and hopefully will after reading this discussion, and at a minimum, remove the reference. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 22:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The chances of FWTH being blocked as a textbook-case of POINT seems to be exponentially increasing with time. I'm supporting a block in case of any more posting on a newbie-t/p with that signature per the concerns expressed above. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My two cents: He should want to change it - having essentially two grammatically incorrect sentences as a signature is awkward and confusing looking. But that said said, as pointed out before, this guy changes his name or signature on like a monthly basis. Wait a month and he’ll probably pull a complete 180 and change his signature to “Frank Johnson - talk page” or something. It’ll likely resolve itself. Sergecross73   msg me  19:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Flooded is a prolific and excellent vandal fighter. Had I seen the RfA before the snow close, I would have given it moral support. Yes, failing RfA is dissapointing, but antics like this are more of a behavioural problem than having a history. Flooded, if you want to succeed in a future RfA, take onboard the critcism, and stop having what essentially looks like a tantrum (your RfA criteria fit into that too). It takes a cool temperament to be a good admin, indeed a good contributor. If you want my advice, revert your signature, keep doing what you're good at, and address the issues raised in your RfA. Antics like these throw the possibility of an RfA succeeding years down the line. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  19:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Refusing to change the sig after a massive backlash at AN/I is disruptive, as is spreading around its hostile, anti-fouth pillar message to new users and vandals. Falling back on your right to free speech is not a valid excuse for WP:POINTy behavior&mdash;as has been pointed out, the right to free speech does not exist on Wikipedia. If this is your response to a failed RfA, then you've accomplished nothing but proving that your RfA failed with good reason. Swarm  {talk}  20:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is that Flooded should change their signature, because they realise how bad it is for the community and how poorly it reflects on themselves. (I pretty much feel the same about anyone said to be treated as dirt, e.g. the two named above.) But there's no point trying to force them do, even for when they post to new users. Consider for example that many user talk pages have even more unwelcoming messages and if some newbie makes it to one of them to discuss some message, they're going to see them. Nor is it sufficient to justify a topic ban on dealing with new users, or a site ban. It could be one of the many realms of evidence that would be considered. As others have said, the issue has surely damaged any hope for a successful RfA in the near future and made those of us who didn't participate including non admins like me, sure that the right decision was made. Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually on further thought, I wouldn't mind forcing them to remove the Hullaballoo thing. Even if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't object, it IMO is unnecessarily confusing and unnecessary for their message. Anyone who needs to knows that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has the same sort of signature already. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It seems, at a minimum, we could all agree that each signature should only have one username in it, to avoid confusion. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 22:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers and Template editors are supposed to act on behalf of the community. If User:Flooded with them hundreds prefers to act otherwise, he should better resign from any parcel of authority... before being ousted from all of them. A guy who is 10% of an admin should fulfill at least 10% of ADMINACT. Pldx1 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. Most of their extended privileges involve working with new users to some degree. Using these extended privileges to spread a hateful message to new users is appalling, and if they'd rather use an edit summary to soapbox about their resentments, they should not be in such positions of trust. Swarm  {talk}  21:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect this has something to do with ' unblock request on Commons. If that drama is carrying over to enwiki, that's a problem. Bradv 🍁  21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm a bit odd, but if I was a new user to a website and I received a message that, as per a comment above, said, I think I'd be rather intrigued, and at least it would show a human side to the post - personally I think the worst aspect of these so-called "welcoming" templates is that they are so obviously generic and impersonal. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It’s frown-worthy, and probably shouldn’t be used in welcoming newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who has been active in WP:WER. Don't think we can do much in light of the precedent set by HW, but it sure makes me wonder about FWTH's attitude toward WP (and wonder if it has anything to do with their recent unsuccessful RfA). I don't think they should be welcoming new editors with that signature.  Mini  apolis  01:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If anything, TheMagnificientist/Zawl/Flooded with them hundreds's sig should say "treating admins like dirt since 2016". Just read that unblock discussion on Commons.  Holy crap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See also No attacks on Wikipedia. bd2412  T 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this still going on?! Someone be bold and close this, and soft-block fwth until he gets it.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary grandstanding, pointy and probably detrimental, and not inspiring confidence and/or trust in editor's good judgement; but presumably not egregious enough to slap down. These things accrue, like the annoying habits of family members :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Signature appears to be a clear infringement of WP:POLEMIC. Leaky  Caldron  09:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Leaky caldron. This violates the spirit of WP:POLEMIC; however, it is much worse as it is being plastered on every page he leaves a signature. If you aren't happy, then leave; continued use of this signature is pure disruption and should be met with a block to end the disruption, perhaps indefinitely. Nihlus  10:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the end of your post above, you said that if the community consensus was that you should not use this signature, then you would stop (albeit reluctantly). I think that this thread demonstrates that such a consensus exists, at least as far as using it when templating people. I don't want to see you blocked, and I don't want to see you T-banned from patrolling and templating - please will you undertake not to use that signature when putting templates on people's talk pages, so that we can all draw a line under this? Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we're determining a consensus, I also agree that FWTH should not use the sig (but also should not restore to the vile purple sig). WHat  the hell is wrong with just signing your username? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinged here. I agree with  that no matter who has is, it is a cut and dry case of POLEMIC.  If someone has extra bits to help work with new users, that makes it worse as they are granted a position of trust.  While I'm all for free speech, Wikipedia isn't the town square or your own living room, and no such "right" exists here.  It's a privately owned website that is free to make it's own rules. The 4th Pillar, which ties into WP:POLEMIC, is pretty clear about this.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Its just plain confusing for new users; it is your first message, of course you will look to see who it is from - is this person friendly, are they a crank, or someone you could be confident getting advice from, etc. The present sign off would make me wonder; who is this guy who seems to have a chip on his shoulder so big he feels compelled to tell complete strangers about it? What are admins?(new users may understand moderators or sysops..administrators not so much). What is a sig? who or what is Hullabaloo.. that 60's TV series? why? At the very least, it implies some sort of cliquey "you should know what this is about" which would be off putting for many users, and the exact thing welcome messages are supposed to help with. No such problems with the purple sig though, sorry BMK. Curdle (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Both signatures are the equivalent of a "Oh poor me I am such a victim" posts on Facebook or Twitter. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're having arguments with administrators and non-administrators. I know you having trouble with failed RfA then you make inappropriate signature also welcoming members they are thinking about you're biting with new members per WP:BITE. I honestly don't know you risk being blocked from Wikipedia for reason because of WP:SIGLENGTH and WP:CUSTOMSIG. That's doesn't make sense about your new signature. ~ Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  15:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we either need the signature changed, or a community ban on new changes patrol/new pages patrol/welcoming new users. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll start by saying I can't shake the impression I get that FWTH is vastly more interested in obtaining adminship than any other aspect of the project, which is a great shame as it's clearly distracting them from rational thought and appropriate behaviour. I'll start with a positive; FWTH has contributed a significant effort to the project and made a positive difference through their interactions with new editors and that's a large net positive. Now the negative; all their good work is almost entirely offset by their unfortunate tendency to display immature, impulsive and reckless behaviour. This immature, impulsive behaviour is the reason for their Commons difficulties at present, and it's largely why their most recent RfA failed (they were counselled at ORCP to avoid an RfA, advice duly ignored). If FWTH can demonstrate a significant improvement in maturity, interaction with other experienced editors and eliminate their impulsive, reckless streak, I see no reason why they can't go on and be a dutiful servant of the community in the role of administrator. It's going to take a while, constantly illustrating why it would be inappropriate for you to be an administrator doesn't get you through an RfA, but a concerted effort to improve yourself as an editor can correct this. So, my advice is to remove the chip from your shoulder, setup a nice straightforward signature, and avoid thinking about being an admin (it's not all that it's made out to be - unless you want an army of stalkers and people trying to get you sacked, then it's brilliant). Hope that helps. Nick (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
Since there seems to be a general feeling here that this signature is not appropriate for welcoming new users, I propose that: While User:Flooded with them hundreds' signature contains text other than his username, he may not post on the talk page of IPs or non-autoconfirmed users. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer; of course if he would like to continue to patrol for vandalism or welcome new users, he could just change his signature to the default. Natureium (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, per my above. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Natureium. ~ Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  20:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A trap, which they will quickly fall into by using tools they use to deal with vandals. I have made a better suggestion to the party involved. I hope he accepts it. Leaky  Caldron  20:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not meant to be a trap, it's meant to be an option. They can either change their signature to something that doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC, or they can avoid interacting with new editors. Natureium (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ever clicked a button and realised you had made a mistake? It's a trap for accidental error with block-happy Admins. who will show no mercy when the inevitable happens. Leaky  Caldron  20:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a risk one would take if one chose to click buttons while having a signature that the community agreed one should not have when clicking those particular buttons. In this situation, the editor can either (1) take LC's excellent talk page advice to change the signature and never have to worry about accidentally clicking the wrong buttons, (2) keep the signature but never click those buttons, or (3) change the signature back and forth, but be damned careful about it. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope User:Leaky caldron's overture bears fruit and makes this unnecessary, but I'll support this in the meantime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. If feels like this is a trap, they can easily avoid it by using a sensible sig. In the meantime, we can't have people badmouthing the project to new editors. Bradv  🍁  20:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - As the best option currently available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather Flooded takes LeakyCs advice and simply change their sig than have to support this .... but for the time being I'll have to support but like I said I would rather they change the sig without all of this. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The best solution is for the editor to voluntarily abandon the abrasive and bewildering signature. Those who do not want to be treated like dirt (whatever that means) should not treat other people like dirt. If determined to keep the bizarre signature, this editor should be prevented from interacting with IP editors and new accounts. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I said from the outset that I didn't want sanctions, and I'd still rather Flooded change it without the need for this - however, support if they won't if they don't do it voluntarily. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in favour of a a general rule that achieves the same thing, proposed and discussed at WT:SIG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's absurd we're even having this ridiculous discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support as I don't think the sig is within policy to begin with, regardless of where they post, which would normally be grounds for a request for change, then a block if they won't change, lasting until they DO change it. This is pretty standard under WP:DE.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support although I would also support an indef until the user agrees to change the signature to something collaborative. Same for Hullaballoo. If someone has been treated like dirt to the extent that they want to rub it in everyone's face, the issue needs to be sorted out at a noticeboard where the community would decide to either sanction those who have inappropriately treated an editor like dirt, or that no sanction is required. In the latter case, it would be fine for the user to put a mild note on their talk page complaining about the indignities to their human rights, but people are not free to spread rubbish. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sufficiently disruptive to merit any sort of sanction. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support by common sense unless he changes the signature to an appropriate one. The words now used in the signature are totally inappropriate with no doubt. Vandalism could still be handled with noticing the related users by other helpful users. But anyway, the best solution is let him change the inappropriate signature; the proposal should be carried out only when he refused to do so. Sænmōsà<font size="1.5" color="grey">I will find a way or make one. 01:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, this method may also be used if similar conditions occurred next time (although I don't want it happens). Sænmōsà<font size="1.5" color="grey">I will find a way or make one. 01:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah. Why not Flooded could just op to take that out, but whatever float their boat.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose in general as I said above, I think they should change it, and failing to change it reflects very poorly on them as it does to anyone who uses such signatures. But I'm opposed to topic banning them from welcoming new users or sanctioning them in any way. I would however support a weaker version removing the Hullaboo thing while allowing them to keep the 'treated like dirt' thing if they really want to prove to us how unsuited they they are for administratorship, or any trust really, from the community. BTW, when wrote my post above, I wasn't aware of the history here. (I vaguely recognised the name but had no real impressions or memory surrounding it and only checked out the RfA enough to see it was fairly strong opposition.) So I wasn't aware that the Flooded account only goes back to 2018 as a claimed WP:CLEANSTART after a few weeks`of abandoned the previous account. In particular, I wasn't aware of the Commons unblock request. While mostly it's not germane to us, the reason I brought it up is because the unblock request seems to almost acknowledge their behaviour here at the time in 2016 (ignoring commons) leading up to the indef was poor. Despite that, as they also acknowledged they were given a second change. Yet now we have them claiming they were treated like dirt since 2016..... Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per all above. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: A reasonable solution to disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - If you wish to welcome new users, don’t have an unwelcoming signature. The signature in question cannibalizes his own efforts at welcoming people. Sergecross73   msg me  19:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that Flooded has put the 'Retired' banner on their talkpage, and that User:Primefac has deleted their userpage by author request. I'm saddened that it has come to this - I'd hoped that developing a community consensus against the signature would convince them to change it, not drive them away. Could someone please close this now, perhaps with a note to the effect that the community appreciates their contributions, and would welcome their return, subject to the terms in Natureium's proposal. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add any notes of encouragement, but the discussions should definitely run their course. People “retire” to avoid scrutiny all the time. 99% sure he’s already retired once or twice already in similar situations in the past. Sergecross73   msg me  19:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support User has purportedly retired now, but frankly, given the lack of any semblance of responsibility and maturity, both here and elsewhere, and apparently extending back several years, I cannot trust that this not just an attempt to evade scrutiny. This restriction needs to be formalized and logged. Swarm  {talk}  19:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as too weak. This should not be limited to certain pages. Nihlus  19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose after much thought on the grounds that at least two editors that I know of have this signature, and only one of them is being sanctioned here. Like focusing on edits instead of editors, we should focus on behaviors instead of editors. If the consensus is that editors with this sort of signature can't post on new user or IP's talk pages, then that sanction should apply to every editor who has this sort of signature, or to none of them. It's not fair to apply it to just one of them on the grounds that one of them posts to new user pages more than others. All editors should have to play by the same rules. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 20:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying because there are two problems, and circumstances make it difficult to solve one of them, we shouldn't take any action to solve the other? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying "the rules" should apply to all editors equally. If one editor with the signature "Treated like dirt by admin..." is prohibited from posting to talk pages of IPs and new editors, then all editors with that signature should be prohibited from posting to talk pages of IPs and new editors. I oppose this proposal as written because it only targets one such editor, rather than all editors with the same signature. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 21:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the way it works. We solve specific problems identified with specific evidence.  If there's no evidence that HW is welcoming new users, then the solution suggested here for Fwth is not relevant to HW. If HW starts to do so, then there will be a precedent.  In general, we don't do "preventative" sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, BMK. I don't think you meant that to be funny but thanks for the laugh just the same. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 05:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Preventative sanctioning is exactly what we're supposed to be doing. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you're right, I don't know what I was thinking in choosing "preventative." Levivich's laugh is entirely appropriate.What I meant to express is that we don't put sanctions on an editor when there has been no evidence presented that there is a problem in regard to that editor, all the evidence has been about a different editor entirely. We don't sanction on the mere possibility that there might be a problem in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A moment of clearing my brain by watching Australian Open tennis and it came to me (literally "popping" into my head) - the word I was looking for was pre-emptive: We don't do pre-emptive sanctioning.(And you young'uns stop snickering -- this'll happen to you too, eventually! Wait until you get up to the sofa and walk to the kitchen, only to have completely forgotten what you went there to get.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree, that is totally wrong! I can't believe you would actually argue that, uhm, you know... I mean, I can't believe you would say...er... wait, what was I arguing about again? Why did I walk into this room? Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 17:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as applied to any page - To be precise, Weak Oppose as worded as awkward to enforce, and Support requiring the change in order to continue posting to any talk pages, not just new users. After giving it more thought, the issue is the signature; it's becoming a big issue because it's being used on new users' pages, whereas there wasn't quite the exigency with HW's signature, but the issue is indeed the signature, which is plainly inappropriate according to our signature guideline, and not that it's used by someone who edits certain talk pages. It's a distinction I raised above, but I think it's really just about the urgency. This, as proposed, would be difficult to enforce as there are plenty of good reasons when one might need to post to the talk page of an unregistered or newly registered user. Ultimately, here's all that should've been necessary: "hey, we have this section about the purpose of a signature, and yours looks to be unambiguously problematic in that regard. would you change it?" It shouldn't be ok for any talk page, and of course I would support the same restriction on HW or anyone else who uses a signature to spam the problems they have with the community. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but with a wider scope, as above. I also agree this kind of thing needs to be formally stopped by changing WP:SIG. GiantSnowman 11:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as preventative pre-emptive; I note no diffs have been presented indicative of an actual problem. Incidentally, from a personal—rather than policy-based—point of view, yes, I think that no-one should use this signature. Note: "no-one". ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Flooded with them hundreds' signatures have been very disruptive. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 21:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely should not be welcoming new users with that signature. I don't attach much significance to their retirement notice as they are a self-confessed Wikiholic.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons articulated above though I don't think it goes far enough. You don't have to be an IP or a non-autoconfirmed user to be confused or emboldened to disrupt the project by this sig. It's just plain disruptive, it takes up too much space on the page (especially on mobile devices), and the user should be forced to change it. The primary benefit it serves to the project (fostering a diversity of perspectives) is outweighed by its primary burden (mainly, fostering a culture of divisiveness). I see no compelling reason why this user can't express their grievances on their userpage rather than smearing it all across talkspace. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's a disruptive signature, particularly when used on new users' pages. And I would support preventing a certain other user from using the similar sig also. Meters (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for close

 * Flooded with them hundreds ‎has retired, according to his userpage, so I suspect this is now moot (although if he were to return, with this or another account, I would imagine there's a sufficient consensus here that further soapboxing to new users via his signature would not be appropriate). <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 13:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheryl Pepsi isn’t dead.
I’m not sure what the procedure is for this, but Cheryl Pepsi’s page says she is dead and it's wrong. She was a stand-in radio host tonight on WBLS in NYC. She referred to herself as Cheryl Pepsi instead of Cheryl Pepsi Riley, I’m not sure of why she changed it but, I believe it is the same person. For accuracy’s sake someone should change it, but I don’t know how to go about confirming the info is wrong etc. So I figured I’d report it and someone can look into when they get a chance. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.240.22 (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Vandalism (from 2 days ago) at Cheryl Pepsii Riley reverted. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Probably vandalism by the Koch brothers. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 07:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick block for obvious sock needed

 * – Obvious block evasion Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino per edits, geolocation and the fact that this IP has been previously mentioned in the SPI, but was stale at that time. The master is currently blocked as Special:Contributions/87.103.15.190, Special:Contributions/83.240.186.98 and Special:Contributions/213.141.15.42, all three of them on 3-month blocks, so a long block is requested for this IP too. The editor is active as we speak, and very prolific (they can do hundreds of edits in no time at all...), so a quick block would be appreciated. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Widr, so this can be closed now. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Floppybeef is NOTHERE
All edits thus far are vandalism. See also the edit filter.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Block.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this wasn't just reported at AIV, but blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. AIV in the future.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Chicken fried steak-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Howsoever, as now fried no longer floppy.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. The South has some unusual food. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah. That's good eatin' (wink) -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Non Halal Bacon
Has made several seemingly constructive edits, but if you look at the edit summaries they are egregious. Example: diff 1 diff 2. They have made several more edits with the same summaries in the 2 minutes it took me to navigate to ANI. Requesting that diffs be struck. User seems clearly WP:NOTHERE. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 10:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry and I have stopped with the insulting comments. Non Halal Bacon (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This user is using inappropriate edit summaries which is discriminating and offending Muslims despite being warned. Could any admin please revdel relevant materials and block if appropriate? Thanks. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 10:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm, yeah I think you'll find Captain Eek already said this didn't he? It's been stopped ages ago. Non Halal Bacon (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find your conduct was so egregious that you were reported by two users simultaneously. Also, if replying to talk page comments please add only one new colon (":") per level. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 10:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just merging threads. Stop your egotistic behavior. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 10:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Post close continued LTAing
This user is clearly now socking using Special:Contributions/Ban_Sharreah_and_let_Muslims_enjoy_pork. Home Lander (talk)
 * Request this diff and this diff of sock be redacted for offensive edit summs. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Got them both. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If they continue to sock, please let me know, and I will set up some technical measures to deal with the situation. -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of our LTAs, probably Evlekis, so it's also worth running past a CU if there's any more. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That explains the stereotypical trollish behavior patterns. Not their first time at the rodeo, then. -- The Anome (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Off topic reminiscence Reminds we of a troll I encountered on FaceBook years ago. Or are all trolls alike?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ariel.jacobs
This user has been making changes to the Riemann hypothesis and traveling salesman problem claiming that he has proven the first and found a solution to the second. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is about the ten zillionth time that someone has claimed to prove the hypothesis. The problem is that these proofs are usually self-published, or are published on predatory open-access publishing websites that will accept any submission for a fee. Even the late Michael Atiyah failed to convince his colleagues that his 2018 proof was correct. Producing an acceptable proof for the whole of the mathematical community would take months, if not years.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

First. I just created my wiki account today, and was not aware of the no original research policy. my apologies. all additions have been removed.

Second. I did indeed prove the Riemann Hypothesis. Feel free to read my paper. Michael Atiyah's proof was nowhere near correct, with all due respect to him.

Also, feel free to read my paper on using the principle of least action to discover the most efficient deterministic method for solving the Travelling Salesman Problem.

Thanks for your time.

My apologies again for any frustration this wiki issue may have caused you.

-Ariel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariel.jacobs (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , publish your stuff over some reliable journal and come back. Bye,
 * @OP:-What caused you to come to ANI? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had reverted some of the stuff, but the other editor restored it. Others had reverted the stuff, but it was restored. I thought this was the best place (correct me if I'm wrong.)  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I see some of the stuff, is this an elaborate exercise in trolling? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ariel, I would advise you to forget about Wikipedia and get your proof published. There's a million dollars waiting for you if you do that, but no prize for publishing anything on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ariel, I would advise you to forget about Wikipedia and get your proof published. There's a million dollars waiting for you if you do that, but no prize for publishing anything on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I just want to say for the record that I too have proved RH and cracked TSP. Email for details. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 07:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why, is this ANI report too small to contain it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your proof is nothing, my proof is the greatest, the greatest. We're going to make mathematics great again.  Us.  Together.  But with my proof, not yours, because mine is the greatest.  Fermat's last theorem?  I have his original proof for it.  And his second-last theorem.  It's a great proof, the greatest.  I never said the Italians would pay for it directly, but they will pay for it.  We prove their theorems, they should pay for it.  They will.  Mathematics will be great again.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Priceless. Grandpallama (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , where is your RH proof? They're all the rage now. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, too distracted by trying to prove P ≠ NP instead. RH is too continuous; I like discrete. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Try? There is no try.  Do, or do not.  GoldenRing (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Echoing everyone else, if you've proven something of this nature, this isn't the place. It needs to be subjected to peer review. This is not the place to advertise your paper. -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Read wp:rs and wp:v, and take note before the block arrives.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering COI notice on User:Ariel.jacobs, the now deleted autobiography, and the self-promotional nature of the math page edits, might I suggest a topic ban on himself? There appears to be a nothere issue. I think Slatersteven has offered sound advice.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh, money. I'm going to prove Goldbach's conjecture but won't win a million dollars even when I do. For some reason it isn't one of the Millennium Prize Problems.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, this Arielle Jacobs is a latter-day Hedy Lamarr. Beauty and brains! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Amusing thread. However, such claims are a regular, and unremarkable occurrence, on all wikipedia articles covering famous open problems in mathematics, and are quickly dealt with without the need for ANI. Paul August &#9742; 19:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Primarily promotional account
After reporting edits as vandalism, it was suggested I come here. Editor's intent appears to be mostly promotional, per, and deleted version of. Looks like paid editing. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png Investigating... Stand by...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * After pulling up the edits specified here and searching the two companies online, it appears to me that one company is involved in a business relationship with the other - so there's definitely a connection here. Due to the evidence on-hand, I've blocked the account indefinitely as a spam/advertising-only account.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Beach Boys vandal
Can we get a rangeblock on the Haverhill range Special:Contributions/2601:18A:8302:1AA6:0:0:0:0/64? Nothing but vandalism from these IPs, aimed at Beach Boys biographies. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Anon only blocked for one month. Please feel free to change it if I did it wrong.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Cursing at me
A user has called me a "fucknut". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Guaid%C3%B3&diff=879854898&oldid=879854733 50.233.42.98 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We may need semi-protection or ECP to deal with the edit-wars due to real-wars. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference, is the user in question. You need to notify users you're reporting. . Regarding content, while not CIVIL, have you tried discussing the issue with the user?  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. Issue had been explained, editor kept warring with multiple other users. And I don't think "fucknut" is particularly bad, I wouldn't say it to a child, so if you're young I'm sorry, but it's more casual as cursing goes. Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm probably old-fashioned, but I find this name calling non constructive-- discuss content without making characterizations.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair opinion, I will say that I wasn't characterizing, I was just adding emphasis. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling another editor a "fucknut" to simply add emphasis (as you said above) will be interpreted by other editors (especially the recipient of such name-calling) that you don't care about teamwork, collaboration, or working with others in the community to improve the project - especially if you resort to incivility and personal attacks as your way of just emphasizing a point. I don't think of you as an editor who feels this way about others; don't let your words and comments present that kind of image - others will interpret it as such and it will only make things more frustrating for you, not less. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle. We shouldn't be cursing at other editors or communicating in a disrespectful tone toward them. It only degrades the discussion (or any chance of having a positive discussion) and it has no benefit. I'm happy to see that Kingsif responded to this discussion in an openly receptive and level-headed manner. It appears that he understands and won't repeat the behavior. Kingsif, I would take a moment and apologize to the user on his user talk page and move on peacefully and positively from here. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Reinstated semi protection for 1 week. Feel free to modify if needed.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like and  have passed WP:3RR. This is an example of what happens when we revert war instead of discussing-- frayed tempers, frustration and name calling. <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I made sure to not revert to my edits, and I also made constructive other changes with reverts. I was putting the page back to a stable version in the face of what seemed an obvious persistent IP vandal. If there were 3 or more reverts on my behalf (I was beat to the punch so much I didn't think I did get there), then you surely must see how I wasn't warring but cleaning. (And the "name calling" happened before reverting, so that's that theory blown) Before I made reverts, I listed the page as needing edit protection, and after waiting without a review I believed I had to revert to stable version with explanations to stop all the different IP wars. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's so much better. Jeux sans frontieres -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kingsif (talk) is correct here. He/she was just reverting vandalism by a disruptive IP. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Will leave review to judgement of admins, but also point out there's some registered users who were adding propaganda on the page in question, if you want to look at the whole deal while you're checking out edits. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that it's protected, y'all can discuss all the content issues on the talk page. -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request (39.48)
Hi. Please can a rangeblock be placed on the 39.48 range? It's part of a LTA range, with a couple of blocks in the past 24hrs alone, but this goes back a lot longer than that. Here are a few examples from today:



Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Back this morning at (also reported at WP:AIV).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * is this the same editor from Special:Contributions/39.57.0.0/17? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - Yes, one and the same.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Using today.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I range blocked 39.48.128.0/17 for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again NRP. Much appreciated.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Okpeletier (talk) creating hoaxes
The user has been repeatedly creating articles (and on their userpage) of a bogus TV series "Tea Queens". They have claimed that this is part of a school project here. Grounds for a block? CoolSkittle (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They haven't repeated it since their final warning. This isn't a brand new account, making contributions like Draft:The Walking Dead (season 10) (not ideal, but not a hoax). Instead, I propose the following: Okpeletier is indefinitely topic-banned from creating pages. This may be appealed at any time. This is due to lack of comprehension of WP:V and problematic page creations, and I would suggest revocation after some solid, sourced, article work. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  21:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Taking at face value their student status, I've asked them to edit no further until responding here and linked them to WikiEdu's Student Training Modules. We might want to post to Education noticeboard is they are a student. It may be a whole class that needs to be brought into the fold.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to make of User:Okpeletier/sandbox current iteration. A TV show that premiered next year. I went ahead and blocked them indefinitely and told them they must respond to our concerns to be unblocked. Any admin should feel free to unblock at their discretion.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could this quality for G10? Quoting from the sandbox: "The Assistant to the Supreme, [name removed], has the most powers of any dumb bitch in the world. The Assistant to the Assistant to the Supreme, [name removed], is the biggest bitch going and also has the diabetes."  CoolSkittle  (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My word! Did not read that far. Kinda strains the "school project" notion. Unless this is a breaching experiment.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not G10. Describes a character in the fictional series running in creator's head. Looks G3 to me. Unless someone can come up with a resonable explanation.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Quick read; the references to 'the Supreme' make me think this is their pretend version of a new season of American Horror Story: Coven combined with Scream Queens. Unless 'vandalize Wikipedia' is part of a school project, there's no believability here and it can be safely removed as a G3 for sure (I will admit though, I laughed at the text. Not for here for sure, but they'd do well on Uncyclopedia).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely or until they respond. Any admin can unblock at their discretion.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request
There appears to be a user/users from an IP range constantly adding random countries to Supermarket articles without specific references.

Please see examples here:

and today

[] [] [] Angryskies (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this is disruptive but I'm no expert at rangeblocks. The addresses are not part of the same subnet (eg 94.236.194.0/23 only covers one of the addresses) and it looks like it would at least a /17 rangeblock to cover all of them.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , correct, per the calculator, Special:Contributions/94.236.134.63/17 should cover all of these. Home Lander (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which, I think, amounts to blocking a whole Bulgarian ISP? GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , hell if I know. Home Lander (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The calculator did not say "forbidden", so I did. Please check my work. Special:Block/94.236.134.63/17.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two people who do most of the editing on 94.236.128.0/17. They seem to use different computers, but their edits are behaviorally indistinguishable from each other (both add unsourced countries to supermarkets).  Assuming these are the same person, there really isn't much collateral to speak of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new to rangeblocks and must rely on the calculator.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Range blocks can be dangerous. The system puts hard limits on how wide they can be, but it won't warn you when you block an entire country from editing Wikipedia.  You can always ask a checkuser if you're not sure whether it's safe.  They can check for collateral damage and might have advice.  If you take notes, you can sometimes figure out how an ISP's network is set up.  Some of them are easier to figure out than others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was staying at a hotel a few weeks ago and the entire complex was affected by a range block that had been imposed for months. I could read but not edit. Whoever prompted this block I'm sure was long gone from this hotel but anyone who stayed there who got the urge to edit the 'pedia was unable to do so until April. Frustrating. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all IPs, ranges, and networks will be clear to us when investigating disruption. Many times, the fact that we believe IP addresses are public and/or label IP blocks as is due to the frequency and diversity of the edits and disruption coming from the address, not because we were able to find this out from a WHOIS or other kind of tool. Collateral damage in some form is inevitable in some situations; cases can become complex and some blocks (and the accepted collateral damage) deemed necessary, and humans aren't perfect... we all make mistakes. The three things that all admins should take away from this discussion is to always check the contribs of IP ranges you're looking into for potential collateral damage, block as small of ranges as necessary and for the shortest duration of time necessary in order to stop the disruption at-hand, and ask for help or defer the case to another administrator if you're not technically knowledgeable and/or don't have a good understanding of IP ranges, CIDR notation, and range blocking. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   02:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case, it looks good. I'm not really comfortable blocking /17 (about 32,000 IP addresses) without a CU checking for collateral first, but this seems to have worked out okay. It's one of the few times I think it might be worth asking for CU at the next elections... GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks y'all. -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for dealing with this vandal. 14:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Angryskies (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Glad to help
 * I checked the contribs for the range and saw mo recent constructive activity. To try to minimize disruption I blocked anons only and allowed account creation, figuring if they created an account got into trouble, that would be all for them with that username. I also limited duration to 1 month based on the time since the last constructive edit to minimize collateral damage. (Having the checkuser it would help limit collateral damage even more. Maybe someday.)-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Regex expert needed
I've just edited the title blacklist, even though I don't speak regex; if you do, could you review the edit? In the last few minutes, Special:Log/delete has six separate entries in which someone created an orphaned talk page with "mental problem" in the title with a sole purpose of attacking someone. I copied the format from a nearby entry, hoping that it will prevent the creation of both "mental problem" and "mental problems"; did I do it rightly? I figure this will be useful in the future too, because "mental problem" almost never needs to be created (mental problem is a redlink), so any future creations may well be vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the filter does seem to work ok, and ignores case. Though you can also make pages that look like it but that are not stopped. I won't list them here per WP:BEANS. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nyttend - In regex, the '.' means "any single character" and the '*' after it means "0 or more times". So when you surround a phrase like the one you added with ".*" before and after it, you're just saying that the phrase can be located anywhere in the title and if found, flag it as a match. If this is what you want, then yeah it looks just fine. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would this prevent the creation of all pages with those words somewhere? I don't want to allow someone to create "so-and-so is a mental and criminal problem", but I also don't want to block the creation of "Mental issues and problems according to the DSM V".  So I think this is the best route, but I could easily be wrong.  Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nyttend - Add a '.' before your insertion of the '*' between "Mental" and "problem" so that it becomes  and yes, it would - but only in that order. If a page was created with the "problem" before the word "Mental", it wouldn't flag it as a match. That code you shared (  - with the '.' missing) has the '*' after the letter 'l', so the "0 or more" would apply to the l character and would flag titles such as "Mentaproblem" (no l's present) or "Mentallllllproblem" (any amount present)... if that makes sense at all. :-) Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   00:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you actually want  (non-greedy) because otherwise it may not behave the way you want.--Jorm (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters in this situation. Once "Mental" and "problem" are found, the MediaWiki software will flag the title as a match and that's all we care about. "Greedy" vs "non-greedy" sees more of a use when you want to write scripts or code in order to capture the characters or text that is contained between two symbols. In this case, all we care about is if there's a match or not. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to switch to your proposed code, Oshwah, because a quick search found just two good-faith pages whose creation would have been blocked: emergency mental health problems and User:Tm.plabon/Books/Money is a kind of mental problem. Our life is full of problems. Two other good pages have these words in the title (Problem of mental causation and its talk page), and otherwise the words occur only in the user talk pages of nine vandal accounts, e.g. .  And Home Lander, some of these vandals have been blocked with "LTA" as the rationale, so we're probably overlapping somewhat.  Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

, could be way off-base, but I believe I may have dealt with this LTA before. See and  (explicit titles, recovered from my CSD logs). It could be Long-term abuse/Bags of atoms, note username at bottom of list there. Home Lander (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - If keeping false positive hits to as minimum of an amount as possible is your first priority over flagging matches and disallowing page creations, you should use the code you originally added instead of the code improvements I came up with here. My proposed code compared to the code you added with your edit to the blacklist just increases the string pool in which page titles could be flagged as a match. Your code would've certainly worked just fine. It would just flag page creations containing the exact string, "Mental problem". Replacing the space between the two words with  just widens the search by also flagging page titles that contain "Mental" and then "problem" somewhere in the title afterwards, and with any number of characters, words, numbers, strings, whatever to be between the two words. When it comes to regex in general, the less wildcard symbols you include in your expression (like,  ,  , and others), the more strict and explicit the statement will be, and hence the less results that will be flagged. If you run into any more questions, need more input regarding regex, or if you need an extra person on the case to help put an end to things, just let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand with anything you need (just ping me here so that I'm notified). Cheers and good luck! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but actually I meant to expand the scope of the blacklist entry, based on the search to which I referred: there isn't a single page in all of Wikipedia (as of when I ran the search) that has both words in its title, except for a few userpages and the pages I specified, and two of those pages wouldn't be affected because the words are out of order. This makes me believe that the risk of good-page-creation being hindered by any part of this rule is tiny, and the risk of the expansion is smaller yet.  Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nyttend - Ohhhhh! Okay, I see what you meant to say now... Sorry. Then yes, that updated code we went over together here should do fine. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Indian IP's promotion edits (Topper13009 reporting 106.51.106.239 & 49.207.61.70)
These seemingly linked IP's are vandalizing pages of Indian cinematographers to add reference to the Indian Society of Cinematographers, which appears to be paid editing or single-issue editing. The IP editors contribution pages show that the "49" address stopped editing around January 16, and then the "106" address started up in the same pattern as the previous editor around January 20. The pattern mainly consists of adding in links to the ISC beside the cinematographer's name, or adding "ISC" to the "title" parameter of the subject's infobox.

- Topper13009 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 49.207.61.70 is a static IP but has not edited since January 16. 106.51.106.239 is a static IP. I gave them a final warning for unsourced content. The one page I looked at already had the ISC link before either got to it.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI, 106 still editing since the warning/close:, (restore after revert), and. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 07:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP is now blocked for 36 hours for the persistent addition of unsourced content to articles.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning
I put a important detail and it removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brarife (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This [] was your edit, it is not important. But it was not vandalism, and in that respect Cluebot was wrong. But it did not add anything to the article of worth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ClueBot was correct. That addition was not encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Not entirely constructive and also unsourced. Did not know ClueBot was so discerning.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at last 10 reverts, saw one iffy that was correct. Rest were spot on.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit wasn't vandalism but it wasn't adding anything constructive either. This aside, it's obviously not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Not a revert that's 100% spot-on in terms of vandalism, but this is not a case where ClueBot is "malfunctioning". Brarife, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very beneficial to you. It'll give you a significant head start with learning how things work, how to navigate around the project, locate important documents and locations, and make good contributions. Please do it! You'll be happy that you did! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

TBH I was within an inch of indeffing this account purely on the rule of thumb that anyone who claims ClueBot is malfunctioning is either a sock or a vandal, but held off thinking, "I don't have time to check and you never know... GoldenRing (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's been what I've seen in my experience as well. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * and, it's a notable behavior of this master, which I'm not sure if this thread is related to. Note these noticeboard posts  and this account name . Home Lander (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Help?
Could someone please revert to the last good revision at Shaggy Rogers? Thanks, A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But TBH, the vandalism is pretty funny to me. I archived it with screenshots. A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like there is a request for protection at WP:RPP due to the recent vandalism. That should curb it. Agent00x (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the vandalism is because of a recent meme (google "ultra instinct shaggy" for details) <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 22:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected. I compared the current revision of the article to a revision back in 2018 and I don't see any vandalism. I'll do some manual spot-checking, but I'm pretty confident that any obvious or blatant vandalism should be gone.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2600:8803:3400:CF70::/64
Edits:

This user has, for months, been editing dates on TV-related articles without sources or explanation. It is a common form of sneaky vandalism. Given the frequency of IP change, no single warning has "stuck". Requesting a short rangeblock.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't see any constructive edits, so I'd be inclined make an anon-only block for a month. Still learning about range blocks, so will defer to those of greater experience.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've applied a two-week block to the IPv6 /64 CIDR range for the persistent addition of unreferenced content.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2600:8803:3400:CF70::/64- follow up learning experience
Is this an example of the usefulness of checkuser to prevent collateral damage or would a simple review of contribs from the range have sufficed?-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dlohcierekim - Lets move this to a discussion on my user talk page and I'll be happy to go through this with you. Just to keep ANI discussions on-track and involving incidents. :-) Can you start a discussion on my user talk page so I can help you out? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Noodz53211
Besides the odd name that sounds like "nudes", this user is doing a lot of number changes and should be looked into. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Tornado chaser:


 * How does updating my alma mater's basketball coach's page after each game affect your life so adversely?


 * Also, my username has nothing to do with nudity, so keep your dirty mind to yourself, and stay out of my business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodz53211 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't "affect my life adversely", wikipedia has a problem with people adding false info or nonsense, sometimes people change numbers just because they think fooling people is fun. Also, vandals often have sexual usernames, so you showed 2 signs that in my experience are signs of vandalism, if you are not vandalizing that is fine, I just wanted someone to look at your edits a little more closely to make sure you weren't adding hoaxes. For an example of the edits that I have to watch out for, see this fake tornado. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This could have been resolved quite easily with a question on Noodz53211's talk page. They hadn't even been welcomed before being brought to ANI. Bradv 🍁  05:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with this users edits, they just seem to be run of the mill sport stats updates. You need to learn how to Assume good faith in the future before running straight to ANI, you very well could have just asked Noodz what they where doing on his/her talk page.  TheMesquito  buzz  05:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing through repeated random removal of content to be replaced by empty sections or poor content directly copied from Wikia
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Soulcalibur_characters&action=history

I said random because it really happens only in one section while multiple sections of the article are written in the same style. The new "content" there is a direct copy-paste of in-game info from the Soulcalibur Wikia articles replacing the Wikipedia-standards real-world information, with improper formatting, and overall being a detriment to this section.

Previous similar conduct in a very similar article (List of Tekken characters) ended with a warning block: (a response in an extremely broken English indicating just an inability to actually edit Wikipedia by writing content: ).

SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He's making legal threats now. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

an ip removes embedded ext links without replacing them with footnotes
Thus the references are lost. Please talk senses to them.- Altenmann >talk 04:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

PS. When posting the ani notice in their tak page I noticed a repeated pattern of noncooperative editing. It looks like a behavioral problem. - Altenmann >talk 04:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Yes I am correct because I am restoring references in text. Next thing here comes another warrior and deletes half an article which became unreferenced. Seen that all the time and had to restore from history when shit happened during my long hiatus with articles I cared. No I cannot convert. I am barely using computrr in my state now. - Altenmann >talk 05:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the IP is not correct? For example, diff is very defensible. At any rate, if the external links are badly formatted refs, the solution would be properly format them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, the IP is incorrect in the outright deletion of in-line ELs, which should be converted to refs whenever possible (if the source is reliable). In the example cited, a wikilink is not an acceptable substitute for a reference, as they serve different functions.  An article full of wikilinks which has no references is not a properly referenced Wikipedia article, since the wikilink is just a way to sent readers to another article, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.On the other name Altenmann is equally incorrect is simply reverting the IP's edit.  Both editors should convert in-line ELs to refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, in-line ELs are deprecated, so please convert them to refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you can write but cannt read. I told you i have troubles with computer, smartass. I see lots of new shit in articles i just mostly letting it go. Let new wikigenerayio s worry. - Altenmann >talk 08:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 170k edits from '03? WP:SOFIXIT: "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia." Thanks to for taking a few seconds to actually resolve the problem, something I hope you will do yourself next time.  Swarm  {talk}  06:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What kind of computer problem would prevent converting ELs to refs, but not prevent creating a new thread on a talk page? Missing {} keys? Is there a policy about not trying to edit the encyclopedia with a broken computer? Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Altenmann might also have meant they find it difficult to use the computer, or wiki markup. I can recommend the visual editor or 2017 source editor for putting in refs easily, if that's the case! They make it much simpler.) —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh for the days when a person's cites were their own business.(sigh). template:cite is useful. It just takes time to fill in the spaces. I think there is a tool to make it easier, but I don't know where to get it.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wot Goldenshimmer said.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From the IP's reply, it seems the primary problem is simply they misunderstood the purpose of those links.They weren't alone since Johnuniq above seemed to do the same, and frankly, I may have as well. Especially for the first one on Rubylith. One thing which doesn't seem have been properly mentioned yet is these weren't just normal bare external links. These were external links formatted as text in the article. This very bad formatting since it can easily be totally unclear the links were even intended as refs. As said before, the Rubylith one in particular looks a lot like it's simply intended to provide further information on Rubylith rather than actual reference the claim being made. It's far preferable if you are going to use external links as refs, to simply leave them as formatted but bare external links. In other words, put . This isn't good, but it's better than the poor formatting that was used in the article since at least it looks more like the external link was intended as a ref. Of course even better is to format the ref. I mean even adding a simple i.e. or is IMO better then nothing. Even better, use of various tools should make it easy to add some minimal proper formatting as mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)