Open main menu

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN/I)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives



My first discovery of what I consider to be an unacceptable practice by User:Pi314m in connection with the "Backup" article is discussed in the first paragraph of my article Talk page section-starting 19:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC) comment here. I later discovered an additional—much worse—case of the same unacceptable practice for that same article, as discussed in my 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC) comment in the same article Talk page section.

In response to those, as well as to Pi314m's within-article edits that I concede are acceptable practice (although IMHO erroneous), I requested a Third Opinion and started this section on the article's Talk page. In my 06:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC) comment in that section I reported my discovery of a much-more-extensive case of Pi314m's same unacceptable practice in what he did to the "Outsourcing" article from January to April 2019. In the immediately-following 01:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC) comment I reported that he had followed the same unacceptable practice for other articles in January 2017 and January 2018. In January 2017 Pi314m was cautioned by Diannaa; in January 2018 he was more strongly cautioned about a possible block for "vandalism" by Matthiaspaul.

Pi314m did not make any response to the 3O, so I made three attempts to put in an RfC. Other editors told me that my first two attempts were badly written, but my third RfC was accepted. I limited that RfC to the question of whether the final "Enterprise client-server backup" section of the "Backup" article, which Pi314m had IMHO substantially vandalized deleted useful text in his moves and subsequent gross simplifications into earlier sections of the article, should be split off into a separate article. All participants agreed in the Survey that the split-off should be done—which it subsequently has been. I agreed because, as I immediately stated in the [[Talk:Backup#Discussion|Discussion], "There is evidence that having a single article with sections aimed at audiences with different levels of IT knowledge is confusing for some readers [meaning Pi314m]". Pi314m's 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) response in the Survey was "Agree. Split - hands off, while the author of the (new) Enterprise article obtains the courtesy and full opportunity that comes with 'In use'/'Under construction' (honoring it, whether or not it's physically there). Shortly thereafter, With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge.' As for the present Backup article, I'd also be hands-off for a while, to facilitate his work. Is this the statement you're seeking?"

No, that's not the statement I was seeking, because Pi314m's "hands-off" period could expire any time at his discretion. I'm seeking some enforceable ban on his merging without prior discussion the split-off article back into the "Backup" article. I'm also seeking an enforceable ban on his merging without prior discussion the "Continuous Data Protection" and "Information repository" articles into the "Backup" article; these are the two articles he destructively merged-in and that I had to re-establish. I don't have any confidence in Pi314m's promise, because his personal Talk page and Contributions show he develops an "urge to merge" every January—and does it again as in 2019 if he is not cautioned. If you want to institute a similar enforceable ban on his following the same unacceptable practice for other articles, I'd be in favor of that—but it's probably too late to reconstruct the 9 articles he destructively merged without prior discussion into the "Outsourcing" article in early 2019. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dovid, but I will not be looking into the full history of this, and I think a lot of other admins won't either. Starting off from your very first link, it appears that your reaction to an edit conflict is to just write endless walls of text, making comment after comment before the other party has made a single response. A lot of these comments are very confusing by their vague references to past comments with unclear context. Basically, I don't fully understand what you're going on about (I get that he did some merging that you don't like, but not quite why this requires administrative intervention rather than ordinary dispute resolution), and I'm not inclined to figure it out, since it seems like it would be an excessive amount of reading. I strongly recommend that you try to refactor your complaint into a very straightforward, "What he did, why its wrong, here are the diffs". Write it all out here - don't send us to an old discussion that is equally confusing to figure out what your argument is. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Brevity is your friend. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've never put in an ANI before, because I've always been able to get other editors to discuss editing disputes—even though they have complained about my being wordy. In this case Pi314m absolutely refuses to discuss any edits he makes. And in this case the edits he has made involve merging—without prior or subsequent discussion—articles into other articles and then deleting much or substantially all of the merged-in content. I don't think that's acceptable under WP rules, and other reputable editors cautioned Pi314m about it on his personal Talk page in 2017 and 2018. At a minimum I'm asking for an enforceable ban on his doing similar destructive merges of other articles into the "Backup" article, which he already did last month and which I had to reverse.
As far as "What he did, why its wrong, here are the diffs" is concerned, by linking to "Backup" article Talk page comments I was trying to spare you folks extra reading effort. I don't have trouble following links to specifically-dated comments in Talk pages; is Someguy1221 saying he'd rather read those comments as Talk page diffs so he doesn't have to do easy Web-browser Finds to the specifically-dated comments? If that's what you folks want, I can edit my section-starting comment to do that. If OTOH for "what he did" Someguy1221 actually wants diffs of the two articles that Pi314m merged into the "Backup" article, I'd have to give you diffs of the "Backup" article just after he merged-in each of the other articles and after he deleted much or substantially all of the merged-in content. That would substantially expand what you'd have to read, which is why I didn't do it. And on top of that, for "why it's wrong" I'd have to prove a negative by pointing you to dates in the View History of both the merged-in articles and the "Backup" article to show lack of discussion by Pi314m. Please let me know which of these two kinds of diffs you want. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi DovidBenAvraham. I'll try to frame a sort of example report. So your allegation is that Pi314m has a habit of making contentious merge/redirect changes without consensus, and then refusing to discuss. I would expect to see a report like this: User:Example redirected a whole article [diff of replacing article with redirect] to put it here [diff of material being added to another article], and in the process deleted a whole bunch of stuff [diff of stuff being removed, if not already obvious from the previous two diffs]. I tried to engage with User:Example here [diff of talk or user-talk comment], but he did not respond in X days despite being active (or alternatively, gave an unhelpful response [diff of that response, and reason it was not helpful]). User:Example should have suspected this merge/redirect would be controversial because [reason (if reason is that it had been discussed before, link discussion, and link/diff/explain proof that User:example would have been aware of it)]. User:Example was warned about this before [diffs of warnings, and diffs of previous bad merges/redirects]. IF APPLICABLE: User:Example has reverted attempts to undo his deletions [diffs of reverts], but does not discuss on talk page despite efforts to engage [diffs of messages or whatever else would evidence that the problem was one-sided]. I hope that helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
So the short version of that is "what you wrote after 'OTOH' in the second paragraph of your 06:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC) comment, only more so." Thanks. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The Backup article, like this report, is an indigestible mess. EEng 05:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The "Backup" article, as it stands now after the split-off of the ""Enterprise client-server backup" section, remains substantially the same "indigestible mess" as it was written by 2011. All I—except for ref-diddling—did to those 7 screen-pages was—in the past 14 months—to modernize the "Storage_media" section and "Live data" sub-section, and to harmonize some inconsistent terminology. All other edits were made since 21 May 2019 by Pi314m, except that last week I renamed and corrected the "Continuous_data_protection" sub-section he created when he merged-in the separate article and erroneously eliminated the distinction between true CDP and near-CDP that had been in that article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
On every weekday, there was an average of about 670 pageviews (as eyeballed by me) of the "indigestible mess". That was true a year ago, and it was true until Pi314m started editing it. Now, with "Enterprise client-server backup" split off into a separate article, the combined weekday average is down to about 585 pageviews (again as eyeballed by me). How does Pi314m feel about this readership drop of about 13%, when presumably his edits were intended to make the article more readable? We'll probably never know, because he doesn't respond to comments about his edits.DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
DovidBenAvraham, you write above "... Pi314m had IMHO substantially vandalized ..." and here "... before the specific other editor started vandalizing it ...". Please provide diffs to support your accusations of vandalism, or immediately withdraw them. But – please read carefully! – for pity's sake provide ONLY the diffs; the last thing we need here is yet another indecipherable wall of text. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I'm not making a formal vandalism claim for Pi314m's within-the-article "simplifying" moves—because AFAIK those are permitted by WP rules (even though IMHO they show that Pi314m didn't really understand the subject matter of the "Backup" article he was editing). However here's an understandable diff of Pi314m's 21:16, 26 May 2019 "simplifying" moves, where I've made the after-text understandable by doing the diff from before he started the moves to after he fixed his resulting ref syntax error. In case you suspect me of chicanery, here's the immediately-after diff that still has the ref syntax error—where the after-text unfairly to Pi314m obscures what one of his "simplifying" substitutions was. Notice that that cut-down substitution was only for the synthetic full backup feature; here's another diff just showing his one-day-later cut-down insertion for the automated data grooming feature. Pi314m's deletions of full descriptions of both features are shown in the first and second diffs. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dovid. You might not be aware, but administrators do not evaluate content disputes. We don't look at two versions of the article and decide which one is better. In the context of a content dispute, administrative intervention is used to solve behavioral problems. It's not a behavioral problem when two editors disagree about how to write an article or set of articles. The behavioral problem, if it exists, would be in how those editors approach the problem. Are there assumptions of bad faith? Poor communication? Edit warring? Deliberate controversial actions without prior discussion? Editing against consensus? Obvious policy violations? Etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Then, DovidBenAvraham, please strike those remarks here and at Talk:Backup (use the syntax <s> ... </s>) and leave an appropriate (but short!) note of apology on Pi314m's talk-page; you might leave a link to that apology here too. Accusing people of vandalism when they have not vandalised is a form of discourtesy, no more acceptable than discourtesy of any other kind. Please be careful not to do it again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I've struck out and paraphrased the one instance in this section where I actually used the v-word, rather than quoting Matthiaspaul. I've done the same for three instances on the "Talk:Backup" page. However I reserve the right to later use the v-word in connection to what Pi314m did to the "Information repository" article, where he merged-in only the two-sentence lead and completely deleted the rest of the article—which contained (and now through my efforts contains again) a description of a type of application that has been implemented at least twice since the article was created in 2007. I've also written a brief apology on User talk: Pi314m, in the section where I notified him about this ANI discussion. Let Matthiaspaul write his own apology for what he wrote in January 2018 on User talk: Pi314m, if he thinks he should apologize—which Pi314m's admission then shows he shouldn't. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

accepted (publicly)Edit

First point, publicly for DovidBenAvraham and to those who've tried to help: I failed to respond on a timely basis for his "Sorry about that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)" on my talk page. When a person says "Sorry" it's time to respond - I didn't. Perhaps that would have given him a chance to not have to be "directed to apologize" {DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)} (Talk:Pi314m). It's better to freely apologize before being directed. Nonetheless, I consider it as a free will apology, backed by the above "Sorry."

As for mention of Matthiaspaul - that can wait for another time. Perhaps my dispute with him is somewhat like BREAKTHROUGH To .. GEMORA (Z. Zobin) and its "What is a table?" {avoiding CopyVio .. he rejected "something to" eat from/off - that's a plate, and he deals with table vs. chair too} - and in the future, just as Laptop and Notebook now share an article, although at one time they were considered as different as Palmtop PC and Handheld PC, there should be a second chance.

DovidBenAvraham: something is strange about this, done 15 minutes later without a new timestamp or strikethrough. Is this the "sorry" of Erev Yom Kippur and the "renewal" (or is the taking back of "sorry") after the Shofar sounds?

Still, please don't worry - I stand by my subsection title.

To recap: SaLachTi - apology (publicly) accepted. Pi314m (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Pi314m, what happened is that I realized after originally making my 22:51, 10 July 2019 comment that I had forgotten to include in it the link to my apology on your personal Talk page that Justlettersandnumbers had requested. So, thinking that you would probably not have yet read it, I added that link and decided to also add a link to the comment that Matthiaspaul had made there in January 2018. While doing it I read that comment, realized that you had then pleaded guilty with a promise to reform to his accusation that "As I told you already, don't carry out such edits without prior discussion or against consensus, as you did twice already", and revised the last sentence of my 22:51, 10 July 2019 comment accordingly.
But in fact you haven't reformed. You did a 9-article-merge-in "simplification" without prior discussion to the "Outsourcing" article starting in January 2019. Nobody caught you for that, so you did a 2-article-merge-in "simplification" without prior discussion to the "Backup" article in late May 2019—and here we are with an ANI. What is your problem with doing a prior discussion; is it a sub-culture characteristic or a personal emotional hangup? As previously happened on the "Backup" article Talk page at 07:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC) and 07:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC), you only respond when someone else offers you an apology.
Since you brought up the sub-culture problem (which I was trying to avoid) with your mention of Yom Kippur, I'll tell you my charitable guess as to your problem. The edits you made after your merge-in of the "Continuous Data Protection" article show that you had not thoroughly read references that you yourself had added; that's why I later added applicable quotes from those references. Moreover, before I corrected it you had written "Ideal continuous data protection is that the recovery point objective is unlimited in content [my emphasis—I corrected it to zero], even if the recovery time objective is not", which indicates that you didn't understand this definition "A Recovery Point Objective (RPO) ... is the maximum targeted period in which data (transactions) might be lost from an IT service due to a major incident." Looking at those mistakes in combination with what you have written on your personal Talk page and in some of your Contributions, I think that your problem is that in your sub-culture boys past the age of 13 are educated—without any math or science classes—almost entirely in a non-modern European language. Nevertheless every January for the past 3 years, and in May this year because nobody caught you in January, you have felt a compulsion to edit WP articles whose subject matter you don't fully understand (your Contributions don't show any evidence of IT involvement after 1995-2000—explaining how you could write the archaic "Tapes of disk archives from multiple backups of the same source(s) can be consolidated onto a single Synthetic full backup", when relational databases replaced the "4th generation languages" you seem to have past experience using). Your goal in these merge-ins seems to be to simplify articles down to your educational level. If I were doing that, I too would be afraid of engaging in subject matter discussions.
And, being a third-generation Reformed Jew with a relaxed attitude towards the "closing of the books" tradition, I don't take back any repentance I make on Yom Kippur. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
For those who were wondering about Pi314m's referring above to "BREAKTHROUGH To .. GEMORA (Z. Zobin)", reference 15 in "Yeshiva" is Breakthrough to Learning Gemora: A Concise, Analytical Guide by Zvi Zobin. I had to do a Google search for "Zobin Talmud" before I could find the two WP articles that have him as a reference. I have essentially zero knowledge of the Gemara (non-Ashkenazic transliteration) or any other part of the Talmud, because I attended a good suburban public high school. I think Pi314m has just pretty-conclusively validated my guess about his educational background. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
DovidBenAvraham, looking at this diff of Talk:Backup, and it looks to me like you are under the impression that "substantial deletion of useful text" is vandalism. That's incorrect. According to the policy page, content removal has to be maliciously intended to damage the encyclopedia before it can be considered as vandalism. Whether the removed content is useful or not is not part of the definition. Material might be removed because it's off-topic, or incorrect, unencyclopedic, or unsourced (to name a few examples). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, I understand the difference between WikipediaOfficialVandalism and Conventionally-Defined Vandalism. I think that some of Pi314m's edits that I have encountered are C-DV, but I understand that they do not qualify as WOV. What my ANI is about is Pi314's practice over the last 3 years of merging other articles into a chosen article without prior or subsequent discussion, which I—and the two other editors who have warned him about this—understand is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Justlettersandnumbers got bothered yesterday by my use of the v-word on this page and on the "Backup" article's Talk page, so I've been sidetracked into dealing with those concerns. Don't worry, my presentation of evidence of Pi314m's mergers-without-discussion is coming, as soon as I can frame it according to Someguy1221's standards. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, vandalism is not a "synonym for substantial deletion of useful text"; on Wikipedia, vandalism is the intentional malicious damaging of the encyclopedia. Please don't use the word "vandalism" on this wiki unless someone is intentionally and maliciously damaging the encyclopedia, regardless of what the word means in other contexts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Please forgive me, DovidBenAvraham, especially since you may have misunderstood my reference to Yom Kippur. I apologize if something I said or even implied brought you to think for even a moment I'd even consider that you would ever "take back any repentance .. Yom Kippur." Absolutely not!

I really was looking to avoid thinking that your (forced, but I somehow believe deep down you probably did consider) apology was evasive- what some might call

"Sorry, I didn't mean to call you a moron, you're more OFF your rocker than on."
Your mention elsewhere of 98 on the English regents shows you are not just, as you said above, educated, but you've been Granted much.
Yes, it seems to be your style to try being a perfectionist and this is best not to be looked at negatively, even if the result of your EIGHT edits in 37 minutes to my TALK page was my (initially puzzling) receiving of repeated Wiki-alerts.

Just to show that I can do math, there is a teaching to judge favorably

LeKaf ZeChus/ZeChut - what's called benefit of the doubt - Kaf is spelled with two Hebrew letters that are valued at 20 and 80, total = 100%.
From what you have noted in a perhaps less "guarded" moment (but proving that you are truly human), you do need Refuat HaNeFesh ReFuat HaGuf - healing of ... You can, if you wish, mention your mother's Hebrew name, since the Dovid part is evident. (As can be seen from the title of Nothing Can Stop You - for a refuah sheleimah for Orly Bat Esther, for this type of situation, it is the mother's rather than the father's name that is preferred) Pi314m (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Pi314m, you wrote what you wrote—and I wrote my 03:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) comment above in response to it. My apology on your personal Talk page was mealy-mouthed, since I had simply been directed to strike-out the word "vandalism" because it has a Wikipedia Official meaning as linked-to in my 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) comment above. (The eight edits were because I was having trouble getting the mandatory notice template to display correctly; please read the edit summaries.) IMHO what you have been doing with your merge-ins and "simplifying" edits since the beginning of 2017 can justly be characterized as C-DV in the sense linked-to in my 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) comment above. I don't believe you are a moron, just constrained by your sub-culture upbringing (you may be able to do gematria, but I'll bet you never learned how to solve a quadratic equation—something taught to public school students no later than 10th grade). I have created this ANI because I want to stop you from messing around with articles I and other people edit, whose content you don't understand and therefore feel compelled to "simplify" down to the level of your sub-culture. As for any religious questions, I will discuss them on your personal Talk page after I have presented my evidence on this page. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
DovidBenAvraham, it's inappropriate for you to make assumptions about another editor's education or brainpower. Comment on the content, not the contributor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, it's also inappropriate for Pi314m to make assumptions about my religion—somewhat valid ones based on my WP "handle". Nevertheless the exchange has pretty much confirmed my guess about his educational background, a confirmation that is IMHO important for anyone reading this ANI—an ANI which would probably be unnecessary if Pi314m had been able to read the existing contents of articles and his own references in the first place. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There you go again, commenting on the contributor rather than the content. (Of course it's not okay for the other person to do it either). It doesn't matter how you arrived at your conclusions about his intellectual capabilities or how firmly you believe them the be true; just stop doing it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, here's an indented copy of my apologies on Pi314m's personal Talk page:

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding unacceptable article merging-in without prior discussion. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pi314m. The discussion is about the topic Backup.
Sorry about that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
In connection with that discussion, I've been directed to apologize to you for myself using the Wikipedia-fraught v-word (which I've now struck-through) once on the discussion page and 3 times on the "Talk:Backup" page. I've done nothing to my quotations of User:Matthiaspaul. However I reserve the right to right to later use the v-word in connection to what you did to the "Information repository" article, where you merged-in only the two-sentence lead and completely deleted the rest of the article—which contained (and now through my efforts contains again) a description of a type of application that has been implemented at least twice since the article was created in 2007. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Copied by DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m May 2019 contentious merge/redirect/insert changes without consensus, then refusing to discussEdit

Merge "Information repository" into "Backup"
User:Pi314m redirected the “Information repository” article [1] to put it into “Backup” [2], and in the process deleted the “Federated information” subsection [3]—the entire body describing a type of application that has been implemented twice. I tried to engage with User:Pi314m here [4], but he did not respond in at all despite being active. User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial because of the only Talk comment. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [5]. User:Pi314m does not discuss on talk page despite efforts to engage [6]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge "Continuous Data Protection" into "Backup"
User:Pi314m redirected the "Continuous Data Protection" article [7] to put it into “Backup” [8], and in the process deleted all text describing the distinction between true CDP and near-CDP [9]. I tried to engage with User:Pi314m here [10], but he did not respond in at all despite being active. User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial because the distinction was clearly stated in the article and because of this recently-added ref which talks about true CDP [11]. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [12]. User:Pi314m has reverted attempts to undo his deletions [13], but does not discuss on talk page despite efforts to engage [14]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Insert new text into “Data repository" article that clearly conflicts with topic
User:Pi314m inserted new text into the “Data repository" article [15] that clearly conflicts with its topic. That first sentence of the lead continues to state “A data library, data archive, or data repository is a collection of numeric and/or geospatial data sets for secondary use in research”, but the “Universal digital library” and “Information repository” sections that User:Pi314m inserted clearly discuss data that is neither numeric or geospatial. I didn’t try to engage with User:Pi314m on this insertion, because I didn’t discover it until a few days ago. User:Pi314m should have known the insertions would be controversial, because the article topic is clearly stated in the first sentence and because the preceding three edits are clearly about social science data [16]. User:Pi314m shouldn’t need to be warned about this kind of insertion, which is out-and-out WOV—inserted text is nonsensical though sophisticated and there's no discussion. IMHO it is evident that User:Pi314m got cold feet about his having deleted the entire content—except for the lead—of the "Information repository" article, and decided he’d better put some section named "Information repository" into another article as an alibi. So he Googled a couple of phrases, found references in leading newspapers named “… Times” (his favorite easy-to-read sources for references), and inserted quotes from those refs into the “Data repository" article—never mind that one of the refs was about the Mount Vernon NY Public Library’s computer information center. IMHO this constitutes User:Pi314m's de-facto confession of guilt about "Information repository" deletion! DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m Jan-April 2019 contentious merge/redirect changes without consensus or discussionEdit

Merge "Print and mail outsourcing" into "Outsourcing"
User:Pi314m redirected the "Print and mail outsourcing" article [17] to put it into “Outsourcing” [18], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [19]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [20]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [21]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Midsourcing" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Midsourcing" article [22] to put it into “Outsourcing” [23], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [24]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [25]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [26]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Move “algocracy” paragraph of “Outsourcing" into “A. Aneesh” 
User:Pi314m deleted the “algocracy” paragraph of the “Outsourcing" article [27] and inserted it into “A. Aneesh” (the article about its originator) [28]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and he made no comment in either article’s Talk page. Since the paragraph says “Global software development projects, may be neither insourced nor outsourced, in a process that is sometimes termed "remote insourcing” (term referenced here), and he had recently merged “Insourcing” into “Outsourcing”, [User:Pi314m]] should have suspected the delete would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [29]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Outsource marketing" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Outsource marketing" article [30] to put it into “Outsourcing” [31], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [32]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [33]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [34]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Engineering Process Outsourcing" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Engineering Process Outsourcing" article [35] to put it into “Outsourcing” [36], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [37]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [38]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [39]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Information Technology Outsourcing" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Information Technology Outsourcing" article [40] to put it into “Outsourcing” [41], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [42]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [43]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [44]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Business Processing Outsourcing" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Business Processing Outsourcing" article [45] to put it into “Outsourcing” [46], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [47]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [48]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [49]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Farmshoring" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Farmshoring" article [50] to put it into “Outsourcing” [51], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [52]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [53]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [54]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Homeshoring" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Homeshoring" article [55] to put it into “Outsourcing” [56], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [57]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [58]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [59]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge “Personal Offshoring" into "Outsourcing" 
User:Pi314m redirected the “Personal Offshoring" article [60] to put it into “Outsourcing” [61], and in the process deleted most of the body of the article [62]. Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m, and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” [63]. That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before [64]. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

@DovidBenAvraham: Alright, so this is a content dispute. You've finally started an RfC, which is good, but there's several improvements you need to make:

  1. Bold, assertive edits are encouraged as a matter of policy. You can not block them without good reason, and you do not control articles.
  2. When a dispute arises, explain your objections, briefly, and coherently, on the talk page.
  3. Typing out paragraphs upon paragraphs as you have been consistently doing on that talk page and here, is disruptive. When your commentary is excessive, it disrupts the consensus-building process and grinds disputes to a halt.
  4. Do not ever comment on an individual in a content dispute, period.
  5. Do not report content disputes to AN/I.
  6. When you flood a page with walls of text, no one can work with you. You're in the wrong. You can't complain about another person's behavior when you seem impossible to collaborate effectively. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Dovid, I'm glad you've now provided a much more easily digested complaint, but I find myself leaning toward Swarm's interpretation of events. Yes, it's true that the other party has made bold moves more than once, and it's true that he does not give much in the way of response when you have attempted to engage with him. However, I have to admit it would be extremely difficult even for someone acting in good faith to give a substantive response to your attempts to communicate. I honestly have trouble following your walls of text, and I suspect the reason that you often find yourself essentially the only person speaking is that no one wants to respond. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: Please start reading with this sub-section; you won't find any walls of text there or in the next sub-section because I re-started doing this ANI the way User:Someguy1221 politely suggested. If you folks think I should delete my preceding comments here, I will, but I originally made those comments to explain what type of relief I am looking for and why. As far as commenting on an individual in a content dispute, User:Diannaa has already raked me over the coals on that—but I allowed myself to be provoked into doing so in response to an "acceptance of apology" by Pi314m that in its stated assumptions about our common religious educational background could definitely be considered as a comment on me. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thanks for your prior guidance in how to properly submit this ANI.
The examples I have given so far here (and more examples are on their way) do not involve any attempt by me to communicate with Pi314, because I only looked at "Outsourcing"'s revision history a couple of weeks ago after noticing in Pi314m's Contributions a number of edits to that article by him several months earlier. AFAICT he never puts anything on an article Talk page announcing what edits he's going to do or has done. User:Pi314m was warned about that in January 2018, as I've taken pains to point out in every example above. In "Insert new text into 'Data repository' article that clearly conflicts with topic", he went beyond that into out-and-out WOV—because the inserted paragraphs are "nonsense" in terms of the article's topic; I've said in that example the insertion seems to be an attempted cover-up for his having deleted the entire body of an article. I also said in that example that IMHO the insertion by User:Pi314m constitutes a confession of guilt for having violated a Wikipedia rule in the other merge/redirect examples. So we're not talking about mere "bold moves", but multiple Wikipedia rule violations. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
DovidBenAvraham I'm fine with separating this out with a neutral header, but don't attempt to dictate the narrative of the section via your own commentary. Continuing to be disruptive right now is not a good play. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
But "Is this merely a content dispute, or does it involve at least one violation of Wikipedia rules?" is a precise statement of the question posed by my ANI. That's why I used it as the heading for this sub-section, and I don't see why it doesn't qualify as a "neutral header" to separate the ensuing discussion from my sub-sections re-stating the problem—re-statement made the way User:Someguy1221 wanted me to. I don't see why my version of that sub-section header would "attempt to dictate the narrative of the section via your own commentary". IMHO User:Swarm is still angry about my comments in previous sub-sections of the ANI, which I've already explained as either inexperience or reacting to an evident comment on me. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
(1) I don't see any evidence of Swarm being angry. (2) And please don't explain what you think is motivating the user you're reporting; if there's been disruptive behaviour or vandalism, it will be obvious to experienced administrators and experienced editors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
What Diannaa said; please don't speculate about the emotional states of other editors. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's briefly recapitulate Pi314m's behavior since January 2017. As the instances I have put into the ANI here and here (which I have added to) show, his repeated practice has been to edit one article by merging other related articles into it and then deleting most of the content of the merged-in articles. He didn't have to do those deletions; he could simply have left the other articles as is and linked-to/selectively-copied-from them, as I have done so here—after I re-established an article Pi314m had merged-in. The effect of these mergers-followed-by-deletions is to "dumb-down" the total content of Wikipedia; IMHO that constitutes "removal ... of the text or other material that is ... nonsensical"—and that's an abbreviated quote from the WOV article. I'm not going to speculate any further on the motivation of Pi314m for doing this "dumbing-down"; my previous well-referenced speculation is actually a form of "assume good faith"—even when that "good faith" is not the sort that most Wikipedia readers or editors share. So IMHO the real question posed by the ANI is: Is "dumbing down" the content of Wikipedia acceptable because the editor who does so is "acting in good faith" according to his beliefs? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I have previously commented suggesting the merging of some of these articles, but I saw immediately there was opposition, and therefore would never do it without prior consensus. In cases like this, it is often useful to first slowly eliminate duplicate content, just duplicate, making sure that unique information does not get deleted. And if anywhere I wanted to test the consensus boldly for a group of article, I would do just one and see the reaction. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I belatedly added to the bottom of the "accepted (publicly)" sub-section of this ANI a copy from Pi314m's personal Talk page of my apology which he was "accepting". IMHO comparing it to his comments in the sub-section leads to an interesting conclusion on how Pi314m interacts with another editor. But I'll have to let you draw your unaided conclusion; I've been warned. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Reverted my changes to Strava, saying in multiple edits that it was edited for legal reasons, undid my expansion and warned me against editing because I am "not party to the behind the scenes legal chat". Implied violation of WP:OWN and WP:NLT. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I left a message about our lack of interest in insider "behind the scenes" information and 42. As it is a static, corporate IP with minimal risk of collateral damage, I gave a 3 month soft block for NLT.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151:Now, as to the assertion of plagiarism I ran dup detector on our article and the source. This may be too close a paraphrase. Please someone double check. There are some word-for-word copies.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Most of those are direct quotes from the terms of service quoted in both. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: Thanks, I think I see what you mean. @Diannaa: Could you please double check. The duplication detector makes me cross-eyed. And the now blocked IP said that plagiarism was afoot. With the debacle unfolding at AN in an unblock request, rather be safe.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any problem with copyvio. By the way all the cool kids now use Earwig's tool, so much more useful. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thanks, think we can clse.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical questionEdit

This is more of a technical question than a specific report.

As seen here [65] the filters are working at stopping this LTA from posting That Which Shall Not Be Named (he has to misspell it), and the abuse gets reverted in minutes, so basically our defenses are working.

My question is mostly for my own technical education; can we figure out a pattern here? Something more nuanced than this[66]? How is he getting the new IPs? The latest is a T-Mobile broadband. Is he actually moving between cell towers? What other countermeasures are available to us? Would making a list of likely misspellings and filtering them help? Or is that too much load on the system for too little benefit? Are companies like T Mobile still responding to "one of your users is vandalizing our website" reports and cancelling accounts like they did in the 90s, or am I stuck in the past on that one? (Get off my lawn, you damn kids!) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect there are a few joe jobs adding to this, and not every apparent incarnation is actually him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how T-mobile allocates IPs but it is always worth remembering that while some have gotten a little sticky some ISPs are still basically completely dynamic and only require the connection to be turned off for a short time for a new IP e.g. flight mode for a mobile device. Or simply renewing the lease for those using DHCP. Also long established ISPs in the developed normally have enough IP space that many don't use IPv4 CG-NAT even for mobile devices. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


SpoonLuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

DS alert on 17:34, 10 July 2019.

Edit warring alert on 18:56, 10 July 2019.

SpoonLuv is continuing to edit war without establishing a consensus for new content. The edit history shows SpoonLuv is continuing to revert since July 10, 2019.

For example, I removed the disputed content. SpoonLuv restored the disputed content. Cloudjpk deleted the content because consensus has not been reached for the new content.

I requested verification for the content but no verification was provided. I was accused of stonewalling. I asked again for verification. SpoonLuv did not provide verification for the challenged content. Cloudjpk explained "Verification" means accurate to the source, not whether the source is MEDRS.

SpoonLuv previously asked "Is there any way to deal with bullying editors?". QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru is preventing any neutral point of view edits on the Electronic Cigarette page. Every single edit that is made neutrally has an immediate failed verification, MEDRS, or CN (even when citations are cited) flag placed on the content. This isn't just being done to me, but every other editor on the page. They remove content while content is being discussed and negotiated on talk page before consensus is reached. I repeatedly (at least 5 times) asked how my sources failed MEDRS or verification according to Wikipedia. He never answered, just repeating that he doesn't think it's a review. You can see clear evidence of bullying and disruptive editing on both the talk page and page history. You can also see clear evidence of refusal to make any concessions or attempt to achieve consensus, and simply stonewalls every discussion on the talk page. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you considered providing a demonstration of where in the source the support for your claim lies rather than edit warring? Because the link you provided bumps into a paywall so it may be hard to verify. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Cloudjpk provided a link to an excellent review that successfully refuted the claim of common liability model being the primary driver in my mind. There are still a number of issues with that particular section, but Cloudjpk is open to reaching consensus. I removed the source that bumped into a paywall (Etter), as after purchasing and fully reading the text, there were a number of issues that could make MEDRS compliance questionable. This happened about midway through the consensus discussions (I can't really expect anyone to read the novel on that talk page lol). Either way, QuackGuru has made 32 edits to the page in the last 2 days, and the majority of that is undoing other editors work without consensus. In one mass deletion today, they removed almost 5k of other editors contributions without consensus. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
DrNicotiana Made quite a few constructive edits to the page yesterday, and QuackGuru has systematically removed every one of them. If you go back in the history (you don't have to go very far) you can see that QuackGuru has made keeping this page away from anywhere near NPOV his personal mission. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Rather than a reply with "in my mind" and other deflections, how about answering the question: "Have you considered providing a demonstration of where in the source the support for your claim lies rather than edit warring?" Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of the "edit war" was claims that the material was not MEDRS. The main source I was using was MEDRS. I withdrew Etter, but most of the content came from kowalski. I continuously asked how Kowalski violated MEDRS according to Wikipedia policies, and they refused to answer. The last part about verification was my misunderstanding of what verification meant. The way QuackGuru was talking, it was as though the source wasn't verified as legitimate, I didn't know the question was where in the text itself those claims lied. They were also clearly located in the text, and even a cursory glance would spot them. I wasn't deflecting, I was legitimately trying to provide what they were asking for. I don't know how to prove somethings a review other then the fact that it's clearly a review of studies and data. It's like if I hold up an apple and ask you to prove to me it's an apple. It's obviously an apple. You'll also notice that when one requirement of QuackGuru is satisfied, there's immediately another reason the content shouldn't be included. This process seems endless. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Either way, I don't have time to deal with editor bullies that have too much time on their hands and are clearly intent on preventing NPOV. If you honestly can't see that from the talk page discussion and the removal of all NPOV editor content, then it's pretty clear that there's no improving this page. Without any recognition of what's going on, any efforts to improve the article will take far more effort then should reasonably be expected by anyone. There should be a reasonable level of expectation that an editor actually reads a source before saying that it fails verification. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Your edit summary was "Undid revision 906684347 by QuackGuru (talk) Did not fail verification. Is MEDRS compliant. Please stop deleting MEDRS compliant information." According to your edit summary you claimed it did not fail verification but you refused to provide verification. I read both sources and none of them verify the content that was restored. QuackGuru (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Looks like the reversions have stopped and discussion is under way. As you are at logger heads, you should request an WP:RFC on the page if you have not done so and seek a third opinion. As that is the case, there seems nothing to do here but to insist on the WP:dispute resolution process be followed and a cessation of edit warring. I suppose the DS notice includes WP:1RR, so hopefully you all can deal with this without anyone getting blocked. I'm theoretically off Wiki today, but I've little patience for personal attacks, comments about editors instead of content, and incivil behavior. Just a word for the wise.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@SpoonLuv: I just read through this again. I certainly hope that calling those with whom you do not agree who seek discussion about your edits a "bully" is a rarity and not something you do on a regular basis. I will remind you that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 / VauxfordEdit

Charles01 further harassmentEdit

Previous discussions
Initial evidences

I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me.

Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content:

Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [67]

Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [68]

More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [69]

Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [70]

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [71] [72] His reply to the template message [73]

Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [74]

Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [75] [76]

Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [77]

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [78] [79]

I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [80] [81] [82]

The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me.

I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 () 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It was archived as udea, and I am not sure that you deciding it should not be archived is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The archive was done by a bot. I provided diffs, evidences and everything, how can they not try and evaluate this? They can't just discarded this because it was created by me. This been going on way before anything else prior to that. I don't want to let this get sweep under the rug and forgotten. --Vauxford (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
u|Oshwah I know I shouldn't really ping admins but I talked to you about this before. Please at least look at this, this is nowhere near worst then what I got myself into with the previous discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
2nd ANI reopen


Re-opening this because he has been archived the 2nd time now since nothing has been done about this. Charles01 has reverted my edit after I replaced a picture that wasn't even discussed, it might of been in the talkpage discussion but it was simply ignored, YET again calling it my "personal vanity project". I'm going to blow a fuse if he going to accuse me of that one more time. Please something be done about this, I really think the talkpage discussion on the Audi Q3 wasn't justified (see Extended content for the original post I did). I tried talking to him, solving it on the talkpage discussion, but now he simply reverting anything I do because he calls it a "personal vanity project". I'm at a dead end here and doing anything else would just become disruptive. Please can this be look at that, I know I can a handful but still this has been going on for half a year now and I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit much; but you do also suffer from a conflict of interest when it comes to adding your own work. Best to try to argue for its inclusion on the article talk page rather than inserting it yourself. El_C 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I did discuss this on the article talk page, I added a alternative image but it was never discussed except for some opinion about the wing mirrors. I thought because it hasn't been discussed I could use that instead of the one which a consensus have been reached, but even the consensus I find unfair because 80% of the reason for why they choose the grey one over the blue was mostly personal rather then actually talking about the picture. --Vauxford (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Try to change the consensus by getting wider input, taking advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Which one should I pick for this sorta thing though? Also this incident isn't just about the Audi Q3 dispute it the overall misconduct Charles01 has been giving me all this time. --Vauxford (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure. That, indeed, depends on the depth and breadth of your dispute. El_C 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
[83] Charles01 made another lengthy comment making personal remarks of me rather then the picture itself in another talkpage, this often happens when I start discussion on the talkpage or anything with my name on it and when he gets involved it the comments become personal very quickly. --Vauxford (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
El_C I made a request for comment on the talkpage discussion and I reverted a comment by a user who has already had their said about the photo in the previous discussion. Charles01 reverted that with yet another lengthy comment which mention I have "destructive arrogance", "toxicity" and implying that I edit warring all the time which I don't. I thought RfC was made so users who aren't involved in the previous discussion can have their say? --Vauxford (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. You removing that comment was totally inappropriate. Please don't do that again. El_C 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
My mistake then, sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── [84] Now it seem one of the users (who is more active on the German Wikipedia) is favouring Charles01 photos over ones that were done by me, the fact isn't whether which one is better, the fact is this user is acting biased by siding with Charles01 on anything now. Alexander-93 was the one who created the Audi Q3 talkpage because he wanted the grey car (which he took himself) to be used. The thing that bothers me the most is he insert his OWN photos into articles both on English and on the many Wikipedia I personally thing their nothing wrong with that as long as it isn't disruptive but I'm the one who been getting all the hassle saying I'm a "destructive user" and is "degrading Wikipedia" by Charles01 and he doesn't. Now I'm predicting that Charles01 gonna revert the recent edits Alexander-93 done with another lengthy scolding about how much a problematic user I am. What I find unfair is the sheer hypocrisy this is becoming and all I am is a scapegoat simply because the photo or edit was done by me. --Vauxford (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]

[103] Alexander just made another talkpage discussion which is just gonna be the same bias outcome from Charles01 and I'm fearing he just going to continue doing this on any photos taken by me (whether I put them there myself or not) --Vauxford (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not prioritise anybody's photos. I changed the image in the Fiat Panda article since I think it is better! After you reverted my edit I started a new discussion on the talk page. It is the same procedure as I already did for the Tesla Model S and the Audi Q3. It is getting stupid since every edit, in which a picture of you is replaced is endling like this. It seems like not even I have a problem with this behaviour.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Alexander-93 The photo was taken by Charles01, and recently you have been siding with him for any comment he post about me. I'm going to be honest, I know this may seem rude and unethical because you have every right to edit on here, same with me on the German Wikipedia, but you are mostly active on the German Wikipedia because that your native language, I haven't been making edits/replacement on your Wikipedia because people on there got upset with me because their manual of style for automobiles is different to here which I respect that so I leave them be, same thing happened with me and the Italian Wikipedia so I also leave them alone, As far as I'm aware, it not against any polices to do edits on other Wikipedias unless it disruptive but if people on their really oppose my edits I would leave them alone. Why do you insist of trying to get your own way on here when it not even your main Wikipedia? --Vauxford (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
When I first read the words 'vanity project', 'Vauxfordy' etc. I did not know, what the others meant. I'm not someone who bullies someone and I will never use such words. But after a while working side by side with Vauxford, I can understand the others. And to be true: Since a few days, I'm looking at your and Charles01 edits. But I do not side with anybody! I'm following different users on Wikicommons, who upload (car-)images regularly. And if I'm convinced by an image (as I was for the new Fiat Panda image), I share it on Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter if it's from me or another user. I think this isn't a problem. It seems to me like Vauxford is creating his own rules and if someone says something against him or his edits, it's ending like this. As I mentioned above, I do not prioritise anybody here. I also vote for his images ([104]) or implement them in some articles ([105]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([106]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([107], [108], [109]), but your behaviour is different to others. You do not assume good faith and do not respect the work of other users!
As El_C mentioned before: Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. And just because English is not my native language and I'm also active in the German Wikipedia, I shouldn't do that in your point of view? I think you have to be careful with statements like this! Your problems in other Wikipedias are not my fault! In the German one there is the guideline to use mainly LHD-vehicles, since 99% of the vehicles in the DACH-countries are delivered with the steering wheel on the left side. And since you didn't stick to that rule, the German users had a problem with your edits. If I see it right, nobody here without you has a problem with some of my edits. But you have a problem with many edits, since I think you are making your own rules - and if I see it right, I'm not the only one thinking about you in this kind of way. So I do not care about your statement, that I should not use the English Wikipedia!--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Vauxford, while I don't know the full depths of this dispute as it's been mostly outside of my sub-topic area, I've noticed a few things. Your photographs generally range from decent to less-than-passable, but you don't seem to understand that. You also don't seem to understand that replacing one adequate image with another adequate image isn't particularly productive. Whether your intention is to fill Wikipedia with your own pictures or not, your editing pattern gives other editors the impression that you are. I suspect these issues are where Charles01's frustration comes from, and that repeated attempts to get you to see that have left him believing he has no alternative but the unpleasantries you mention above.

If someone wanted to make a measurable improvement in terms of illustrating automotive articles, one would identify articles where an existing image is lacking and seek out opportunities to replace it, rather than taking photos in mass quantities whether they will be helpful or not. The goal should be to replace poor images with adequate ones; replacing adequate ones with excellent ones is icing on the cake (but in the vast majority of cases, a curbside shot like those you have access to is never going to be at that level). The point of having images in the articles is to provide the reader with a reasonable idea of what the vehicle looks like. As long as an existing image does that, ad nauseum discussions of whether a new image is a 1% improvement or a 1% detriment are wholly unproductive. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 Knowing a picture that need replacing is completely subjective towards the viewer. I have every right to do make these bold edits and I clearly understand why I do them and the repercussion I could get because of it. How the heck could I tell if a image could truly be replaced with something else or vice versa and thinking like that is just mind numbing. A person could replace a picture something they consider the absolute best but there always going to be someone who said otherwise. It doesn't matter if Charles01 is expressing frustration over me, it beyond unacceptable accusing others for "edit warring" when they have done whatsoever! It just harassment in general, it really patronising to be labelled as the "Vauxford Problem".. --Vauxford (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, you have a conflict of interests when it comes to adding your own images. You should really be suggesting that on talk pages, instead. El_C 16:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
But I'm not getting paid to do these edits or doing it out of my interest. I know that hard to believe but that's the truth and I understand why people mistake that. --Vauxford (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that you're not getting paid, you cannot be presumed to be neutral regarding your own images in the event these are objected to, so you should let others add them instead and limit yourself to proposals on the talk page. That sounds like a sensible solution to me. El_C 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The pictures-of-cars topic area is rapidly supplanting pro wrestling as the universe's #1 source of lame controversy. EEng 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Think of it as the flavour of the quarter. Blackmane (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hopefully it's only for the quarter and no longer. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I eagerly await a page entitled 'RuPaul Riding In Cars With Wrestlers.' JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the reason why this was ignored twice is a lot of people looking at maybe thinking, Mmmmm, not sure this is all that one way. At this time I am going to suggest that this is dropped before a boomerang ensues.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is one way because I did nothing to make Charles01 like this. This was all his choice, if was actually giving me advice of how to edit productively none of this would happen. --Vauxford (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
One thing to edit more constructively would be to stop going to ANI about everything. No, not everyone is a puppy, unicorn, or eternally happy, and some of these people will make you upset. But if that happens, back away for a bit, maybe delete the message they sent to you if it's not applicable, stop reverting them. If they continue, for a long time, then maybe you can report them. MAYBE. You probably shouldn't. Unless they are making definitively uncivil statements or reverting several people, you probably shouldn't. The reasons people are against you right now are that for one, you opened this less than a month after that YBSOne mess, and two, you are reverting far too aggressively. Stop reverting people for a while and people should feel less animosity. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A lad insane That YBSOne wasn't started by me, it was started by U1Quattro which got myself involved in when I shouldn't have. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Aight, great. Now don't get involved in any more, and no reverts, and everything will be peachy. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Per wp:brd once you are reverted it is down to you to make the case, not down to the other user to give you advice. You are being told here what you did wrong, and your response is "I disagree".Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I been doing that this whole time though. I been discussing my edit on the talkpage instead of reverting all the time. Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI, so I went to the ANI and then E1_C told that this sorta stuff should be discussed in the talkpage section. It just seem like no matter what I do I get shouted and scolded for it. I'm at the brink of just giving up because at this rate I feel like every thing is all falling down on me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
If you had been doing it the whole time you would not have reverted even twice. It does not matte if you sometimes do it (and to be honest we all forget sometimes). What matters is you are here over this mater (it does not matter who started it, or who was reported) and have now re-started this twice, when you did not get your way (when I saw you first re-post I was going to say "maybe they have not commented because they see nothing to comment on"). Please note that sanctions are not punitive, they are preventive. At this time you are the disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't re opened this because it wasn't going my way I re opened it because nobody said anything and the bot automatically archived it before anyone could, all I'm doing is addressing the issue, I haven't reverted more then twice recently and I have been taking to talkpage discussion instead of that. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong here. --Vauxford (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I am troubled by a lot of the stuff here on a number of different levels, but I was repeatedly dissuaded from intervening (1) because initially I couldn't think of anything I could add that would be helpful and (2) as the thing has dragged on and the temptation to jump in has periodically returned, I have been dissuaded from commenting by the belief that anything I wrote/write was/is likely to be savagely reinterpreted beyond recognition. So I bit my tongue and stayed silent here. But I am particularly taken aback by the statement "Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI...." I have no recollection of having "told" Vauxford that or anything that could have been construed as that. I really think he is .... mistaken with his statement here. Either that, or my mind is going. (Of course, those two possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.) He is, as far as I understand the rules, entitled, as we all are, to write whatever he wishes here. But I think I would have been borderline insane to have "told" (or even recommended) him to do it as he has chosen to. I wonder what you are / he is thinking of with this. Charles01 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Charles01 I don't even know at this point. I think need a breather from all this because in my head I think I see something someone said but haven't actually said it, I just end up accuse them for no reasons. Even looking back to what I said it starting to not make any sense. Edit: [110] This what I meant. I might of misinterpeted in a way that I thought you were telling me to take my concern about Typ932 to the ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an all too predictable response to someone complaining about being hounded by another editor. Personal attacks are not justified by being "frustrated", are a clear violation of wikipedia policy, and need to be stopped. Conflicts of Interest can be reported to the COI Noticeboard. Period. ♟♙ (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More cases of using the "Vauxford Vanity Project" and belittling my own work over someone else. All because of a a short thought about someone else proposal. --Vauxford (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here I don't completely understand this whole COI thing. I been reading about it since but the way it describe doesn't fit the type of edits I do. I'm not closely connected or associated to anything or anyone. I just really love cars of all type and photographing them and thought they be good use in the article. I started this ANI because of the user's behaviour in the long-term. If their more I need to know about this subject please do explain it to me. The diffs I have provided shows he has accused me of edit warring, using wikipedia as some sort of "vanity project" which upsets me each time he uses that term because I know myself that isn't true, he calls my good faith contribution "toxic and delusional" and that I am "degrading Wikipedia". These are the type of comments I get whenever am trying to solve a dispute on the talkpage which is why people could take this as a COI (if am using that correctly) and became a more serious issue then it should to be. --Vauxford (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

COI is different to WP:COI. That sounds silly but the addition of WP: references it to the encylopedia's take on conflict of interest. Editors above that mention COI (without the WP:) are talking about one's conflict of interest when it comes to one's own work. Of course we are going to be biased towards our own contributions, we're going to think that it's great and defend it (to the death for some, figuratively speaking). And this is where editors lose perspective. They get so caught up in defending their work, they get blinded to all else. They start seeing any sort of constructive commentary as attacks on their work, people pointing out areas for improvement become bullies, harassers or hounds (sometimes this is true but for the most part, people generally do act with the best for the project at heart, you know, good faith and all that) and round and round it goes. I mostly restrict myself to copy editing because I'm pretty confident in my writing skills (quite a few of the articles I've copy edited have gone on to pass GA and even 1! FA), but I always keep in mind that at the end of the day no matter how well I think I write, someone else will no doubt come along and improve it, and that's the take home message. Don't get too enamored with your contribution to the article. Blackmane (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[111] As much as I wanted Charles01 take his time fine tune his testimony against me and I been making my counter defence one in the process but, I was too shocked the fact he even suggested that I was even using sockpuppet accounts. Apparently people other then him has suspicion that I been using sockpuppet account, for starters I have NOT used any alternative accounts for abusive purposes, the only two accounts I ever created was this one which was orignially Makizox, and Vauxford2 for mostly uploading files from Flickr to Commons with one accidental edit on Wikipedia because I forgot to log in to my main account. I did made some accidental log out edits which I got admins remove them because they revealed my actual IP address and that's it. I tried asking him on his talkpage about where he is getting these so-called suspicions from but it clear he is ignoring me. Along with the many assumption and accusation he has made against me on his testimony just shows the determination he has to throw myself and whatever reputation I ever had on here away. Why am so shocked from this is from my own impression on Wikipedia (which you might think is a bit exaggerating), being known as a sockpuppet user is equivalent to being a known sex offender, people will instantly change the way they think of you and would not have a second thought of what they think about you. --Vauxford (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, the evidences just keep on stacking, sorry if I made this ANI a bit too lengthy for your taste but I really think something must be done. --Vauxford (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

[112] It seem Charles01 have made a influence on a user from the lengthy paragraphs he wrote. I reverted the edit telling them that he it not a valid reason to shadow revert a edit over something they weren't involved with. --Vauxford (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks like an IBAN violation, as does this [[113]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
as does this [[114]]. So in fact the pair of you have not taken a blind bit of notice of the IBAN, I would suggest a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven Wait, I never had a IBAN from U1Quattro. That one done by Sable was revoked wasn't it? I know there was a IBAN propsoal between YBSone and U1Quattro but the one proposed by me and U1Quattro was revoked by a admin over some reason. I really wasn't aware the IBAN was official or not since it was done by Sable. Then he closed it and got reopened by a admin and it just got postponed. Then a separate IBAN was created based on the ANI U1Quattro created which I didn't get involved in. --Vauxford (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Was it, when? I see nothing on your talk page to indicate that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't retrieve the diffs where one of the admins reopen it because they all got suppressed over a unrelated incident. This is why users shouldn't close ANI because it confusing to know which of these mental barriers are active or not. --Vauxford (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
[[}}, "two-way interaction ban implemented between you and U1Quattro.". I can find nothing that says this was overturned.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven [115] Here it is, and then after that nothing got declared and was automatically archived, I think me and U1Quattro made up by ourselves by not speaking to each other until now. "Apart from the very obvious fact that there is no consensus for any sanctions here, in which case only administrators are in the capacity to impose sanctions" --Vauxford (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it got disputed and buried, how am I suppose to know if it in place or not? Unlike the second IBAN proposal where it was only towards U1Quattro and YSBone which was actually in place and the two already got a 2 week block for breaching it. --Vauxford (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected, the message on your talk page causes confusion and should have been removed. Its a shame the pair of you could not resist speaking to each other.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven Well this talk I had with them today was for once was a lot more friendlier then the others and we came to a agreement that the edits was fine. --Vauxford (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So why did you raise them here?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Because I presumed he jumped on the bandwagon from Charles01's ramble nonsense about me. I was just logging anything that is related to this incident I created and providing as much evidences and diffs as I can. --Vauxford (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)



This should be the last ANI I make about Charles01. You don't have to read through everything above but it would be helpful if you do. I feel like nothing has been done with this user, he is still harassing me whatever I do something. He made a hate page about me which got deleted [116], follow by him recreating it again follow by another delete [117]. He has accused me of edit warring with the same bias argument that everything I do is a "vanity project". He accused me of sockpuppeting twice, one on his now deleted hate page about me and on my talkpage.

All this determination of painting me as a disruptive, tendentious editor which I have no intention of doing. In case that one suggest a IBAN or something I did nothing to this user, this is very much one sided in spite of what I do on Wikipedia, choosing to scold and harass me rather then actually helping me to not be a "toxic", tendentious editor. Even after doing everything right when it comes to content dispute such as trying to solve it on the talkpage and made a RfC I still mess it all up, it looked easy when other users does it.

How is this person haven't get any form of consequences other then a slap on the wrist a couple of times on his talkpage. I thought accuasing someone of sockpuppeting with no valid evidence is taken very seriously and could easily defame someone's credibility as well as creating what you could call a "hate page" about with false facts. --Vauxford (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted two of Charles01's subpages, at two different time intervals, because I felt they needed to be launched formally, rather than sit in userspace where they basically constitute an attack page. Vauxford, however, was advised by me last time not to be the one to add his own work to articles. This advise was not, however, subscribed to, as he, in fact, even reverted his own image back to an article today. An article, which, as a result of the ensuing edit war, I fully protected for a week. As I told Vauxford on my own talk page earlier, I just can't devote my full attention to this dispute at this time, so another admin should feel more than free to step in. Anyway, I thought a brief note was at least due, if only to enable the reader to somewhat navigate this long-standing dispute. El_C 21:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
El_C It might of been a image by me but that was the image that was part of the RfC and I thought a consensus was reached so I did the edit. Just because it was taken by me doesn't mean that I'm adding my own work to the article nor am I ignoring your advice. --Vauxford (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
(puzzled frown)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
What the point of trying to bring this to light because so bludgeoned to the point nobody is willing to sort this incident. The outcome of it is gonna be fruitless and this ever growing problem is just going to continue on. I just want to edit normally and learn as I go on here and make good relation with other users rather then hounded by scolding editors that live off on their reputation and how long they been on Wikipedia. --Vauxford (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford. Again.Edit

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


  • Vauxford has contributed to Wikpedia since the end of 2016. He has also contributed under other names in the past. I am not aware of any other wiki-identities he is currently using, however.
  • I have contributed to a large number of Wikipedia automobile articles over the years and then left most of those articles on my watch list. That means (I suspect) that I am alerted to Vauxford edits more frequently than others who might be tempted to read this. A ringside seat. My problem? Indeed.
  • An appreciation of the scale of the "Vauxford Issues" would need many weeks of studying the Vauxford edit history. It is not realistic (and would be seriously unkind) to wish that on anyone. Nevertheless, here is the summary Several things leap to the eye, depending, perhaps, on what you were expecting. One thing that seems to have increased powerfully during 2019 is the weight of Vauxford contributions to talk pages. (But there are several other very unusual features also.) Although he plays a prominent role in so many talk pages, a flavour of Vauxford's attitudes to Wikipedia can by seen simply by consulting his own talk pages and as here.
  • In summary, Vauxford contributes according to his own rules: he robustly ignores suggestions, recommendations and pleas to contribute according to anyone else's rules. He does not "do consensus". It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he cheerfully treats Wikipedia with sustained contempt The result is damage to Wikipedia in ways that play out both directly and indirectly, both in plain sight and invisibly.


Extended content. ——SerialNumber54129 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Between December 2016 and June 2019 Vauxford uploaded 31,395 files to Wikpedia-Commons. It's a lot.
  • As far as I can make out these were almost all pictures of cars. In my opinion Vauxford has spent 30 months uploading all "his" pictures to Wikipedia-Commons without regard for whether they are (1) good, (2) more or less competent, (3) mediocre or (4) terrible.
  • During the past thirty months Vauxford has linked "his" images of cars - as in HIS OWN images of cars - to Wikipedia articles in between ten and twenty different language version of Wikipedia. Hard to believe? Yes. But page down on a few of these … if you’ve got the time to count the links to different Wikipedia pages on each one. Well, maybe just a randomly selected sample….:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3435 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 He has done this regardless of whether "his" picture is (2) more or less competent, (3) mediocre, or (4) terrible. People familiar with these issues may very well have their own examples in mind. There are lots. (There must be a few (1) good “Vauxford pictures” in the mix too: but these would not normally get noticed so much....)
  • Vauxford repeatedly indicates his belief that this behaviour is (1) normal and (2) not damaging. I disagree. Others disagree. During June 2019 Vauxford invited and received a large amount of advice. Almost all of the advice he has received has been, in my opinion, carefully considered and broadly sound. (As in I agree with it!)
  • One contributor wrote: "... the way you're going about this is wrong. Both you and ____ should be putting your images on the Commons, then letting others decide how they ought to be best incorporated into WP."
  • A gentler soul pointed out that: " was always considered bad form to "push" ones own photos".
  • A third contributor, in response to one of those interminable Vauxford discussions, wrote: "Putting your own pics if there is a pic already is considered very impolite in all Wikipedias I guess."
  • Plenty more along the same lines. People may or may not agree with those pieces of advice. Vauxford rejects them.
  • Sometimes someone dares to replace a "less than stellar image by Vauxford" with something better. He reverts the edit.
  • People are becoming a little bit less accepting of Vauxford's behavior in this respect. Partly this is because, in my judgment, his behavior is getting worse. Sometimes, if still infrequently, he is persuaded to enter into a discussion on an article's talk page. Or on an individual's talk page. Or on an admin noticeboard of his choosing. Or any and all of the foregoing. He then strings the resulting discussions out with inconsistent (and, it appears to me, frequently phony) assertions, interlaced with abuse, in the hope that everyone else will lose the will to live, and go away. Which we quite often do. Where a clear consensus is reached he will ignore the consensus and reinsert HIS OWN picture anyway. Where even Vauxford appears to have spotted the existence of a consensus, you can nevertheless go back to the page in question a couple of months later and find he has reinserted HIS OWN picture when no one was looking, and even where HIS OWN picture contains a significant number of characteristic and very basic errors. Many people reading his will have examples of this already in their own minds. But here and here and here and here and here and here and here are elements from a few of the worst – mostly recent – ones. (Check out how many ended up with “Vauxford SELF-LINKED” own images back where they were before it all started, after it all died down!)
  • Vauxford tells us that "other people" behave like this too. The only other person in recent years to behave like this on anything approaching the same scale was EurovisionNim with whom Vauxford attempted to operate a quasi-monopolistic partnership during 2017/2018. About a year ago Vauxford turned savagely against his former partner in crime, however: their exchanges on one others' talk pages (and, it felt, everywhere else) became more and more ... shrill. About six months ago Vauxford launched one of his admin notice board attacks on EurovisionNim which led to EurovisionNim's exclusion from the project. You might think that after this experience Vauxford's own behaviour would have become a little bit more mainstream. In my judgement the precise opposite has happened.
  • Vauxford tells us that "other people" behave like this too. It is the case that - albeit on a much more controlled scale - there are indeed more people who do this, apparently following the logic that if it's ok for Vauxford (and EurovisioNim) to link THEIR OWN pictures to wiki articles on cars, then it must be ok for everyone else. There is indeed a certain logic there. However, none of these “other people" links their own pictures to Wikipedia entries on anything approaching the industrial scale which Vauxford thinks "normal". And, just as importantly, these "other people" seem to recognise the difference between a competent picture of a car and a terrible picture of a car. So where they do, on occasion, upload THEIR OWN images .... most of the time no one much notices. (Though some of us still wish they wouldn't do it …. except, perhaps, in some of the more egregious cases created by Vauxford actions.)
  • Arrogance. Am I not being monstrously arrogant myself in sharing my opinion that most of the >31,000 pictures that Vauxford has uploaded to wiki-commons, including most of the pictures that he has linked to wiki entries in our various language versions, are of a quality that lies somewhere between "more or less competent" and "terrible"? Yes I am. Or rather, yes, but ..... I would prefer that people form and share their own opinions of the quality of all those Vauxford pictures. I hate signs of arrogance when I see them in others and I hate it if I see them in myself. That's one of the reasons I hesitated so long before drafting up this summary. But we are all here to try and make Wikipedia better, or at least to try and prevent it from becoming worse. That's what we do here. And that is the best answer I can think of just now to the accusation of arrogance.
  • So isn't picture quality purely a matter of opinion? In my judgement, yes: but only up to a point. Vauxford's actions over the last few months mean that a large number of people, most of whom would normally tell you they had better things to worry about, have found themselves prodded into offering an opinion on the quality of a picture that Vauxford has uploaded and then HIMSELF linked to one or more Wikipedia articles. By the law of simple averages you might expect that roughly fifty per cent of those contributors would have shared the opinion that the Vauxford picture under discussion was at least competent, or to use a word Vauxford likes to use a lot, "fine". (A couple of weeks back Vauxford even announced that I had written that I thought a picture he had uploaded and then himself linked was "fine": this was incorrect.) The striking thing is that not one of the people who has been sucked, by Vauxford, into one of his interminable "discussions" about a picture he has uploaded and himself linked, has come up with an unqualified endorsement for the Vauxford picture under discussion. Not one. There are one or two places where people have indicated that one of those Vauxford self-linked images looked like the least bad option available, but only in the context of apparent agreement (an apparent agreement excluding Vauxford, of course) that someone somewhere needs to find something better. Ringing endorsements based on the quality of a Vauxford self-linked picture - any Vauxford picture - are vanishingly hard to find. I think that's the best answer I can manage to the thought that picture quality is purely a matter of opinion. However, in the interests of balance it is worth adding that on those relatively rare occasions when he does not simply avoid directly addressing the issue, Vauxford's explanation is quite different. He believes that everyone is “piling in” against him. Starting, I think, if he will be reading this, with me. But even if you are tempted by the idea that there might sometimes be an element of truth in this, you are still taken back to the question of why Vauxford's behaviour attracts adverse reactions from so many normally level-headed Wikipedia contributors?
  • So maybe I need to spell it out. I am not against Vauxford. As far as I can make out no one is against Vauxford. I am reasonably sure he’s able to be a charming fellow in real life. But yes, I am against a lot of what Vauxford does to Wikipedia. I hope that was clear enough.
  • Despite his apparent lack of self-control on so many talk pages and administrator notice-boards, Vauxford generally manages to avoid discussion of his own behaviour. But someone recently managed to extract the following comment during one of his outbursts on an Admin Noticeboard discussion: "...I'm not getting paid to do these edits or doing it out of my interest. I know that hard to believe but that's the truth and I understand why people mistake that..." (sic). This is reassuring on one level, but also revealing of Vaixford's attitude to himself (and - apparently several notches down on his list of priorities - to Wikipedia).
  • Without wishing in any way to downplay the more collegiate qualities that Vauxford could presumably display if he wanted to, I do not think we and all the others he has caught up in this should be devoting so much of our time and energy to Vauxford's behaviour. Back in the Wikipedia mainstream there is content to be created and built upon.
  • Of course it is still entirely open to anyone reading this to come along and tell us about Vauxford self-linked pictures they have found which they believe to be just "fine". I, too, think some of Vauxford’s pictures are competent and some of them – not too many, but maybe this is more a matter of taste – are quite good. Everyone is entitled to share an opinion. Every opinion deserves to be respected and evaluated. On the other hand, if you now tell us you think most of Vauxford’s SELF-LINKED “own” pictures are just “fine”, you might find yourself gently asked why you didn't mention it earlier..... - because these "Vauxford Issues" have become pretty high-profile lately. He repeatedly pushes himself up the Wikipedia agenda in ways which I for one find very very odd. He cannot be faulted for any lack of wiki-stamina.


  • The most directly visible impact of the Vauxford project is a loss of quality on a large and growing number of Wikipedia automobile pages. Vauxford's OWN PICTURES which he insists on linking on a massive scale can charitably be described (and in some cases were described) as "less than stellar". Less charitably, many are pretty dire.
  • The quality of the Wikipedia automobile project is also diminished by the uniformity of the Vauxford pictures. He has picked up on approximately three of the ten or twenty things to consider when photographing cars, and then applies them as rigid mantras, regardless of where he has found himself (and the car) and without pausing to apply his judgement to all the other things that conventionally careful photographers would normally take into consideration. So there’s a level of uniformity which you may find reassuring and which you may find dismal. Rather depends, I suggest, on the quality of the pictures. The images over which he goes to war are almost all produced in a small corner of central England not celebrated for its beauty spots. They almost all feature the same sort of (in my personal opinion badly judged) background. They almost all suffer from poor judgement in respect of (1) lighting, (2) angle and (3) reflections. There are no magic solution, but there are one or two quite simple steps that he could take to improve matters. Sadly, we have established that one thing Vauxford does not find himself able to take is advice.
  • Where someone dares to remove SELF LINKED Vauxford picture with a better picture, Vauxford reacts by launching a lengthy and soul destroying edit war. To him it would appear that for someone to replace a SELF LINKED Vauxford picture is the same thing as a profoundly intrusive attack on everything that matters on Planet Earth. I cannot believe he reacts to disagreement like this in real life: he would surely not have got away with it. But he seems unable to display his better side when he switches on the computer and comes along to make his contributions on Wikipedia. Quite often the result is that an inferior SELF LINKED Vauxford picture remains in place for longer than it needs to or should. Much longer. The price, again, is one paid in terms of Wikipedia quality.
  • Everything has a life cycle. Trilobites. Zoroastrianism. Soviet hegemony. Western Liberal Democracy(?). Jelly beans(?). In my judgment Wikipedia's life cycle is running its course with alarming rapidity. More rapidity than, ten years ago, we would reasonably have foreseen. Is the first burst of imaginative innovation and enthusiasm even now beginning to give way to middle-aged drift? And then stagnation and then ... what? There are certainly other overlapping information providers out there who envy Wikipedia's popularity and reputation: They want a piece of that cake for themselves. Their presentation is often slicker and their strategy is better funded. And their commitment to truth? I believe the Vauxford wars that Vauxford launches, when the most destructive elements of the Vauxford Project meet with resistance, encourage editors to reduce the amount of time and effort they devote to the Automobiles entries. They may hang around and work on other corners of Planet Wikipedia. Or they may wander off and give up on Wikipedia entirely. Although there are lots of people who have contributed something on Wikipedia, the proportion who hang around for a reasonable length of time, and use that time to make constructive contributions, trying to work collaboratively, in order make Wikipdia better, is vanishingly small. I have a strong impression that the automobiles project is suffering a steady reduction in the number of those people trying to build the thing and maintain its quality. And there is a compounding reduction in the number of hours dedicated by the editors who remain to engage in competent content creation. No doubt there are people trying to produce meaningful statistics on all this stuff (though maybe only globally, rather than on a project by project basis). Either way, no contributors: no Wikipedia. And I am sure that Vauxford's behaviour has driven people away and will drive away more people. How far you agree with that is, of course, likely to depend (1) on the extent of your own experience of Vauxford's warring, (2) your personal reaction to it and (3) private discussions, taking place, outside the Wikipedia bubble, with friends. But I do not think you can simply conclude that because something is difficult or impossible to measure, it must not exist or at least cannot be said to matter.
  • Of course most Wikipedia contributors are occasional contributors who never get to the point of becoming serious contributors of useful content for more than a few weeks. They stop by, correct a couple of typoes, mention something important that everyone else ignored in a couple of entries, and take a look around. They check out a few talk pages and one or two entries in more detail. In the case of automobile entries, they come across one or two Vauxford contributions on talk pages and edit histories. (The Vauxford contributions tend to stand out for various reasons.) Those casual visitors are all potentially serious committed contributors. But if you were one of those people and you came across manifestations of the Vauxford project, you might very well decide that Wikipedia really wasn't the sort of place where you wanted to "stick around".
  • If it is difficult to provide meaningful statistical analysis of the (vanishingly small) proportion of occasional Wikipedia contributors who then become more permanent, it is completely impossible to give a figure for the number of people who might have taken one look at what Vauxford does to Wikipedia and decided that it's not even worthwhile to register as a contributor. Impossible to measure what isn't there. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem. "If you can't measure what happened in the past you can't do anything about where it will lead in the future" may be put forward as a realistic mantra for one or two undistinguished politicians, but it nevertheless ignores massive chunks of what matters in life. And of course, with the Vauxford project, there's a knock-on reputational impact affecting even people who (1) have never looked at a Wikipedia automobile entry or even (2) have never (yet) consulted Wikipedia about anything. Reputational damage, once it sets in, can be awfully long lasting and difficult to correct. Especially if you think Wikipedia's early success has left it with a high profile and powerful enemies.
  • Vauxford has made himself a star of the admin noticeboards. He seems to be a bit of a natural. Not necessarily in a good way. Vauxford hates to be ignored. We all need recognition and reassurance, and Vauxford seems to have figured that the admin noticeboards are a good place to go and look for it. He has been rewarded with large amounts of advice from Admins and from others who follow those noticeboard discussions. I guess you would expect Admins to come in a range of shapes and sizes and to be supported with a wide range of different background beliefs. But they all appear to believe in Wikipdia. Many of them have taken significant amounts of time to look at what Vauxford has written on those noticeboards, check out the many links he has kindly included in his ... um ... verbals, form a view of a matter, and come back with a careful response. (Presumably there have been plenty more - Admins and others - who have also taken wiki-time in order to evaluate carefully some part of the Vauxford verbals on the notice boards, and then concluded that there's nothing they can think of that they could usefully add. But they will have taken time and mental space to think about it. Wiki-time and wiki-mental space.) Vauxford's admin noticeboard contributions are particularly time consuming, because where he doesn't get the reaction he had hoped for and the discussion slides off into the noticeboard archive, he solemnly digs it out and pastes it back on the admin noticewboard. Where, again (as in for a second time) he doesn't get the reaction he had hoped for, and the discussion quietly (as in again) sides off into the noticeboard archive, he digs it out. Again. And puts it back. Charming or what? He has also told us about a case where, failing to get the reaction he hoped for, he "pinged" an individual Admin whose response, he thought, might be to his liking. Vauxford has only told us about energising his harrassment by pinging an Admin behind the scenes (as far as I have noticed) once during recent weeks. But for those of us reduced to a certain level of paranoia where Vauxford is doing what he does, it necessarily raises questions about how far he may have been contacting other Admins behind the scenes in support of His Project. (If he has, and as far as I can tell, those Admins whom he has approached have quite correctly refused to involve themselves.) So, does it - should it - matter that Vauxford takes so much time - his and lots of other folks’ - doing his stuff on the admin noticeboards? Well, I reckon some – one hopes many - of those Admins are among Wikipedia's more experienced and more committed contributors. They do what they do on the noticeboards because they think that is an important way to make Wikipedia better and / or to stop it getting worse. But when they're not doing admin stuff, it's a reasonable assumption that most of them will be providing content on subject pages. Subject pages are at the heart of what Wikipedia is about. All those admin noticeboards and the talk pages on which Vauxford spends so much of all our time are valuable only because they support content creation. Treating them as freestanding outlets for what's on your mind really is a waste and an abuse. Many Admins must be tempted to think that they should be able to work more usefully by providing more content, and by taking less time doing "admin stuff". Well, Admins often resign, citing just those reasons. Who would blame them? Does this paragraph look a bit creepy on this page? Well yes, to me it does. But I still think it belongs in a summary of the cost to Wikipedia of what Vauxford does. So I leave it in.
  • Rereading that, it looks as though I think the most important people for Wikipedia are its contributors. That's completely wrong, of course. The most important people are the readers. Sure, some of those folks also become contributors, (including, I guess, anyone reading this). But if you separate out those two groups, it is the readers who will make or break Wikipedia's influence and status and, in the longer term, survival. That's an important part of why quality and reputation matter. And that is why, if you think Vauxford's desperately bizarre and unconventional package of contributions to Wikipedia damages Wikipedia (I do), then you maybe shouldn't want to run away from the thought that these Vauxford issues matter.


  • It would be incomplete to summarize the problem, as I have, without addressing the question of solutions. I do not have a monopoly of wisdom. Self evidently. But that is not a reason to run away from trying to identify some possibilities. Others may very well have better ideas.
  • We may take time to drill down into the evidence and decide that almost all the pictures Vauxford uploads and then HIMSELF LINKS are just "fine". We may think his edit warring across and beyond the entries and the talk pages is just "fine". Or even, as he repeatedly insists, we may decide that Vauxford doesn't do edit-warring any more. Or at least we may conclude that Vauxford is a very special individual with very special personal needs, and Wikipdia is here to accommodate them. Any other response would be ungenerous and mean. Maybe we think Vauxford's behaviour will change if we just sit back and watch. Well, some of those responses are perfectly natural. But in my judgment this solution puts the feelings of Vauxford ahead of the preserving the quality and promoting the development of Wikipedia. I don't think that correctly reflects why we came here in the first place.
  • We accept there are problems with Vauxford behaviour, but, well, we sit back and watch. And maybe over time we find ourselves spending less time on contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia becomes a personal "spectator sport". Again, perfectly understandable. But what if it just goes on? Which I think it would. There is now a large historical body of evidence. The trend of it all looks remarkably linear from here.
  • Vauxford has taken exceptional measures to make himself the star of the show. Perhaps he will now step back and evaluate all the excellent advice has received, not in the context of his personal project; but in the context in which all the people providing the advice mostly operate most of the time. The context is Wikipedia. So Vauxford stops linking HIS OWN pictures to Wikipedia entries on cars. He stops launching toxic month long edit wars when someone dares to replace one of his "less than stellar" images. The problem? Does Vauxford think there's a Vauxford Problem? Can the leopard change his spots? Well yes, such things happen. And from many perspectives this will be the best solution. Though of course it does nothing to address the destructive impact on quality already inflicted on so many automobile articles, and it does nothing to address the impact of Vauxford behaviour on Wikipedia behaviour more widely. But that has become a long-term problem: it is not realistic to expect a short-term cure.
  • We might require Vauxford to transform his behaviour as indicated in the previous paragraph. Might work.
  • Vauxford himself is not too big on respecting the personal feelings of other contributors. Nevertheless, maybe we should still be going out of our way to respect the personal feelings of Vauxford. He regularly comes across, in some ways, as an extraordinarily sensitive soul. How far should we go in respecting Vauxford's personal feelings? Maybe this far: maybe we should require that NO ONE should link THEIR OWN pictures to Wikipedia articles on automobiles. It is something (if you leave Vauxford out of the mix) that would leave most of the people contributing to automobile articles and others reading this unaffected because they don't do anyway. Or we don't do it very much. So this is not a solution that, for most of us, imposes widespread changes in behaviour. In most ways it simply takes us back to somewhere near where we were before Vauxford came along. You can object that it would be a little “over the top” to impose a rule on every contributor in order to deal with the behaviour of just one very exceptional individual. But I still think that, in the absence of anything else that works, this one deserves to be considered seriously. Of course, it leaves wikipedia stake holders on the other 19 (or whatever) language versions who are also afflicted by Vauxford issues to fend for themselves. Not sure hos that should work.
  • Other suggestions?


Some people have seen (a version of) this report before. That’s because Vauxford generously “outed” it from my “sandbox” on 2 July 2019.

He did it in the context of a personal attack which he launched on an Administrators' noticeboard on 4 June 2019 (and has now managed to sustain for more than a month). In the end a surprisingly large number of people responded to his … submissions. If you already took part in that discussion, thank you. Although the Vauxford invective, on this occasion, was targeted against me, I found myself in the slightly surreal position of agreeing with virtually all the reactions that people took time out to share on the noticeboard.

This (above) report is NOT a direct reply to Vauxford’s Administrators' noticeboard submissions. He has received plenty of replies from others: most of those are far more succinct than I could manage. Even if he does not seem to like them. (And from what I have seen of his behavior in Wikipedia, he likes to be ignored even less, so at least in that sense I am sure that he, too, is grateful to all those who took the trouble both to read and to reply to his Administrators' noticeboard submissions.)

So, since you’re reading this, I think you probably looked at the report preceding it. Thank you. I am sorry it is still longer than I’d like. Possibly not all easy reading. As in still unfinished and still too long. But after Vauxford outed it on the Administrators’ noticeboard and then kept snooping on successive versions of it in my sandbox and bleating about the existence of the copy in my sandbox to a hapless Admin on his personal talk page, I have been urged simply to paste it here, finished or not! (And I’m too fed up with the whole Vauxford thing to relish spending yet another month thinking about Vauxford’s wiki-behavior. So thank you for that powerful prod, El C.)

If you will (and/or already did), thank you for any reactions you are willing and able to share on these matters.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

After finding out Charles01's hefty paragraph about me. I had no choice to defend myself from the amount of exaggeration he is putting about me and facts he trying to make out that are simply not true. For starters. I have not uploaded "31,395 files". I have actually uploaded about 8000 files/photos, it still a lot but not the amount that Charles01 is putting as, what those numbers are is the total amount of "edits" I have done on the Commons, that includes (Uploading images, changing/editing categories, creating new versions of a existing image, talkpage discussions, editing description on my photos) and much more. I have taken people advice such as the ones you quoted and it the reason why I have stopped putting images into other Wikipedia languages and is sticking to contribution my native Wikipedia. I had never rejected them. I admit the stuff I did such as reverting people's edits and replacing a image when the consensus presumed settled, the one he particularly mentioning the Audi Q3 talkpage discussion. I personally oppose this one because of the fact he put a lot of emotions and personal approach towards me rather talking about the picture itself which is why I added a similar image back, regardless it was of wrong of me to do so.
The reason why most of my contribution recently is on talk pages because I got blocked for a day for edit warring and to prevent in the future I take any concern and dispute onto the talk page which most of time works with both me and the other party solve it without grudges such as here and even thank the person who opposed my picture. Looking back on the talkpage, the ones I got involved or started that went out of control or heated is when Charles01 gets involved with his personal remarks and grudge about me as a person rather then what we are discussing on the talkpage.
After several talks with admins and uninvolved users I have slowly stopped doing my old habits such as pushing my pictures onto other Wikipedias. Although it doesn't harm for me to replace a picture when I truly think need a improved version and if people oppose I take it to the talkpage, the problem with that Charles01 pretty much follows me about and insert one of his lengthy paragraphs with 20% about what we are discussing and 80% saying how much of a terrible user I am which is why stuff I shown on the ANI about Charles01 looks worst then they look when they shouldn't be.
The way Charles01 implying it going to take forever for people looking back my edits like I'm hiding something sinister. I'm not hiding anything and I already put out my bad sports onto the ANI about him because I'm happy to admit when I'm in the wrong. The reason why people don't often defend my pictures is just simply how it is but sometimes I think people oppose to anything pictures taken by me or stuff I do simply because it by me (that how I feel about it), quite a few people have added picture taken by me that I didn't get involved in and in fact there a few Wikipedias who favours my picture over the others, they don't need to show that directly but can also be indirectly.
His part where he thinks I have no consideration or quality control over my pictures is simply not true. I make sure all pictures is overall good not just to me but to others, I wouldn't upload a photo of a car if it has severe case of reflection or rust, missing or aftermarket parts, been damaged in any way, being blurry or noisy and many other factors. His point about me talking onto another user's talkpage (including him) is simply me wanting advice or at least help me what I'm doing wrong. Charles01 rudely take my plead and dump it onto my talkpage like it isn't his responsibility when it about something he brought up in the first place.
EurovisionNim has been here much longer then I am and a the stuff he did during his time, a small portion of it is automobiles, he tried to take on several fields and subjects such as buildings and buses etc. When I made that ANI speaking against his behaviour I was surprised just to see the amount of unhappy users speaking against him about the edits he did back in 2014-2015. The reason he retired wasn't solely because of the stuff happened in the Automobile Project but his previous edits back in his early days and his sockpuppeting issues.
"That's why quality and reputation matter" I personally disagree with this and having that mentality is how user pyramid schemes are created. The big lengthy "Impact" section he done is about stuff such as assumptions that I don't get my own way with things, again not true. The reason why I brought up the ANI I created once or twice because literally no responded and the bot on their kept archiving it and I rather not want to retype all the things I said all over again so I thought it be better to put back in, I didn't do that because I wanted reaction that suit my liking, I wanted responds, advice and help over this situation. The fact he is making (or implying) accusation that I been canvassing admins "behind the scene" is beyond unacceptable. The rest he said on it is just overall overthinking nonsense, scenarios and assumption he going through his head that simply doesn't exist. The massive passage he written just shows the sheer determination to run me off the road because he doesn't like what I do, rather then helping or advising me, he just scolds and make me feel "small" compare to him until they lose their sanity and end up doing something scandalous enough to have a good reason for them to be permanently sanctioned. As I mention in one of the earlier talkpage discussion with him, I described his behaviour and how he approach me is mutual to that of a "bully", at first I sorta regret describing him that and thought he still has good morals towards me but as shown recently, that clearly not the case and just supports my summary about him as a person.
With seeing Charles01 determination to paint me as the bad guy worries me. I already feel alienated and people doesn't seem to like me as it is and I really want to mend that with as many people that I have upset and this paragraph could be the end of me. I can cope with the fact people might disagree with my edits and I'm willing to discuss it on the talkpage in a friendly manner. Being called a "delusional and toxic" person and being accused of "degrading Wikipedia" and "edit warring" wherever I try to be civil for the past 6 months gets you quite down, it makes you feel crap, makes you feel like your enthusiasm towards something you love meaningless, I have absolutely no intention of being disprutive on here, I am not on here to create some sort of "Car pictures empire" or "personal vanity project" rubbish, I just really want to try and improve articles by providing content for both existing and new and upcoming cars in the coming years. --Vauxford (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Another thing, him pointing out that in the past (I don't do this anymore) that I linked pictures taken by me on other Wikipedias. Another user, Alexander93 who is mostly active on the German Wikipedia does the very same thing who got involved in some of these dispute and nobody even bat a eye on this user despite all this
Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias: [118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135]
To me this is a example of becoming a scapegoat, if I'm going get sanctioned for what Charles01 is outing then why this user isn't getting the same amount of hassle and harassment I been getting? --Vauxford (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary requestEdit

  • I don't plan on commenting on this, but both of you should try to give a four sentence maximum explanation of what you think is going on, with less than 10 diffs, if you want anyone to read this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
In a nutshell, Charles01 doesn't like my pictures which I been adding and editing over the years. I tried to get rid of my bad habits but get harassed by him and making baseless accusation about me such as edit warring and sockpuppting. In the past I have resolved content dispute with other users with some ease other then from no less then 2 users. For the past 6+ months he been trying to oust me out for both my edits and mistakes I done when I haven't done the same thing towards him except when I tried to resolve this on ANI which made me feel the feud is one-sided. I also believe Charles01 has been treating me unfair because another user done the same habit that he condemning me for with no repercussions. --Vauxford (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tony, Charles01, the part of your complaint I read was eloquent but every editor's time is limited and with all of the activities they can do, few if no people will devote the time it takes to digest your long complaint. Can you sum it up in a paragraph with a couple of diffs? Then, you can respond to questions people pose with more information. But, as it stands, I doubt that any admin will take action on your case because it would be so time-consuming to read all of the history of the dispute you go into and consider the merits of both sides. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes...have to agree with Liz. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A path forwardEdit

I actually read about 80% of the excessively lengthy original post by Charles01 and skimmed the rest of it. Study and emulate Ernest Hemingway's writing style before posting on talk pages again, Charles01. Be succinct. Your report was dramatically verbose. Charles01 is also wrong in asserting that no editor who takes a photo and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons should be allowed to add that photo to a relevant Wikipedia article. I do that all the time. So, I will disclose that I have uploaded about 56 car and motorcycle photos to Commons, and added many of them to articles. I have done the same thing with photos of buildings, art objects, natural features and portraits of notable people. The cars and motorcycles I photograph are rare and unusual, because those are the type of photos we need 18 years into this project. Similarly for my other photos of unusual or rare things. I am trying to improve the encylopedia, not promote my own photos.

But what I have never done is add one of my mediocre photos to an article illustrated by a similar but better photo. If any editor objected to inclusion of any of my photos (which has been rare), I have not pressed the matter. I step aside. Though I am proud to have helped illustrate various articles, especially when the article previously lacked an image, I am not trying to push or promote my own photos.

The evidence presented ad nauseum by Charles01 actually indicates that Vauxford has a different attitude and a very strong motivation to include his own photos in as many articles as possible, even if an article is already well-illustrated. That behavior is disruptive, as shown by the several ANI threads that show that many editors see Vauxford's behavior as controversial and problematic, as well as many other lengthy conversations at other venues. Vauxford is free to upload their photos to Wikimedia Commons, following that project's policies and guidelines. I propose the following narrowly crafted topic ban: Vauxford is topic banned from adding their own photographs to any article which already contains an image. Vauxford may propose adding one of their images on the talk page of any such article, and if clearcut consensus emerges, another editor can add that image to the article. Vauxford's participation in such talk page discussions will be limited to his original statement and responsive answers to direct questions asked by other editors.

Both editors are strongly advised to be succinct in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A good start. Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support. That was pretty much my earlier advise to Vauxford, to which sadly they did not adhere. I can see making that mandatory as a way forward, also. El_C 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment. El_C Cullen328 But I did, all those things that I did do it been done way before these ANI has happened and I had stopped by then. Charles01 always make any sentence extremely lengthy. Please at least look at what I put again. I'm not a disruptive person and I'm not doing it to promote my pictures. Stop trying to think I haven't listened to any of you because I had. A lot of the things he said in that lengthy paragraph isn't true. I haven't uploaded 31k photos nor am I promoting them. --Vauxford (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
As I mention above, you reverted back to your own image earlier today. And due to the ensuing edit war, I was forced to protect the article. Today. Why are you making me repeat this? El_C 06:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
El_C Because that was my mistake, I didn't fully understood how RfC works. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, okay. But mistakes have consequences. You were advised (by me, way back) to not add your own images to articles, but to propose them on talk pages instead. It now looks like you will be forced to adhere to something similar. That's just the way it is. El_C 07:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
El_C This is absolutely my last time I revert something I promise, just please see where I'm coming from my own defence. --Vauxford (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
El_C Cullen328 This isn't who I am, Charles01 is describing me far worst then I actually am. I admit, I thought using your own photos on articles was the way to go based off other editors. But I know that isn't the way of things and gets very problematic, and I am willing to listen and change who I am. You don't have to conclude to a topic ban so quickly. This is what I been fearing the most and it can't turn out this way already. --Vauxford (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
These recent comments call Vauxford's competence to edit Wikipedia into question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're objecting so strenuously. If there's no image, you may add your own. If there is already an image, you may use the talk page to propose adding your own instead. Seems perfectly sensible to me. El_C 07:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328 So you think I'm just some disruptive mong as Charles01 been painting me as for the rest of time? It shouldn't have to end like this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what a mong is, but you should be thanking Cullen328 for taking the time to parse thorough your dispute and proposing a resolution that, to me, just makes sense. El_C 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
But a topic ban doesn't has to be the way, there better ways of doing this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It's kinda coming across as if you're too fixated on this being a topic ban, but the substance of the restriction is what matters. El_C 07:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
But El_C you and Cullen328 is concluding this based off Charles01 testimony which is consist mostly of jargon and exaggeration of who I am. Barely anything related to my defence was mentioned and more of focusing more on what he said. --Vauxford (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You are testing my patience, Vauxford, by being mostly non responsive. El_C 07:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I too have never heard nor read the word "mong" but I am from California which has its own jargon. I have tried to craft a reasonable and narrow topic ban, Vauxford. If that does not succeed, I think the time will come quite soon when an indefinite block for you will be on the table. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C Cullen328 What!? No no no you that isn't what I mean. How am I making this worst? I'm just trying to see the best solution for this and not to jump to a conclusion so quickly. "Mong" just means someone who a complete idiot. --Vauxford (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It is now time for other editors to comment. I will respond to direct questions but will make no other new comments on this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328But it isn't who I am, that the thing. I feel my defence (which is far shorter and brief then Charles01 lengthy paragraph) hasn't even been read. --Vauxford (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of what the word "mong" means, and if I ever see you use it again you're immediately indefblocked. What the hell is wrong with you? ‑ Iridescent 07:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Cullen's solution. Since Vauxford seems to say that is what they will do anyway having it formalised shouldn't be much of a hardship. That it is a point of such contention demonstrates that formalising it will be a good thing, both for the avoidance of doubt and the avoidance of further contention. I also second Cullen's wise advice on brevity, and, like Iri, I come from a place where that other word has, unfortunately, long been in (ab)use, and I also strongly advise you to avoid its use ever again on wikipedia, even when you might believe you are using it self-deprecatingly. -- Begoon 07:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent Maybe "mong" wasn't the best word of choice. But in the UK, we mostly use that word to describe someone as just stupid. --Vauxford (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
VauxfordOnly the ignorant and stupid use that word in the UK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Begoon I might as well shut up then. Since everything I'm trying to say is just pissing everyone off. Even though that wasn't my intention. --Vauxford (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I get it now. "Mong" is a slur against people with Down syndrome. For 30 years, I have been the father of a young man with developmental delays, and he has been educated and trained with quite a few young people with Down syndrome. What delightful loving people they are! Far better than many "normal" people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Off-topic, but from my own (slightly less close, but very real...) experiences I can confirm that evaluation. That's why I, and others, react as we do to the term. -- Begoon 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that's what it means?(!) What, are we in the fuckin dark ages? El_C 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
El_C Cullen328 I knew mong was a slang used in senior school but I didn't know it was used for someone who has down syndrome. I would never of used it otherwise. I'm terribly sorry about that. --Vauxford (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


El_C Cullen328 Roxy the dog Iridescent I have a disability myself related to social skills and communication, which I rather not say, but for christ sake you guys are getting more pissed over what I ignorantly said rather then the entire ANI. I'm sincerely sorry for using that and I used it in my own ignorance which I have learnt the origin of. Please don't let that hinder the proposal and who I am as a person. --Vauxford (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support. Adding your own photos is not something I think should be forbidden universally, but your limited ability to judge your photos objectively and tenacious defence of some quite poor photos in the past makes me think that this is the best way to avoid further disruption. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Bloody hell Charles01, never post another thread on any noticeboard as long-winded as this. A beefy para and ten well-selected diffs would have done the job. I'll never get that time back. Cullen's idea is a workable response to tendentious image-pushing and should also eliminate the edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment So that's it for me, huh. I always knew this day will come. I did say that I have stopped the image pushing, but being unable to add pictures on ALL articles and need someone to do it for me. I highly doubt people will have a clean positive conesus over my proposal anyway because I'm simply annoying. This is basically a kinder way for me to be unable post images all round, and removing one basic ability and right will make almost anyone give up contributing, losing all motivation lost from these sanctions due to their reckless mistake.

If this sanction going to be put in place. I still find it completely unfair that another user like me has been doing the very same thing for the same amount of time. Despite that, Charles01 and the rest of you has blanetly ignored his behaviour and actions and even at some moment supported him, especially in the Audi Q3 talk page. You might of sanctioned me but there still a user roaming doing the EXACT same thing that is "degrading" Wikipedia. Like I used to, each time he upload a batch of images, he would find every possibilities of using his image over someone else's on every Wikipedia article he could find which I happily provided diffs for near the top of this ANI. Alexander-93 is that very person, so if you gonna remove "problematic editors" that are apparently damaging Wikipedia as Charles01 put it, then you need to do all of us rather then just a single user with a big mouth and call it a day. --Vauxford (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - I've edited and uploaded thousands of images to wikipedia and Commons, for people at the Graphics labs, and just in general. Only very rarely would I add an image I've created or improved to an article - I generally leave that to the article's editors, unless they ask me to do it. If the images are suitable, they will be included - if they are not, they won't. That's the way it is. If I got upset every time an image I'd created or improved was removed from, or not added to, an article I'd have given it all up years ago. I don't, because I enjoy the work, and it's not important to me that sometimes it's not used in the way I would have liked, or at all. You'll need a thicker skin than you're demonstrating here, I'm afraid. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Begoon I do have a thick skin and I had in the past and to this day let user decide what image to use and have done with mine anyway, I did got a little impatience and I thought it was right sinceother editors done it before, but as I could see clear as day, it isn't.. But that isn't what am demonstrating here, what I am demonstrating is there going to be justice then it need to be done fairly, leaving no stones unturned. I'm concern that they won't take this user in consideration and let him run scot-free doing the same thing you guys are trying to sanction me for. You got one, get the other. --Vauxford (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
If you think another editor is editing against policy, or otherwise unacceptably, then you can start a section to discuss them and make your case. It may or may not be successful, it may even just be seen as sour grapes, I don't know because I haven't examined the details, but it has no real influence on discussions of, or remedies imposed because of, your own behaviour, and this is not really the place to raise it, unless you believe it has a direct impact on this discussion of your own behaviour, and trying to blame other people for your own faults rarely goes down well here (I'm not saying that is what you are doing, just why other users' behaviour probably isn't very relevant here). -- Begoon 11:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Begoon It very well relevant to all this because there a large possibility that I have inevitably influenced him to think that is right doing these problematic editing and I'm the cause of normalising it. Does it look like am blaming someone for my own action? No. I owe up these mistake but Alexander should of known earlier that this style edit is leads to problems yet he has continue doing it and doing it without anyone hounding him everywhere he go. --Vauxford (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support If Vauxford were truly committed to voluntarily complying with the terms of the proposed topic ban, then he wouldn't be objecting so strenuously to having it implemented. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose with condition It is possible that Vauxford is just being overly defensive regarding this Tban and feels they aren't being heard. While they aren't being contrite they seem to claim they are willing to comply. I certainly can understand that it would be frustrating to be told you have any type of special restriction if you know in your heart you aren't going to violate that restriction. My feeling is, per WP:ROPE close this with a warning that returning to the old ways will result in a Tban and that any future complaint can point to this discussion and swiftly enact a Tban. Springee (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite remorseful for what I did, which is why I'm being overly defencive about this TBAN because I know I can change and not have this old habit again, it kinda hard to show it with text. But I do genuinely feel that my voice isn't being heard, I tried to make them look at it different and read what I been saying but it seem everyone has already concluded that they want me sanctioned. --Vauxford (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support with addition that Charles01 is cautioned to avoid any personal comments to or about Vauxford, directly or indirectly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Schazjmd (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Cullen's proposal. It would not prevent Vauxford from putting (rather letting other editors put) his good photos into articles where they would make a good contribution (may it be that there is no photo yet or that his photo is unarguably better than the existing one). Charles has described the "typical Vauxford picture problems" (may I use this term?), which I reckon Vauxford may not have understood in every aspect. This wouldn't be a big problem if he listened to the advice other editors give and have given; if a TBAN forces Vauxford to choose the pics he proposes carefully, then he might learn how to improve his pics' quality, and how to improve his behaviour. Therefore, I recommend not making this an indefinite TBAN. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Cullens solution - This has dragged on for long enough, Admittedly I used to participate in Vauxfords RFCs however the continued squabbling between these 2 made participations boring and I got rather fed up of being dragged in the squabbles, Anyway I support Cullens well thought out solution. –Davey2010Talk 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Having looked at MJLs diffs IMHO Charles should be warned to pack the comments in but I don't believe he deserves warranting a topicban atleast not at this stage in time. –Davey2010Talk 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, if there's a heaven Cullen's going there. EEng 20:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm a big fan of his skink. They make great pets. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Can I buy Finnan haddie in California, Martinevans123? I would love to try that fish dish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Cullen328, if you're in the Bay Area try Mollie Stones who certainly used to sell it in their larger branches—otherwise you should be able to get it delivered on Amazon. Don't expect too much; there's a reason it's been completely eclipsed by kippers. ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Very popular in Cincinnati at one time, I think. I'll try and have a quiet word with Audrey. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The way I see this is we have two editors: one is immature (Vauxford) while the other is aggressive (Charles01). The problem is not as simple as Vauxford disruptively adding their own images to articles. If Charles01 was not unnecessarily hostile towards Vauxford, I doubt we would be here.[136] It's pretty clear to me that if nothing is said about Charles's battleground behavior,[137][138][139][140] we are only going to be encouraging it. I'd be willing to support this T-Ban if it was paired with a one-way IBAN on Charles. That way, Vauxford can contribute productively without being consistently disparaged day-in-and-day-out (I'm talking about the "Vanity project" remarks here). (edit conflict)MJLTalk 17:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ Can we just ban both of them from opening ANIs? This is getting repetitive. Sorry if I'm being abrasive, but I'm sick of this. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 20:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban as outlined by Cullen. In my own case, I take a lot of pictures of buildings, and when it comes to whether to add them to an article or not, I try to be as absolutely objective as possible about whether my image is an improvement over the current image or not. Just guessing, I'd say about between a third of the time I leave in the current image, perhaps adding mine elsewhere in the article, if its length allows for another image. Just from reading Vauxford's commentary here and on their talk page, it appears to me that they do not have the maturity to hold to that sort of standard, which is why I think the topic ban is necessary, especially since it allows Vauxford to propose using his image on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment I know this is a bad idea to make comments while people decide the sanction you will be getting but something I been meaning to point out. I understand that my tendency of bringing stuff to ANI was tiresome, the initial reason why I made those two ANI and this third one was because I felt hounded and harassed by this person and the accusation he has gave me, all those three ANI I believe failed to get proper attention. The moment Charles01 planted his behemoth of a paragraph against me, someone has already come up with a solution and proposal to sanction me and 8 people have already favoured it in a course of no more then 4 hours. I had to wait weeks for someone to respond to any of mine and it doesn't get anywhere after few comments then it just get buried and archived and I had to dig it up again.

Why is that? Minus that I seem to have a reputation of being a tiresome editor to handle but I have many speculation why Charles01's ANI has more vivid respond and outcome then any of mine, despite having the same amount of compelling evidences to go with it. I have one prominent speculation and please do not take this in offence because I genuinely want to know with curiosity. Is it because Charles01 been a long-term editor (12 years) with many friendly pen-pals he picked up along the way and the credibility for that he is generally trusted and the accusation I point out about him are hard to believe? I am however grateful for the people who have been looking through both side of the story rather then pointing out solely my problematic behaviour but also Charles01's. It just something to think about it. --Vauxford (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's not come down on either side as yet and has no interest in automobiles, I think you're missing the point here. What Charles01 has or hasn't done is irrelevant when it comes to discussing your conduct; if you plow through the initial walls of text, Charles01 is presenting convincing evidence that:
  1. You're engaged in repeatedly attempting to shoehorn photographs you've taken into articles regardless of whether there's a need to do so;
  2. People have regularly raised concerns about your conduct in so doing;
  3. You've continued to do so regardless, and consistently appear either unwilling or unable to follow the consensus that you should stop self-promoting;
  4. The pair of you are disrespecting the rest of the community by regularly bringing your petty squabbles to administrative noticeboards, posting at great length, and expecting other people to read your comments in full.
What Charles01 has and hasn't done is irrelevant in this context; if Charles01 has done something problematic then we'll get on to that in due course, but what's being discussed here is the fact that you're being disruptive and give the appearance of being unwilling to stop being disruptive. (Seriously, all we need to put a stop to this is "I undertake never to add a photo I've uploaded to an article without discussing it on the talkpage first, and if people don't feel it will be an improvement I won't go ahead".) Launching attacks on the people who've actually done the pair of you the courtesy of reading your whiny walls of text, as you've just done here, is not the way to convince us that the problem isn't you. ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I never said the problem wasn't me, it both of our problems. I admit it entirely my fault that I failed to pick up any concerns that other users were giving me, it my fault that I did shoehorn many of my photographs without any consideration for others. I'm just trying to get people to see both side of it. Like I said, I admit my mistake and I'm sincerely apologise for it and I want to show people I am willing to amend my mistakes for the future. I have vow to not forcefully self-promote photographs I taken myself but I do want people to know I'm not the only one at fault here. --Vauxford (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, I guess you have upset several editors, and I strongly believe that the strong support for a tban is not down to Charles having more friends than you. Charles' behaviour on the other hand is not deemed "as disruptive as yours", which is possibly why not many editors commented on your ANI discussion. On the German language Wikipedia, you have attempted to replace several images, and the way you have done that was considered disruptive. This is how I found my way to this discussion. I believe that you are doing your "photo thing" in good faith, and that you may struggle realising what exactly makes it disruptive. I understand that you feel like Charles treats you in a way that is not exactly friendly, but I reckon that it will stop as soon as you stop. Charles says that your photos are not particularly good, and even though I see why he says that, they are still better than most car photos out there. You have taken several really good ones, and, literally a step backwards will improve the quality even further. I would actually like to help you, but currently, I believe the only way we can help you is by prohibiting you from putting images into articles. It would not prevent you from taking photos and uploading them to Commons. If you take a photo that is unarguably better than an existing one, it will end up in an article sooner than you think. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, albeit slightly reluctantly. Restricting someone from adding their own images to articles is not an insignificant sanction in my opinion, and probably unprecedented, at least in this topic area. (Applying that restriction to all editors as Charles suggests would be counterproductive, illogical, hard to enforce, and do a great job of driving new or casual editors away from the project, in my view.) However, this scope of this issue is so broad, and the disruption so considerable, that there needs to be some action taken. Vauxford has shown a consistent reluctance to get the point, so this is the logical next step. It would ultimately require him to consider the quality of the existing image compared to his proposed replacement, and the need for a measurable improvement to justify replacing it may also spur an improvement in his photography.

    I would also note that Charles' behavior here has crossed the line - primarily the seemingly-baseless insinuations of sockpuppetry. I understand the frustration, but the edit summaries and "Vanity Project" mentions are unproductive and in my opinion have only exacerbated things. --Sable232 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 I don't mean to make myself sound delusional, but I got every aspect of what a good photo could be and I proven that many times, there nothing when it comes to photographing the "correct" way. The problem with me (in the past) is that I was very forceful with my photos, when I first started I did simply waited for them to be picked by other editors, but I started to grew impatience because I saw that past editors did the same "self-inserting" photos into all articles in all Wikipedia (e.g. OSX). Obviously I found out the fate of these editors I was influenced by because of this disruptive practise.
With the whole, willing to accept this sanction, me being reluctant and worrying and feeling terrible about yourself (most of the time) is just my way of coping when something distinctive in my head is going to change, doesn't mean I'm actually reluctant or outright refused for this sanction to happen. It doesn't help I'm quite stubborn with changes and it takes me a few go's to accept them in my life. --Vauxford (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


Today Galatz made 116 reverts to edits which I made (roughly around this point in their contributions history). Each of my edits was of this form, in which I changed an author's name to match the current byline displayed on their website, with an explanation of this edit and a link to the discussion from which it followed on from Special:Permalink/906102795#Todd_(now_Emily)_VanDerWerff_having_come_out_as_transgender. As they began to revert my edits, I was in a rush to leave, so I attempted to grab their attention with a couple of reverts like this, as well as an edit warring template and a ping at the discussion page with a promise to reply when I next could. I did this after they had made about 10 reverts and they saw each of these notifications and continued to make a further one-hundred and six edits. This is egregious edit warring, plain and simple, and the user shows no sign of not understanding that these are incredibly disruptive and unconducive to further discussion.

In their defence, Galatz's cites the following things: BRD and "Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively". The first does not apply as I engaged in discussion before making the edits, as I evidenced in each of my edit summaries. The latter is simply false; MOS:GENDERID says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. This policy is quoted three times in the permalinked discussion which I provided in my edit summary, including in the first post in the discussion. It is incredibly irresponsible to make 116 reverts without reading a single word of the discussion, and instead making an assumption (Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened? - Special:Diff/906714459), then later in the same comment treating that false assumption as fact (Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time) and using that to justify 116 edits made rapidly when the user who made the original edits has made an assurance that they will later be available for discussion.

Had the user simply consulted MOS:GENDERID before making their rapid reverts, they would have seen that their reasoning was faulty. This behaviour is disruptive, damaging and creates a very precedent for further damaging actions in the future. I'm not sure whether there's standard procedure on preventative measures for this sort of behavioural issue but I would simply recommend the following: Galatz should be banned from making more than 3 reverts to an individual user's actions within a 10 minute period except in cases of obvious vandalism or material which falls under the RevDel criteria. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, you made 116-bold edits. They were reverted. Now you resolve that content dispute with discussion at some centralized venue. El_C 21:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Which, I preume, is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity_section. I invite Galatz to explain the substance of his mass-revert there. El_C 21:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not make bold edits. I made edits after a discussion at which that course of action was agreed upon. Reverting 116 edits without consulting policy is essentially the definition of edit warring: Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion. It shows a battleground attitude to editing. No user should make 116 reverts before giving the other user a chance to explain their actions. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
No-one is disputing the policy MOS:GENDERID, which says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis, which is precisely what was done here by me and Flyer22 Reborn. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You and one other person made a couple comments to each other and then you updated 100+ pages without gaining a consensus. Your Permlink you used [141] clearly shows you drew your conclusion well before the conversation was continued. When you made your edits, the conversation actually looked like this [142] yet you chose to link to an older version, before some concerns was raised. Coincidence? Maybe. Stange? Definitely
There was no clear consensus yet you went ahead and made 100+ edits without awaiting a conclusion to the discussion. I clearly stated in my edits, and mentioned it on the wikiproject. Just because you went ahead and made 100+ edits before a consensus was reached does not mean your edits should not have been reverted. The pages should remain as they original were while the discussion is active. When a person edits while a conversation is ongoing it is standard practice to revert those edits, whether its 3 pages or more, like it this case. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if you believed my edits to be a violation of policy, this is not an excuse for your incredibly disruptive behaviour. I linked to the version at which AWB had stored in my user settings, nothing more, so stop the insinuations. You'll note that the other editor asked a question and then waited for an answer rather than making mass reverts. I had no reason to believe the changes were controversial, as the discussion was left for 5 days and WP:FILM and WP:TV were both notified, and no-one registered disagreement. Two is enough for a consensus when nobody has disputed it. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You'll note that the other editor asked a question and then waited for an answer rather than making mass reverts Yeah normally people don't revert before changes are made... - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The user was brought to the discussion by a series of edits I made on 13 July which were otherwise uncontested (example), yet another thing you failed to research before making mass changes. I took part in discussion, made a batch of edits, waited for any further discussion and then made another batch of edits today. I was being cautious in my actions, unlike you when you chose to make 116 edits before bothering to learn any of the facts of the matter. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, if you had actually bothered to read the discussion (which you yet again evidence that you did not), you would have seen Flyer22 Reborn's comment linking to this edit of mine which was part of that batch of uncontested changes, for which I was thanked by multiple users, reinforcing that I had consensus for the changes. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You two need to stop going back and forth with each other here. This seems to me to be a classic BRD and pure content dispute, except the B was large in scope, on a potentially sensitive topic, and with some agreement before the bold started. Start a new discussion on the talk page and put it on WikiProject Film and discuss it. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We are discussing this currently at WPFilm. As you say the B had agreement, which makes it not B at all, but an implementation of consensus. Do you really not see an issue with a user making 116 reverts before learning the facts of the situation, after repeated pleas to stop and discuss the changes? The new, more authoritative consensus emerging at WPFilm is obvious and in favour of the edits I made; once we reach full consensus, Galatz's 116 edits have been nothing but a waste of time which could have been avoided had they simply engaged in discussion beforehand. I also gather that the user will not be willing to revert their own mess, which will take a significant amount of time to clean up. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bilorv, I agree with your position entirely. But I also don't think it's a problem to revert based on a consensus of two editors, especially when the changes were large and the discussion not necessarily advertised. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, there were three users who took part in the discussion and two further users who thanked me for edits I made before today. The changes are reference data integrity changes which are not large at all and the discussion was advertised to the only two relevant WikiProjects, WP:TV and WP:FILM. (Unless you want to include WP:LGBT and it's quite obvious which position the majority of users involved there would take.) I had also made 50 such edits four days before today, giving plenty of notice for anyone who objected. In other words, there was absolutely no sign that the edits were in any way controversial. They affect about 1000 pages and I made edits to 15% of them, so my edits were not large scale relative to the situation.
  • Do you not understand the human effect it has on a user when someone rapidly reverts without discussion or any sign of understanding the situation all of your changes? It's bullying, battleground and uncivil behaviour designed to intimidate and the effect it has is ruining what would have otherwise been a pleasant evening for me. I was happy to take part in discussion but now there will be hours of cleanup due to one person's insistence on make large-scale changes without understanding the situation. This sort of disruptive behaviour needs to be addressed and all I'm asking for is assurance that the editor won't continue running around bullying other editors in future. I don't want them to be blocked or punished, just for them to not engage in this ridiculous behaviour in future. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand. Getting reverted is never fun or enjoyable. Also, I only saw you discussing this with Flyer22 Reborn on WP:FILM when I investigated the diffs, and didn't check thank logs (I'm not sure I've ever checked thanks given to someone else.) I think the third was Y2Kcrazyjoker4, whose response didn't seem necessarily consensus-building but rather restating the rule. I understand it's a pain, but it still seems to me as if this was within WP:BRD. I'm sorry the mass reversion had such an impact on you, but now's the time to continue discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, you do not understand. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I have to state is that we should remember that MOS:GENDERID is a guideline (not a policy), but it's what we have for matters such as these, and I explained at the WP:Film talk page why I agree with Bilorv's approach. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pflipper73, and the use of # / NumberEdit

Pflipper73 blocked indefinitely by Admin SQL. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pflipper73 prefers the use of "#" rather than "number" contrary to WP:NUMBERSIGN ([143], [144], [145]). Despite being politely reverted and advised they have repeatedly reinstated the "#"s and threatened disciplinary action in response. Could an admin step in and give them advice? Thanks! (Note: comments left on their talk page have been selectively deleted). Dorsetonian (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean MOS:NUMBERSIGN. It says avoid using number signs, not don't use number signs. His revert actually Pflipper73's statement looks better anyway. Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the wikilink. In the very section you link, the example deals with EXACTLY the issue of song rankings, saying:
  • "Incorrect: Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts."
  • "Correct: Her album reached number one in the UK album charts."

BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Pflipper was claiming to be an administrator for a while and has now changed it say something slightly different. I think a much stronger case could be made for a WP:NOTHERE block, but people who edit war against the MOS are kind of annoying, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Blocked 24 hours for continuing to edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Given their user page claim to be "Wikipedia's Resident Sockpuppet", I feel Pflipper may be skating on fairly thin ice here. -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • They've returned to edit warring, and making personal attacks right after the block expired. I've reblocked. SQLQuery me! 03:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well blocked.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Vanya IlchevaEdit

Insertion of original research after final warning. Edits concern promoting the historical role of one ethnic group in the development of calendars. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And this. What? “Ex-Bulgarian territory”? I don’t get it. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Nigos, you are more likely to get a quick reaction here if you include diffs of the edits that gave rise to your warnings, rather than of the warning messages themselves, of which people have no quick way of checking the accuracy without such diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, dif's please.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to ping Jc3s5h in my previous comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The claims seem to be more dramatic as the edits go on. This one, with no more than a link to Bulgar calendar and a vague mention of UNESCO to support the claim, says "Oldest Calendar in the world, recognized by UNESCO in 1976 is the Bulgarian Bulgar calendar" and "It is a solar most accurate calendar ever made, with 365 days and 1 leap day every 4 years." Sounds a lot like the Julian calendar, which had to be replaced with the Gregorian calendar due to inaccuracy. This edit is similar, but to a different article.
The Bulgar calendar which is wikilinked does not appear to have the either the claim about being the oldest, or the most accurate, before Vanya Ilcheva's edits. Since the claims weren't there before these changes, naturally they couldn't be supported by reliable sources, and Vanya Ilchev didn't add any. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
They said that a calendar belongs to Bulgaria just because they said that "Croatia was an ex-Bulgarian territory" (same diff). They inserted their POV and claim in this diff: [146]. And their message on my talk page said that I "needed editing" and made fun of me. They also insist on using blogs as sources, and removing legitimate talk page comments by other users on my talk page, saying that I needed to "educate" myself. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 00:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
First off please so not put links in a threads header Nigos as it makes it impossible to access. Next that is not the way to ping another editor. You have to add the ping for Vanya Ilcheva in a signed post. Without a signature a ping does not work. As you see I have pinged VI for you. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 02:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Electrichope99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User has been genre warring and making other unsourced changes to articles in the past month, since being blocked twice, once for genre warring. After more warnings to their talk page and a final warning (by @FlightTime:) for genre warring on 3:25, July 19, they made this edit, changing genres in the article infobox and adding unsourced content elsewhere. Additionally, they have been calling users -- who disagree with or undo their changes -- "losers" in their edit summaries ([147], [148]), which earned them this warning. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • They've not edited since being final warned twice and noticed for this thread. I added a final warning of my own. I have little tolerance for incivility these days. If it resumes, they should be blocked.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an editor active for three months who is a Single-purpose account focused on Mary J. Blige, which would be fine if this person was complying with our policies and guidelines, but they aren't. Instead, they have repeatedly uploaded images that violate copyright, have added unreferenced genres, and have removed references to seemingly reliable sources without explanation. Plus, they are engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries. They have never once made an edit to a talk page. I was seriously considering an indefinite block with strict unblock conditions, but since they now have two fresh warnings, I will wait until they resume editing, and see how that goes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I hate to be block happy, but it sounds like we should block now and ask questions before unblocking.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Blocked twice before. Needs an indef for recidivism. Any opposed?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, in fairness, I think the copyvio's stopped after last block. But the unsourced and personal attacks are enough.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the editor plans on communicating other than through the edit summaries. An idef block would be the most suitable action per WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


I have indefinitely blocked this editor, making it quite clear how their behavior must change in order to get unblocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol - heat warningEdit

(non-admin closure) Accounts blocked by Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While patrolling the admin dashboard I came across a speedy deletion request by User:Yosakrai for Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol as an "attack page".

I have also noted the following:

  • The page and user are under discussion at WP:COIN
  • The article has previously been under discussion at the BLP noticeboard (see user contribs)
  • The user has a number of warnings on their talk page
  • The page has an ongoing RFC alongside an ongoing edit war
  • The edit history of User:จังหวัดระยอง1 makes me suspicious of breaches of WP:SOCK and/or WP:NOTHERE

Actions I have taken:

  • Declined the speedy deletion of the talk page request
  • Applied full protection to the article

Actions I have not taken, as I am formerly semi-retired and have eased myself back in by working on non-controversial issues and/or because I'm off to bed shortly :) -

  • Read or closed the RFC
  • Blocked anybody

The situation appears to be sufficiently heated that I am requesting another admin look into it. --kingboyk (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  CheckUser note: I believe the greatest likelihood is that Yosakrai and จังหวัดระยอง1 are meat puppets. I have therefore blocked Yosakrai for two weeks and จังหวัดระยอง1 indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Anti-LGBT POV pushing by IP rangeEdit

The user using (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making edits today in which they remove sourced content regarding LGBT recognition. For example, they removed content, claiming that a statement by the Ministry of Justice is a "personal opinion" not from the government (whilst the content was sourced and ministries are part of the gov). I found out that similar edits have been made by likely the same person using other IP addresses, all part of the range. No long-term good faith editors are active in the range and as such, I request the IP range be blocked. --MrClog (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone might want to check whether the IPs, which geolocates to Kyrgyzstan, are proxies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems unlikely to be an open proxy. The IP is hosted at sends you to the website of OJSC Kyrgyztelecom, it doesn't allow you to connect to any proxy from there. I wasn't able to detect any ports to connect. --MrClog (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the /24 for two weeks, anon only.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


Unnamed12 keeps editing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement article with unsourced/uncited and incorrect information and keeps changing the language into possessive form in the American POV.

I notified them of this discussion. They had not been told that their editing is a problem on their talk page ere now. In quickly glancing at their edits, I feel the urge to stand, click my heels and salute. Their POV is amazingly "red, white, and blue".  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Their POV is NOT helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Cross wiki threats and harassment (again)Edit


After the last ANI, this a banned user in French wikipedia continued to harrass me. So could you block him again (his IP is static) and if possible, could you made indef block for his account W200, so I could ask Meta Wiki to give him a global lock or a global ban? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP is (talk · contribs) and has made one edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: it is the second edit. He have been blocked for one week and the edit deleted. @Acroterion and Bishonen: have seen the first ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
IP blocked for resuming and amplifying harassment after their previous block. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Long-term sockpuppetry at AFDEdit

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel/Archive points to this as a pattern, where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse dormant accounts woke up to participate in the AFD discussion, as has happened here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It points out a connection between three people, the subject of this biographical article, James Wesley Rawles, and one Jeff Trasel. The Trasel sockpuppet-farm also edited James Wesley Rawles, not shown with diffs because there's quite a lot of it.

All of the new single-purpose accounts are, once again, failing to discuss sources and whether a biographical subject is properly documented by the world, making it likely that this 2nd AFD discussion will be as de-railed by that as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson were.

In retrospect, the "did not materially affect outcome of AFD" conclusion in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trasel seems quite wrong.

Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Proof of not just canvassing but harassment from the author's FB account [149]has been posted to the AfD by an IP. User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång where do you think we should go with this now? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm involved at the AfD, but I think a block for User:Mzmadmike is out of order for calling [[User:Fabrictramp a pha66otte and linking to their Wikipedia user page. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, I was just reading through that, even found an interesting source. I have no idea whatsoever, this is new to me, slightly creepy though. Wait and see? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Doug Weller The behavior of User:Mzmadmike and his toxic followers is so far beyond the pale... note that they also tried to doxx @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Doug Weller but note that I am now involved at the AFD as well.--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Recommending blocking the editor-in-question. I'd post more, but these 'edit conflicts' are annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we want this guy around anyway: "You are proof that Pinochet did nothing wrong". All of his edits to Talk:Nazi Party are, frankly, insane.--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I just made the sound my cat makes when he's got a hairball. [150] (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I meant "out of order" and have fixed that. @Fabrictramp: my ping failed. I've had 2nd thoughts about the block, we need to crack down hard on harassment. A community ban seems in order. I'll still vote Keep if the evidence is there. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree and support block/ban. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on this. The AfD is definitely a train wreck, much like the previous one. Sadly, if someone had added the info about being a Hugo nominee prior to the speedy request, I wouldn't have deleted the article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • this bit of slander created by ( However, if you bother looking at my user page (which, granted, I just got around to updating, not that I'd really given a damn about it otherwise), you'll see that your casual insult is invalid. Unless I've been a sockpuppet since 2006. That your first impulse with "but I don't like what these people are saying!" is to accuse all and sundry of being sockpuppets is insulting. The groupthink that "oh, it MUST be sockpuppeting/canvasing because a group of people disagree with me!" is simply astounding. NB - moved to end of comment stack per request. Do NOT revert my comments again. Edit to add: Folks, your behavior _in these discussion_ is evidence of harassment.

- Speedy deletion for no justifiable reason other than personal preference (note no RfD, and the deletor didn't bother to check to see if there was a prior RfD - just went ahead and deleted the page immediately on their personal choice) - accusations of sockpuppet/meatpuppet against any account that disagrees with this behavior - reversion of comments, de novo - proposed group punishment. From further down this discussion: "and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban". Given that the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up, it's an attempt to silence a group because they say things that you don't like. Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment. This is all personally witnessed in the last 18 hours, and is supported by the change logs. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "[...] the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up" He quite literally rallied his fanbase on Facebook to vote Keep at the AfD in question. If that's not WP:CANVASSING by definition, then I don't know what is. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    • "Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment" as a response to the undeniable evidence of WP:CANVAS violations through the facebook post and the attacks directly on the admin involved in the initial deletion, along with the attempt to classify Uncle G's evidence summation as "slander". This seems to be DARVO as a tactic. (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
      • So how, then DO you classify an attempt to label a dissenting an opinion as a sockpuppet (in the discussion) then refer it here for further action, in a <16 hour window? What's the evidence supporting the assertion (and "hasn't edited a lot in the last 4 months" isn't evidence. If, for example, he'd asked for "what's your background" prior to making the assertion, I could have done _what _ wound up doing_, and documented prior wiki presence. But he pulled the trigger on sockpuppet allegation with essentially no supporting evidence. Given that the use of the term is not just technical, but specifically to denigrate statements in disagreement with his position, it meets the definition of the term slander "1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Hell, at least I've got a verifiable user ID tied to this discussion. You're posting anon.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Posting anon" -- sounds Shakespearean. "Wilt thou be posting anon, milady?" EEng 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Alas, we must post post haste.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose community ban on User:Mzmadmike for harassmentEdit

See above. I might reconsider if he deletes his post, apologises there and here and halts the thread, but I don't know if he can do the latter.Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm very reluctant to go down the road of blocking people for comments made off-wiki, even when they're about Wikipedia editors, unless they fall into very specific categories like credible death threats. Sure, his fans are being annoying, disruptive and unacceptably rude, but admins get that kind of crap every time they delete an article on anyone with any kind of fan-base. If there's recent evidence of him being problematic on Wikipedia, that's obviously a different matter, but most of his recent edits just seem to be routine and appropriate updates to articles. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Iridescent: there was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I think things have changed and we need to be a lot less tolerant of off-wiki abuse. And in this case he started the thread with the abuse - I don't care about his fans, but it's not surprising that they are being disruptive in a thread where he starts with abuse. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • So, what category does specifically posting a link to the admin's talk page along with screenshots of the userpage, and calling them a "pha66otte" around a group of people to whom abusive behavior and slurs of all sorts are all over the common discussion, fall into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Because to me that looks like posting a giant sign and saying "sic 'em". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. I don't think we want this person in our playground, and I'm not particularly fussy about how they're kicked out. As long as the actions/comments are legitimately connected to Wikipedia, as they are here, it's certainly within our purview to act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - Pointing your Facebook fans at a Wikipedia user and making anti-gay slurs toward that person... you've demonstrated that you aren't interested in being a productive member of our community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban I have a real problem with long term incivility. Should have been dealt with earlier. And if he's aiming fans at Wikipedia or using his reach on social media to cause problems for Wikipedia or its editors, then he is de facto not a member of this community.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    addendum His actions on Wiki are appalling and evident of a battleground, not here attitude. This is in addition to his actions off wiki and would be sufficient if we discount his use of social media to recruit meatpuppets to not only affect a consensus discussion but to harass editors he finds problematic to his his nothere agenda.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - per p. much everyone else.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - long term incivility and harassment. --MrClog (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and pace Iridescent. The main difference here is that the fellow's deliberately relying on us ignoring what goes on in the rest of the web to give the site and our members a digital kicking. That kind of makes us enablers, and even if pour encourager les autres is not policy, it still very much applies philosophically. Or it bloody well should, anyhows. ——SerialNumber54129 18:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I wouldn't mind him venting about it on Facebook, even if he did get his fanbase all stirred up. We can't hold that against him. But linking to the admin and calling them a "faggot" can be seen as nothing other than a blatant attempt to incite harassment. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Can't say I've come across this before, but reviewing the above... yeesh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent. I don't see the harassment. I see misconduct and canvassing, certainly, that may rise to the level of a block or some other sanction. But complaining about a particular Wikipedia editor off-wiki is not harassment. No matter how upsetting it may be. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Also support indef block per WP:NLT following this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
      •   Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Question: Where is this "pha66ot" comment everyone's referring to? Has he edited the Facebook post? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The original comment link is [151]. He may have deleted that particular comment but he left up another one making fun of the admin's user page that was just below it. He seems to have deleted one or two more subthreads on the Facebook post once they were noted to the deletion discussion as evidence, as well. (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, per editors' recent actions at the article-in-question & his recent comments at that article's Afd. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. [152] I think this has taken the cake. (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban, clear indications of WP:NOTHERE including recent comments on the Facebook thread he's posted and recent edits to the AfD. --letcreate123 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban, and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban - iff the article doesn't already fall under general/discretionary sanctions of some stripe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
did you say sneakers?  Dlohcierekim (talk)
  • He's already been indef'd under NLT. Comments like this one at the AfD are objectionable / offensive. WP does not need editors who view everyone else here as "vile, fat, basement-dwelling wankers who have appointed themselves the keepers of knowledge." Mzmadmike has made ~1800 edits over more than 10 years and yet knows so little of WP culture that he sees notability questions / an AfD discussion as his "readers [having] to abase, degrade, and humiliate themselves to document that [he, as] a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse" (a reference to this article). He asserts that it is his decision alone whether the article on him stays or not, and he has issued an NLT-violating threat (in comparably objectionable terms) in an attempt to impose his will. He's referred to editors as "fucking pathetic", declared that describing the Nazi Party as of the far-right in "delusional crap" and that the Nazis "were left wing, and claiming otherwise requires mental contortions that indicate insanity". These led to a warning on his user talk page, which was not his first warning about civility (after this comment). He has blogged criticism of WP offsite (which is fine) but also named editors he disagrees with and linked to the on-wiki discussion, which is problematic. I support a community ban as I don't believe that Mzmadmike shares WP's goals and values and doubt that will change. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I was going to block for the edit linked by (EEWWW) but found the NLT block there. I'm going to go revdel some of that, so look quick.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Request closure or this is going to turn into another train wreck as the AFD. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to state the words, "This person is banned", and not just "let's stop talking about this because they're blocked now". Here's why: The former makes a statement about expected behaviors and a precedent; the latter shuffles the problem to the future. Saying now, today, "This behavior gets you community banned" can help short-circuit discussions in the future.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The indef can be lifted by any individual admin, but a community ban can only be overturned by the community. That's what we need here. We keep his article, because he is notable, but we don't keep him in the community.
On a personal note, as a science fiction reader, I'm glad that I've never read anything by this (Redacted), and hope to never do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Community ban, obviously. EEng 04:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Community ban This person has behaved in an abominable fashion, both off-Wiki and here on Wikipedia. He has chosen his fate as an editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban He's done his dash on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with users Jorm and Cullen328 above. Rong Qiqi (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • clarification While I am vile and fat, I do not have a basement to dwell in.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    My goodness, I wish I had a basement to dwell in. It'd be like a palace. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. Full disclosure: I am one of the fat vile people who voted for "No award" above his book in the 2015 Hugo vote, and I am not going to get involved in the AfD (because of that and also because it makes me feel vaguely unclean.) However, that doesn't disqualify me from evaluating his behaviour as an editor. He is not here to improve Wikipedia, and his attacks are of course completely inappropriate. And like Dlochierekim I have no basement. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User: ShellwoodEdit

JkMastru indefinitely blocked by Admin EdJohnston. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user with blank edit summary insists in remove the term "Amerindian" in the "Languages" part of Mexico infobox. This is a true racism case. --JkMastru (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I believe that the filer, JkMastru, is the problem here and I've issued an indefinite block. He began editing on July 4 and has already managed to be blocked twice. Their most recent appearance on the admin boards was on July 9 at WP:AN. When his previous one-week block expired on 21 July he went right back to edit warring (at Mexico) and move warring (at Muisca). Here is one of his edit summaries which caught my attention: "Undid revision 907274987 by Shellwood (talk) learn to read, racist genius:.". Any admin who disagrees can modify or lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

IBAN violation by U1QuattroEdit

U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User U1Quattro violated IBAN again, twice at least.
This user still cannot keep away from contributions made by me quite recently and keeps rewriting them and adding tags to them. See Ferrari 456: Revision history.
Special:Diff/907256292 and Special:Diff/907256438
Special:Diff/904629142 Clearly shows this section added by me quite recently, this very month.
Special:Diff/901265487 Clearly shows this section added by me quite recently, last month.
There was no reason to make those changes. He was just blocked for an IBAN violation that literally ended two days ago: IBAN violations by U1Quattro, and keeps getting back for more.
Section violated: Interaction ban
"Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" YBSOne (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Also user clearly referenced me indirectly stating that my edit was "appaling" and he cannot change it due to an IBAN with an author of that edit.
Section violated: Interaction ban
"Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;" YBSOne (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an expert on IBANs, but even under an IBAN, it seems that editors can still work on the same page. Ybsone, on the first complaint (the article edits), the diffs you linked were part of a whole series where U1Quattro was doing various cleanup throughout the entire page, not just the short bit of text that was added by you (which did need cleanup for grammar, and for which a citation needed tag was appropriate); it wasn't even a reversion. The second part is less great, but he's criticizing the article organization, and then asking for assistance from others in order to abide by the IBAN. Maybe a more tactful choice of words could have been made, but still, did this really need to be brought here yet again? Can't we all just get along? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It is rather clear to me that this user cannot stop to use ANI again and again. Just like Vauxford. Because they don't have an understanding of how an IBAN works and they decide to use the same old clause in their defense when I did not even violate it. There is a difference between reversion and correction. I am confident that this time, I did not do an IBAN violation. I corrected grammar and wording and did not remove anything. I even left a note in the talk page of the article asking another user to do a proposed correction made by me as I was aware that such excerpts were added by this user. I did not even mention or criticise this user, only the content that was present. I have now changed my choice of words on the said tlkpage discussion. On the other hand, this user was involved in edit warring on the same page they are referring to and they even violated the 3RR rule rather than discuss matters on the article talk page in a civil manner. I request the admins to take notice of their edit warring and please give them advice about how ANI works so we are not faced by these time wasting tactics again and again.U1 quattro TALK 03:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • To make my point more clear, I would mention the entire IBAN section here:

"The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions;

make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;

undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;

use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption."

The thing which I did is highlighted in bold so that this user understands what I did. I also criticised the content in the talk page, not the person who added it as it would appear to a general reader.U1 quattro TALK 03:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Further this section here from the IBAN rule states to provide edit summaries for such weird which I did provide "As a banned user, if you think your editing is excepted from the ban according to these rules, you should explain why that is so at the time of the edit, for example in the edit summary. When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify."U1 quattro TALK 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Since this user has demonstrated that they cannot differenciate what is an edit reversion and what is an edit correction, I will now mention the following from WP:REVERTING:

"A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.

A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions.

Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

Editor action Classification
You re-phrase the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article. A normal change, not a reversion.
You reverse all of Alice's changes in wording, restoring the article to the previous version. A complete reversion.
You add a new paragraph at the end of the article. A normal change, not a reversion.
You remove most of the new paragraph, but leave one or two sentences. A partial reversion.


As made clear here, I did the thing that is mentioned on the table at the top.U1 quattro TALK 04:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing was made clear because You are quoting a lot of unrelated policies and yet You do not comprehend any of them. I have clearly added content and now parts of that content are missing, deleted by a user that was supposed to have an interaction ban with an author of that content. You are not allowed to remove any of the content added by me. Ie You are not allowed to interact with the content added by me. Comprehend? YBSOne (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore it seems that user is actively changing disputed content to cover his tracks. Special:Diff/907324311. YBSOne (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Support no action against U1Quattro Sorry, but IBANs should not be enforced in such a manner as to force both editors (or, rather, the less belligerent of the two editors) to constantly look over their shoulder and be thinking about whether this or that piece of text may have been edited by the other. Forcing IBANned editors to think about each other is the opposite of the intended purpose of an IBAN, and sanctioning an editor for having fixed a mistake that another editor inserted into an article because that other editor happened to be "the wrong editor to mess with" is simply unacceptable.
I would, however, support a trout or perhaps a boomerang being issued to Ybsone.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Hijiri88. Nail squarely struck on head.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
And what's appalling is the amount of time wasted on this sort of bickering.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Show me this in exceptions to limited bans that now this user can "correct my mistakes". This user wanted an IBAN but instead of adhering to the rules, he has quoted at least four policies he knows nothing about just to "game the system" against me. I am not going to be lenient against an editor with such sketchy past of disruptive and tendentious editing behaviour. YBSOne (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ybsone: I know a lot more about IBANs than you do. WP:BANEX is deliberately written in such a way as to require interpretation in light of circumstances. U1Quattro is allowed edit the same articles as you, and to do so in whatever policy-compliant manner he sees fit -- you are increasingly giving the impression of trying to "lay traps" for him by inserting content that someone is going to need to fix and then reporting U1Quattro when it's him who does it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Support no action- it does not seem as though there's anything wrong with the edits themselves. As for the "covering his tracks" bit, U1Quattro has settled on a milder choice of words on their own. Now Ybsone wants to interpret that as devious underhandedness. It seems clear that anything U1Quattro says or does is going to be interpreted in the least charitable way possible. Reyk YO! 07:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You're just wasting everyone's time in this discussion. Further more because of editors like you and Vauxford, we would lose more active contributors in the automobile project. You are no different than Vauxford in bickering about the rules and bending them for a decision favourable to you rather than making an effort to understand them. I brought the exact relevant standards here which also put a light on what reverting actually is. You're implying to the content you are added when the IBAN rules permit that edits can be made or improved on the same page, just not reverted and I did not revert them. You do not own the content you add and interacting with the content (ie improving it) isn't an interaction with you. Instead of uunderstanding the IBAN rules and what reversion is you decide to bludgeon the discussion. I request the admins that appropriate sanctions should be placed on this user for engaging in an edit war on the Ferrari 456 page about the speed recorded.U1 quattro TALK 07:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Those discussions were closed and decisions were made on them. Yet you still want to bring past discussions which have nothing to do with this discussion which is based on your misinterpretion of the IBAN and WP:REVERTING. As Hijri 88 has pointed out, you're doing all this due to personal envy which is not doing Wikipedia any favours.U1 quattro TALK 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ybsone: Umm... you filed both of those threads. Are you just trolling now? Harassing and trolling U1Quattro in this manner, even in this thread, is most certainly not covered under BANEX, and I'm increasingly inclined to think you need to be blocked for this behaviour. You really should take this close's wording to heart... Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Not here since 2012Edit

Please see recent [153] which included unsourced claims with WP:BLP implications, and the promotion at User talk:Nudge squidfish/twinkleoptions (now tagged with WP:U5). The talk page shows warnings about other deletions, self-promotion and copyright violations. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Vinegarymass911Edit

IP blocked for a month by Admin DlohcierekimJudeccaXIII (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP user has now, for the second time, made a legal threat at another user's WP talk page, threatening to "trace you down in real life and take necessary legal action against you and Wikipedia". PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Vinegarymass911 has used WP as a defamation tool for many years now. We have researched his archives and found that he created and maintained WP pages that follow a pattern. Most importantly he has a very vicious history of deleting WP pages of music band groups, public figures and others often citing what he perceives as self promotion and group promotion whereas those groups and individuals are all accomplished people and organizations. I would like to request an admin to go over the entire edit history, page deletion history and page creation history of this user to determine whether or not his editing activities are motivated and biased. If you find so, it is recommended that you ban or remove him as an editor for using WP as a defamation tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The onus is on you, IP, to provide evidence to back up your accusations. Admins are not going to go thru an editor's entire editing history, especially one that is "many years" long, because the time that would take would be prohibitive at best. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Blocked 1 month  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse block. Unquestionably a legal threat. Also per Jéské Couriano, there's not much chance of doing a WP:DOLT check without more information to pinpoint what precipitated the legal threat. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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


Blocked indefinitely by Admin Graeme Bartlett. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user keeps removing speedy deletion tags and appears not to be here to build the encyclopedia. Interstellarity (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pretty evidently...something. Spam-only account, I guess? It looks like someone or something repeatedly posting a bunch of spam keywords to the user page. WP:NOTHERE, apply a banhammer and call it a day. creffett (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Creffett: I agree. I reccomend that an admin apply a block to this account. Reason: NOTHERE. Interstellarity (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

ANI Report Denniss: Abusive BehaviorEdit

Denniss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

There maybe more. Keep saying i am those ip in a false manner - 1 2

Excessive use of undo`s in many articles. 1

I do not care if Denniss been here for 14+ years. He does not have upper say of anything. This no longer a content dispute. This is a attempt by Denniss to get rid of a individual who actively in good faith to do a general fix on a article with major issues since 2017. Enough is enough from this user. Regice2020 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Driveby tagging is a bad idea. There ought to be an accompanying talk page note explaining the reasoning behind the tag/s. El_C 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The talk page is highly inactive unless something happens to the page like move request or deletion were feedback are collected apparently. Regice2020 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Or the page gets tagged as an advert? Maybe that, too. We don't know because that discussion was not attempted. El_C 03:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup they do not want someone fixing then someone need to tag it based on feedback collection. I mean the product Ryzen 3000 series just released early this month. Many AMD buyers (the AMD fanboys) are just to excited on comments are being directed from a outside source to here. Denniss behavior against me is very unacceptable something need to be reviewed. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup? I'm confused. What are you agreeing with? You added a tag without an accompanying talk page note, which I'm saying was a mistake. El_C 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Does removing wrong warnings [supposedly placed by them?] from one's own user talk page really count as "excessive use of undos in many articles"? Edible Melon (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)