Open main menu

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANI)
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)

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)

Editor: WikitigresitoEdit

This editor is continuing to remove content on the Berlin Palace which is authoritatively sourced (New York Times), despite having been asked on their Talk Page to exercise more care in their editing. User_talk:Wikitigresito#Your_Edits) It appears they have a personal issue with Wilhelm von Boddien being credited as the principal progenitor of the Palace's reconstruction. The NY Times clearly states: "until Mr. von Boddien and his associates got involved, the Government had given no thought to rebuilding the vast royal palace."[[65]] This is being repeatedly removed by the editor. ClearBreeze (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ClearBreeze - Have you tried starting a new discussion on the article's talk page and pinging Wikitigresito in the discussion in an attempt to discuss the issue and dispute with them? I only see one comment by Wikitigresito made to the talk page since May 2018. Please try expressing your concerns and discussing this issue directly with Wikitigresito first before filing a report here. This noticeboard is meant for reporting issues where edit warring or other violations are occurring in place of using Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, or if violations are occurring despite repeated attempts to comply with the dispute resolution protocol and discuss the matter peacefully. I don't think we're at this point yet... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Resolution of the issue was sought unsuccessfully via the editor's Talk Page. However, they have repeated the behaviour. When an editor repeatedly removes a straightforward, authoritatively referenced statement, despite a direct appeal to reason, then it is edit-warring, pure and simple. Further pandering to unreasonable bad behaviour is unhelpful. Either rules are respected, or they are not. Hence this request.ClearBreeze (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
ClearBreeze, you have failed to discuss the issue at Talk: Berlin Palace, which is always the best place for discussing content disputes. There has been only one edit to the article in the last month. There is no "incident" here that requires emergency attention from administrators. If an edit war is going on, it is glacially slow. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328. We need to communicate directly with the editor as recommended and try to come to a resolution first. We're not at the stage yet where administrative action is required in order to resolve the situation. Administrative action should be sought only after attempts to discuss the matter have clearly failed and where it is the only choice to put a stop to repeated disruption or the repeated violation of policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In this reply Wikitigresito talked about this second edit being removal of a BLP violation because "you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it", where in fact there was a citation to a supporting piece in the New York Times removed in that very edit, and where in fact it was this first edit (also citing the NYT in the very edit itself) where Wikitigresito left "von Boddien" hanging with no antecedent, claiming advertising not a BLP problem (although it is hard to see what it is supposed to be advertising), that this enquiry was talking about. So minus one hundred points to all participants (including administrators here in this discussion), I think, for not supplying diffs, not reading diffs, not acknowledging citations, not reading sources, BLP waving, breaking article prose, communicating via boilerplate instead of using one's own words, waving of "edit warring", using undo and blanking instead of fixing, misusing administrators as Wikipedia:third opinion, and stating that using User talk:Wikitigresito is not "discussing directly with Wikitigresito" when the person who comes to this noticeboard even points straight at the discussion directly with Wikitigresito. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Uncle G: for taking the time to examine the background of the edits. Having addressed the editor directly and been ignored, a note on their Talk page from someone else regarding respectful editing might prove helpful (e.g. if there is a cited fact in an article they disagree with, the correct approach is to provide a contrasting cited fact -- not simply erase facts they disagree with.) ClearBreeze (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The allegation of edit warring is absolutely ridiculous. You claim you tried to discuss this with me, which is not true. In fact, in your message on my talk page you wrote "I don't come to Wikipedia often, and won't be checking anything else you've done, so don't bother to reply, as I most likely won't see it". Take this to the article's talk page and please WP:AGF. - wikitigresito (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Uncle G: I am also surprised that you find it is hard to see what one could consider an ad. If you had examined the actual diff, you would have found that I removed the sentence "Donations continue to be sought for the baroque facade decoration by Förderverein Berliner Schloss eV, which is funding this part of the reconstruction." I agree that the BLP violation is less obvious, but the NYT article does not support the very enthusiastic picture that the person in question was "the ultimate driving force" behind the reconstruction. - wikitigresito (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wikitigresito disputes he has been edit warring, and that a prior attempt has been made at discussion. False on both counts. A long note was posted on his Talk Page detailing how his edit had: (a) been careless, because the subsequent sentence ("In 1992 von Boddien...") then made little sense to those unacquainted, like apparently himself, with whom von Boddien was, and (b) that the statement he removed was supported by a reliable source (NY Times). Despite this, when the text had been restored, he removed it again, and posted the statement, "The content is improper, please familiarise yourself with our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons" – an attempt to give legitimacy to the context of his actions. Now he states: "I agree that the BLP violation is less obvious". Given there's not been a violation, "less obvious" is the least of it. He further states: "the NYT article does not support the very enthusiastic picture that the person in question was 'the ultimate driving force' behind the reconstruction." Yet, in point of fact, the NYT reference states that Boddein: "heads the private fund-raising group" and "until Mr. von Boddien and his associates got involved, the Government had given no thought to rebuilding the vast royal palace." Indeed, every reputable article on the reconstruction credits Boddien as the driving force. e.g. Deutsche Welle: "After the fall of the Berlin Wall...von Boddien...had baroque backdrops painted bright yellow and mounted in front of the Palace of the Republic, sparking off one of the most vigorous debates in newly reunited Germany. Wilhelm von Boddien was ridiculed by the media as the "ghost of the palace," and his declared plan to raise at least 85 million euros ($98.5 million) in donations to support the reconstruction of the palace was politely smiled upon. But fortune was always with him." etc. etc. [[66]] That Wikitigresito continues to doubt this, despite it being well known to Berliners as one of the most singular facts about the reconstruction, indicates (a) he doesn't know the first thing about the project (b) he's not interested in doing any research about it, but (c) is nevertheless willing to wilfully alter the article to accord with his own opinion; yet (d) not include any references to support that opinion. (Or even do any research to check if the opinion he disagrees with might, in fact, be accurate.) That's why, unfortunately, his actions have to be addressed here, in order that (a) the wilful behaviour isn't endlessly repeated, including across other articles and (b) he might grasp the simple 101 of respecting the hard work of other editors, and understand that while he is entirely welcome to add an opposing referenced claim to an article, it must NOT be at the expense of deleting other authoritatively referenced claims he personally doesn't agree with. It's concerning that he still doesn't seem to appreciate this. Until such time, he will be very far from the professed claim made on his page "I focus on improving wikipedia". Little wonder then such virtue-signalling always tends to be viewed as a red flag. ClearBreeze (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Attempting to discuss does not mean posting an angry message that ends with "don't bother to reply". I reverted you once (!), gave the relevant policy and changed the wording. You seem to mistake a content dispute with an issue that requires administrative action. Your behaviour also exhibits a lack of understanding how WP:consensus building on wikipedia works. - wikitigresito (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wikitigresito is attempting to deflect the issue. Which is his refusal to acknowledge that the edit he erased twice is authoritatively supported fact. (Nowhere in WP:BLP – which he references in an attempt to legitimise his actions – does it advise that a statement supported by an authoritative reference should be erased by an editor who disagrees with it. Characterising the request for respectful editing on his Talk Page as 'angry', when it in fact stated: "please bear these thoughts in mind -- which are well intentioned" -- also indicates either misunderstanding or misconstrual.) To resolve this issue I suggest there needs to be agreement from him that he won't continue to delete the sentence on the primacy of von Boddien's role. ClearBreeze (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Your abusing this noticeboard in an attempt to win a content dispute and fail to assume good faith. This might be a case of WP:OUCH. If you really want to debates this, use the article's talk page. I request this discussion to be closed. wikitigresito (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitigresito, enough of the deflections. If you are acting in good faith as you claim, please answer 'yes' or 'no'. Will you now accept the authoritatively referenced text regarding the primacy of von Boddien's role in reconstructing the Palace? (Note: saying 'yes' doesn't mean you can't include an alternative viewpoint in the article – provided it is authoritatively referenced, and not just your own opinion.) Here is the text again, with additional references: "The driving force in ultimately achieving reconstruction of the Stadtschloss was businessman and aristocrat Wilhelm von Boddien. Until von Boddien and his associates became involved, the Government had given no thought to rebuilding the entire palace.[1][2][3][4] ClearBreeze (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Loveroftheworld14710 and 20XX in Country articlesEdit

Loveroftheworld14710 (talk · contribs)

Loveroftheworld14710 has been creating a very large number of stubs such as 2017 in Montenegro, 2017 in Malawi, 2020 in Australia, etc. Many of them have been moved to draft space, but the user has not responded to comments on their talk page. If they continue to ignore feedback, administrative action may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And some are just empty shells. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This user continues to create problematic articles. He created List of most-followed Twitch accounts in mainspace by copying the table from most-followed Instagram accounts. The reference given doesn't exist. I think some administrative action is necessary -- possibly requiring them to use AFC for new articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Loveroftheworld14710, as you are corresponding on your talk page, can I please invite you to comment and respond on the above issues here? We are here to help you understand the issues, so please cooperate. Thanks, Lourdes 03:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the Twitch account article that I made, here is my honest response on the article on which I made.

This Article That I Was TRYING To Create is NOT MEANINGLESS

I was making it for 5 minutes and then I was trying to tap the Save Preview button but accidentally put the publish button, and then, yea, I accidentally published the article

Some people are dragging me just for my presence here on this holy website of knowledge known as Wikipedia, which I do not appreciate

Some of y’all are being polite to me on editing, which I’m happy to hear that some of y’all care and don’t want me blocked, which I feel is unfair for me since I’m trying to learn how to edit here

Imma talk more about this tea that y’all badly want to make later.

PS, I’m an editor as well, please accept me on Wikipedia, I’m just starting to learn darlings


Some of y’/ll can learn how to be nicer to people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveroftheworld14710 (talkcontribs) 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I’m not a problematic user munchkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveroftheworld14710 (talkcontribs) 05:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Loveroftheworld14710, editors here don't wish to be patronised, at the same time we wish to support editors making mistakes. Do you voluntarily agree to read up Wikipedia:Articles for creation and submit articles as per the process detailed there? Please respond. Lourdes 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indef block. Appealable to any uninvolved admin after 6 months, though. I could handle the mainspace disruption temporarily, but when you make light of suicide you lose my respect.[67] It's the number for the suicide prevention hotline; Some of us have actually had to call that number in the past.MJLTalk 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • More disruption by blanking the leads of 1991, 1990, and 1989. Lean toward a long block, but not sure whether just a 6 month block, or an indefinite block with appeal allowed after 6 months, would be more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate warnings by Alex 21Edit

I would like to raise an issue regarding the conduct of Alex 21. I believe his conduct at List of highest-grossing films has been unhelpful and the threats he has left on my talk page are unjustified. I will relay the sequence of events here:

  1. There has been a dispute about the image in the section at List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films. For years the section had a standard image, but over the last couple of months it has gone through numerous changes. These changes were never discussed and there was never a consensus for these changes. Editors kept adding more and more images until it turned into an image gallery.
  2. I did not think this was warranted so proposed a new, single image at the end of May: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Image_for_highest-grossing_films_section.
  3. There was no response so I assumed there was a WP:SILENT consensus so I installed the new image.
  4. The editor, Brojam, took exception to the change. We reverted each other a couple of times each (all between 9pm and 9.30pm on Sunday evening), but once it became clear the dispute was not going to be resolved through reverts and edit summaries the dispute migrated to the talk page: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Image_in_highest-grossing_films_section
  5. The crux of the issue was that I believed the gallery was decorative rather than illustrative and only one image was necessary. The opposing editor at first argued that I had not obtained a consensus. I believe I had because consensus does not equate to getting permission to edit from the community. At the time of the reverts there had been no substantive objections (i.e. policy/MOS based objections).
  6. After discussing the issue with Brojam he further expanded on his revert explaining that while I had a valid point that a gallery was decorative and one image would suffice, my selection of image was a poor one. We both tacitly agreed to restore the original long-standging image i.e. the WP:STATUSQUO version.
  7. After agreeing this, another editor Alex21 (who have not been involved until this point) restored the gallery in the main article.
  8. Despite what he accuses me, I didn't actually revert him. I implemented the edit that was agreed in the discussion on the talk page i.e. I restored the original long-standing image.
  9. Alex21 then left me an edit-warring notice and informed me if I reverted again he would report me: User_talk:Betty_Logan#July_2019. This was inappropriate because I hadn't actually reverted him. I performed a new edit that implemented the agreed edit was NOT a revert, but a new edit in full accordance with the outcome of the discussion.
  10. I tried to discuss this with him on the talk page: [68]. I pointed out that he had not actually restored the WP:STATUSQUO and I had not actually reverted him, but I had instead implemented the agreed edit. He dismised my reply, informing me I had been reverted by multiple editors and told me to discuss it on the talk page. I in fact had only been reverted by ONE editor, had discussed it with them, and we arrived at a compromise that I tried to implement. When I pointed this out he reverted my reply and told me to go and discuss it on the talk page.

So here we are. There was a dispute between me and single editor (Brojam). We reverted each other a couple of times each, discussed the issue, and agreed on a solution which I tried to implement. Another editor, Alex21 reverted me and accused me of edit-warring and told me to go and discuss it on the talk page. I admit I was slightly too combative earlier in the evening with the first editor, but the dispute was taken to the talk page, discussed and a compromise was agreed upon! I tried to implement the agreed compromise, was reverted and warned for edit-warring when I hadn't actually reverted since the initial dispute earlier in the evening. Alex21 could not even be bothered to join the discussion himself. I have not found his edits conducive to resolving a problem that had already been resolved! He is now obstructing the solution that was agreed upon. For the record I have absolutely no problem at all with editor involved in the initial dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry Betty, to be fair to Alex 21, if I had reached the article after your 3rd revert, I would have left a warning exactly like Alex left on your talk page. To be fair to you, once you would have pointed out that you were actually implementing consensus, I would have told you to continue discussions on the article talk page and go ahead and follow consensus (which is what Alex finally seems to have told you, albeit in a rough way). I would suggest that you wait for a couple of more days for any more comments on the talk page of the article before undertaking the changes once again. If Alex reverts you against consensus, I will warn him. As of now, unless Alex has anything incredibly enlightening to say, I think there's not much to do here. What do you say? Thanks, Lourdes 03:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    It's more of a conduct issue than a content dispute. My final edit was not actually a revert, it was a new edit implementing the outcome of the discussion (I tried to make this clear by linking to it) so I only actually reverted twice. If I had my time over I would have not undertaken the second revert, but at the end of the day there were a couple of reverts by both parties and the issue was discussed and resolved. If you want me to delay implementing the outcome I can do that, but the problem is with the behavior on Alex's talk page. He tells me to "continue to discuss the topic on the relevant talk page" but it is not clear i) what I should be discussing since the dispute was resolved and ii) who I should be discussing it with, since the other party was satisfied with the outcome. If Alex has some substantive reason for opposing my edit then he needs to join the discussion and articulate the problem, or he needs to withdraw his objections to my edit. That is all I am asking for. Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Two editors get into a dispute, talk it out, come to a resolution, implement their resolution, that's the end of it. That's as good as DR can get. That's beautiful DR in action. If Alex wanted to join in the dispute, sure, then it's not resolved and more discussion is needed. But that's not what happened here. The dispute was resolved, then Alex marched in and joined in the edit war for nothing but invalid procedural reasons such as enforcing BRD, maintaining the status quo, or, paradoxically, "you're edit warring". None of these are valid reasons to revert, in fact this behavior is disruptive. You can't tell that the dispute was resolved just by looking at the article history, but it was. So, Alex's falsely-authoritarian procedural reverts to the "status quo" are not only invalid from a policy perspective, but they were in error. This looks like a big misunderstanding, so if Alex has nothing beyond his stated procedural objections, his revert should be overturned and this should be the end of it (and he should take note that this sort of thing is not a valid reason to revert). If he has a personal opinion in the content dispute and he wants to join in, then he needs to stop feigning uninvolved BRD enforcement (which, again, is not a legitimate thing anyway) and present his arguments on the talk page. Either way, he should not be hypocritically making authoritarian declarations while literally edit warring. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring IP inserting unsourced information and copyvios and refusing to negotiate.Edit

2 days ago, User:2A02:C7F:2C36:B400:5C83:AD0E:4B75:2411 inserted unsourced information on Dost Mohammad Khan. I reverted him 3 times [69] [70] [71], and tried to open a discussion on the talk page [72], but he relented. Then he inserted unsourced information on Ali Ahmad Khan, and again refused to discuss the change, and then again on List of heads of state of Afghanistan [73] and Mohammad Yaqub Khan [74]. Today this IP added copyright violating material on Barakzai dynasty (no diff because it was removed). This user has been warned several times on his talk page but is showing no signs of giving up. I believe he should be blocked for disruptive editing. Koopinator (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • WP:TROUT for Koopinator who has their knickers in a twist over this IP. The Ip was warned by Doug Weller at 12.28 today; the IP has not edited since. Therefore they neither needed Koopinator's superfluous second warning nor this report. @Koopinator: suggest you withdraw this immediately and wait for the said IUP to actually edit against the warning; then this report might have validity. But not until then. ——SerialNumber54129 14:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Serial Number 54129: This IP has already edited against my warnings of inserting unsourced information, so this report already has validity. I had sent him 2 warnings regarding unsourced information on 13 July [75] [76] for 2 different cases of inserting unsourced information[77] [78], and i tried to send him a third one today for a third case of unsourced information on 14 July,[79] but it was removed because of an unrelated rule being broken on the 15th. My warning also wasn't superfluous, i warned the IP for unsourced info and Doug warned him for Copyright violation. Koopinator (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It has no validity at all I'm afraid. In only the most egregious cases do we see someone blocked having not edited since a previous warning. This is certainly not approaching that level of severity, even if you believe that BLP applies to people who have been dead since 1923 and 1557 respectively, particularly in an article where, if you removed everything that was unsourced, you'd be left with a couple of sentences. Advice and discussion are the watchwords in these cases, not templated warnings and straight to a dramaboard. ——SerialNumber54129 14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright, i was wrong. And i thought i could withdraw nominations by removing sections, but i was wrong in that, too. So i don't know what to do now. Koopinator (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Koopinator: Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter since I'm the only one to have replied, and I don't really care, personally; it's just that archiving is preferred—for example, if your IP does start causing more trouble, then this report is easily found in the archives and can be reactivated :) and don't beat yourself up over being "wrong"—it's not so much about right or wrong and more about interpretation. Your concerns (and vigilance) for WP:V, though, are—without sounding condescending I hope!—both valued and appreciated. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 15:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ke an and edit-warring at Adolfas Ramanauskas‎Edit

Could an admin have a look at Adolfas Ramanauskas‎ please. This is a contentious figure which some consider a Lithuanian national hero and others as a Nazi collaborator. Recently, due to a monument to him opened in Chicago, a number of reliable sources (including e.g. BBC, the full list at the talk page) published pieces on the guy being a Holocaust perpetrator. Kyuko tried to add information to the article based on these sources, just to be reverted by Ke an. Then Kyuko started a talk page discussion, with Ke an dismissing the info as "Russian propaganda". There are about 20 sources, the text proposed by Kuyko was fairly neutral and taking into account all the opinions, but the discussion went nowhere since Ke an resisted to all attempts to add anything to the article and did not make any constructive contribution to the discussion. Yesterday, I saw this and suggested that Kuyko adds the proposed text to the article, which they have done. Ke an reverted them, and then me, claiming there is no consensus. Apparently, in their understanding consensus is when everybody agrees (giving them a chance to block reaching consensus). We have 20 reliable sources, two persons agreeing, and one disagreeing without policy-based arguments ("Russian propaganda" is not a policy-based argument). Well, I can start an RfC and attract more people, but I am afraid we are just dealing with disruptive editing. A third opinion will be appreciated. Everything is documented at the talk page and in the recent editing history. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to add that I have never heard about Kuyko ot Ke an or Ramanauskas until yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
And I see now that Ke an has a zillion of warnings for edit-warring. May be it is time to make the next step.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The edit-warring is definitely of concern. From what I've been able to understand of the discussion, Ke an is saying that the material cannot be included, regardless of how many reliable sources mention it, because he believes it to be false, or Soviet propaganda. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Once again: what is said by the sources with strong reputations for trustworthiness and those that do not routinely put an errors/retractions section in their interior? The BBC and other news sources are distinctly not experts on Lithuanian history; the only way we have any business citing them is if they've asked actual scholars to write for them. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are scholarly sources required in these circumstances?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • User blocked for 72 hours for deletion of sourced content without a policy-based rationale. Force-deleting sourced information merely because one deems it "fake news" is seriously disruptive. User has been warned that if it happens again, they'll be banned from the article. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ignore WP:1RR discretionary sanctions (Edit warring) and personal insultsEdit

Let's try closing this and see if that fixes things. While there is a 1RR violation, it was self-reverted. Maybe Flyer22 Reborn's edits strayed into commenting on the editor. No-one should do that. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Flyer22 Reborn This user has been refusing to assume good faith and has violated the 1RR discretionary sanction at Milo Yiannopoulos. I have argued with the editor before, but walked away for a number of months, learnt a lot in the meantime and came back to make some calm good faith edits which were challenged and have been worked on by two other editors since. I have not reverted when challenged and have been discussing politely on the talk page since then, but this user is antagonistic towards me, refuses to assume good faith and has brokern the 1RR sanction on the page.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [[80]]
  2. [[81]]
  3. [[82]]
  4. [[83]]
  5. [[84]]
  6. [[85]]

So they've self reverted since, I still feel it's unfair to refuse to assume good faith, they're busy attacking me personally on the talk page rather than addressing the edits.

Bacondrum (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure "problematic contributions" counts as a personal attack — if that's what you meant, as you don't actually specify the attack itself for some reason. El_C 02:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking at those diffs I don't see a problem. The first one is clearly a revert. The second adds a space - I'm inclinded to ignore that. The third and fourth are not by Flyer22, and the fifth - which would have broken 1RR - was self-reverted by Flyer22 with the sixth. Thus at the end of that sequence there is a single revert, and that doesn't violate 1RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at the page history, it's clear that the above diffspam is incredibly disingenuous. Flyer reverted twice, and then self-reverted in deference to the 1RR. Also, we couldn't enforce the sanction anyways because it does not appear that the awareness criteria have been satisfied. Also, please remember that BLP applies to talk pages, expressing a view that an BLP subject is "nazi scum" is disruptive and I have redacted that part of your comment. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    I appologise for calling him "Nazi Scum", but I was being accused of whitewashing Nazi associations from the subjects page, I was trying to make the point that I have no interest in making the fellow look good. Disingenuous, how so? No need to be rude. So, flat out refusing to assume good faith is okay: "you want me to assume good faith? Assume good faith after how you acted last time?" We disagreed, so what? I could say the same of them, aren't we supposed to assume good faith, aren't we supposed to focus on edits not fight with editors? Bacondrum (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    I assume "the above diffspam is incredibly disingenuous" suggests that there is only one effective revert in the six diffs presented. Wikipedia is not the place to play gotcha—self-reverting is accepted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Bacon, you literally posted six diffs, even though there are only 2 reverts, the second of which was self-reverted. If that was not a disingenuous attempt to make the situation look more severe than it is, it certainly looks that way, and claiming that I'm being "rude" to you by pointing that out does not help your case. Also, yes, I see that Flyer called your attempts to unilaterally delete text without a consensus in spite of previous discussions which made clear that such actions would be controversial, "problematic". I'd say that's about the same level offense as you telling Flyer to "grow up". Is that really the crux of this complaint? Alright, fine: Flyer22 Reborn, this user is upset that you called their edits "problematic". If you feel an editor's behavior is problematic, please report them to administrators in an appropriate forum, rather than making the accusation on an article talk page. Thanks. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I want the editor to be polite and assume good faith. Are you taunting me? Yeah that's real appropriated behavior mate. Bacondrum (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Who ever appropriated that behavior GIVE IT BACK RIGHT NOW! EEng 13:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── At this point, I find Bacondrum (talk · contribs)'s finding offense where there is none intended and inability to accept the possibility that they are wrong to be a problem. Maybe the problem. Recommend we close this unless a more detailed review of Bacondrum is warranted.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that, when dealing with a contentious subject like this, attempts to unilaterally pare back the lede in a manner that obfuscates the subject's connection to white supremacist movements can be a problem. This doesn't mean that Bacondrum is a problem - just that this edit in this context presents a problem. And I think that's the context in which Flyer22 was speaking. It's a heated page, as most far-right politics pages here are these days, but I think this is very premature to be at AN/I and would suggest a speedy close. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
"I have not reverted when challenged" but linked two diffs where they (Bacondrum) very clearly did revert when challenged. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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


  • Take a look at Bacondrum's edits to Alt-right. I think we're dealing with a POV editor here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Damn! Alt-right is under 1RR, so I had to self-revert my restoration of the massive undiscussed changes Bacondrum just made. This is why sometimes DS sanctions makes no damn sense at all, especially when all one is doing is restoring the status quo ante! Would somebody PLEASE restore what Bacondrum deleted from the article so that discussion can take place with the article in the status quo ante? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, Bacondrum has now deleted 37K bytes of reliably sourced material from Alt-right, all without substantive explanation or discussion on the article talk page. Is no one going to do anything about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an editor who created an account in September 2008, and then made 9 edits in the next 7 months, before starting editing in earnest in 2015. Doesn't that pattern strike a chord with anyone? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As I told them on their talk page, I think such sweeping deletions on a high-traffic article with no discussion were clearly poorly-considered, and I don't agree with all the removals (even the part I do agree with - mentioned on talk - could probably be preserved, just with a much smaller summary for WP:DUE reasons.) But they didn't edit war over it, so it's still just a content dispute at the end of the day; none of the removals strike me as so unreasonable as to be conduct issues just as a result of one sequence of WP:BOLD edits. And the deletions don't seem to follow a particular POV; mostly, their deletions were the causal factors and notable incidents sections, which (if I had to characterize the impact their deletion has on the article in POV terms) point in different directions. They didn't actually revert-war over these edits, so I'd just say they were a bit bad at judging how WP:BOLD they could be without it becoming reckless. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, as is clear, I disagree. 37K bytes of deletion of reliably sourced material without any prior discussion is not just "poorly considered", it's downright aggressive and uncollegial. It also gave him a first mover advantage because the article in under 1RR. The size of the deletions make them unreasonable, and their patent refusal to revert to the status quo ante in order that discussion take place just adds to the "recklessness". The deletions are, in effect, a massive whitewashing of the article, which I have every intention of reverting once it is legal for me to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from discussing the edits, and I am not stopping you from doing anything. You are making demands and I don't see why I need to respond to demands, you don't own the page. Bacondrum (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow. The fact that Bacondrum is performing more unilateral and substantial deletions of controversial content in far-right articles while this thread is still fresh, even continuing to blank content over the objections of an editor, is extremely concerning. I find it hard to believe that this isn't willful POV-pushing at this point. This should probably go to AE. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Swarm Um, that's a different issue and I've done nothing wrong on the Alt-right page. I think you are a bully and just have a general problem with me. Please point out one specific rule that I have clearly broken. Bacondrum (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Which rule have I broken?Edit

I'll accept what ever is coming to me if someone would kindly explain what rule I've broken in my recent edits at Alt-right. I've made good faith edits (I'm entitled to that assumption, aren't I?), I've not reverted back to any of my preferred version, not once, and I've attempted to discuss the edits in a polite manner on the talk page. So what is my crime, pray tell? Bacondrum (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that swarm appeared to be mocking me on this noticeboard recently, which I just think is grubby, bullying behavior and indicates that they have some kind of personal grievance with me, for reasons unknown. Bacondrum (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I was not mocking you, I was objectively addressing the only legitimate concern you raised. I was not being disingenuous, or mocking. I was addressing the issue in the only reasonable way that it could be addressed, with a straightforward redirection. Nothing about my statement was non-serious or sarcastic, which makes it a bit bizarre that Bacon would attempt to skew it as "bullying". Very strange. I'm not sure what alternative was being requested here. The fact that Bacon taking a legitimate redirection in response to a behavioral complaint they made, and claiming that it's mocking them, is nothing short of bizarre, really. This user does not appear to be on a reasonable wavelength. I'm very certain that this should be addressed at AE without rhetorical considerations. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
So you do mental health diagnosis too now. Unbelievable. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum, I'd suggest you should step away from the keyboard for a bit and cool your jets. Swarm is one of the most generally civil admins I know, and I think you have the wrong end of the stick that they were mocking you or doing mental health diagnosis - it would probably be in your best interest to ease off on the confrontational demeanor now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah...mental health diagnosis? While I noted that it was a fairly minor infraction, I still literally took your complaint seriously, and issued a correct behavioral redirection to the relevant editor accordingly, complete with a direct ping. You responded to this by accusing me of mocking, bullying and having a personal grudge against you, which, sorry, is a pretty bizarre response. I mean, I thoroughly clarified that your reaction was wholly unfounded and unreasonable, but rather than apologizing for the misunderstanding and admitting that you were being weirdly paranoid, you're now accusing me of diagnosing you with a mental illness?? We can't work with this. Your repeated self-victimization is not going to help you here, nor is your inability to see why making controversial mass deletions of content from contentious articles without a consensus is a red flag. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
"Which rule have I broken?" is exactly the wrong question for a WP editor to be asking. See WP:5P5. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so what have I done at the Alt-right article, the precise issue that I'm being reported for here, that I'm not supposed to have done, that requires intervention? I'd love to know, seriously. I'm not being given the assumption of good faith at all here, the complainant has accused me of tendentious editing, calling me "a POV editor" and I'm being accused by "the most generally civil admin" of "willful POV-pushing", of being "bizarre", "Disingenuous" (in other words, a liar), "Very strange" and not being on a "reasonable wavelength" (mentally unwell). That's civil is it? seems like a barrage of polite insults, but insults none the less, to me. (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I think this series of edits was not within the spirit of WP:CAREFUL (which specifically notes article sanctions as a reason to use extra care), and your edits here and on the article talk page are not within the spirit of WP:BATTLE. I am unconvinced that those examples "require intervention", as you say, but practically speaking I would expect you are going to exhaust other editors' patience pretty quickly at this rate. VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: this edit leads me to think you are not interested in voluntarily incorporating the feedback you've received here. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:SOCK distraction, no violation
  • @Bacondrum: You have a Wikipedia account. Please sign in and edit with it. Editing with an IP when you have a Wikipedia account -- as you did above -- can be considered to be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Just giving you a heads-up, since your understanding of Wikipedia's policies seems to be a little less complete than you appear to think it is. Also, please sign your comments, which you also forgot to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That wasn't WP:SOCKing. WP:SOCK is for when people use other accounts (or anonymous editing) abusively, (eg. to create the illusion of consensus, to avoid scrutiny, etc.) Simply using two accounts (or editing when both signed in and signed out) is not socking. Posting while logged out, with a first-person comment that makes it clear it's the same editor above, is obviously not an attempt to conceal their identity in an abusive manner; and in the context it was pretty obviously an accident (the Okay, so what have I done at the Alt-right article... bit immediately makes it clear who is speaking and makes it obvious they weren't trying to conceal their identity.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think it was glaringly obvious that there was no attempt to hide his identity, or to stack extra quasi-votes in a controversy, or any of the other bad things that real sockpuppets do. It and all that follow it, up to and including this, ought to be {{hat}}-ed. Qwirkle (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Folks, that's why I said it can be considered a violation, not that it wwas a violation. Had I thought that Bacondrum was doing it deliberately, to "avoid scrutiny" of their edits, I would have said so. After all, I'm not known to be one to not call a spade a spade. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

An outstanding questionEdit

There really is still an outstanding question in all of this: is Bacondrum a POV editor or not? I think a close look at all their recent edits, on Alt-right, Talk:Alt-right, Antipodean Resistance, Talk:Far-left politics, Template:alt-right footer and elsewhere indicates that this is an editor who is very determined to whitewash certain articles and downplay certain groups, to the detriment of our articles. I would suggest that other editors take a close look at their edits, while remembering that AGF is not something that hangs around forevre - once enough evidence has accumulated that there's a malevolent purpose behind someone's editing, AGFing is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 18 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)

Disruptive IPEdit

Blocked for 1 month by Admin NinjaRobotPirate. — Robvanvee 17:33, 17 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.

IP continues to add unsourced genre's here, here and here for example, despite repeated warnings and a previous block for the same reason. Almost definately a sock of the indeffed Gregotheus 01 but as I'm not completely familiar with SPI, I'll just be happy to see user reprimanded with a longer block so as to give them some time to learn some fundamental policies. Robvanvee 08:26, 16 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 EdJohnston. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:13, 16 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 editor doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Besides months of continually adding unsourced info to articles and ignoring what must be a record number of warnings on their talk page, amazingly without being blocked yet, their most recent edit pushed me to bringing this here. Purely disruptive and perhaps bordering on vandalism, they changed all the reviews to perfect scores here. Please could an admin take a look at the edits of this user. I could add diffs (happy to if need be) but just hovering your cursor over their contributions shows an unsourced addition on almost every entry. Robvanvee 09:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Definitely needing a block. They have a few changes that don't seem to be hostile (at least at a first glance), but multiple final warnings and some clear actions that don't just read as not understanding wikipedia's sourcing requirements. If they engaged then a temporary block might make sense, but I think an indef that required they actively demonstrate an understanding of their editing issues before unblock conditions are considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Per this edit which falsifies the scores received by the band Humanz on various rating sites. I've indefinitely blocked Edgar13298. Any admin may unblock if they become convinced that the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Technical questionEdit

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

As seen here [86] 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[87]? 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)


TracyMcClark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

After warning TracyMcClark stated in the edit summary "1 aware of and the other one is just stalking me. Please cut it out" This was a false allegation of someone stalking them. The edit summary was "Assuming good faith needs some honesty which isn't shown on Quack's side" This is rude. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC) e

Well, I wasn't going to be ready to bring this to ANI until next week. I began an editor review of TMC after they reverted QG with an incivil edit summary and made this incivil remark at WP:AN. My attempts to discuss this with TMC, were rebuffed here and here. Please note the edit summaries. Please note that message reversion is not the problem, the dismissal of my attempt to discuss is the problem. I let matters ride, but saw following incivility later. (I'll hae to come back with the dif's. I'm sorry. I was not ready.) I again tried to discuss with TMC, but they rebuffed my effort with the edit summary "...the other one [that would be me is just stalking me. Please cut it out"] So per WP:ADMINACCT I prepared to bring it here, but QG preempted me. TMC followed me to Eeng's talk page and again accused me of stalking. (Asking someone to stop being incivil and conducting an editor review when they refuse to discuss is not, in fact, stalking.) Soory, this is all jumblely. I am late.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, in quickly moving forward with my review, TMC has not made any incivil remarks toward QC (that I saw. That aren't that many edits) since I asked them to stop. So if we want to delve into the past that's one thing. If we want to leave b and hope for the best, that's another.' Sorry for the aggravation.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This goes back years. On 12 May 2017 the edit summary was "Undid revision 780090808 by Doc James (talk) You're a quite ridiculous activist. Don't post here again" On 16 July 2017 TracyMcClark wrote "Your shameful agenda is again duly noted." QuackGuru (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
TracyMcClark hasn't edited much in the last couple years - 225 edits from 2017 and much of that to the reference desk, however just peeking at their contributions one sees a great deal of hostility, and yes, incivility:
  1. 22:45, 25 May 2019 - WP:ASPERSIONS towards QuackGuru.
  2. 23:40, 6 May 2019 - personal attack - "I'm not surprised by your narrow mindedness that prevents any original thought" towards @WanderingWanda:.
  3. 22:46, 5 February 2019 - personal attack - " as usual blind ideology minded hate for everything that makes this subject....
  4. 00:02, 8 March 2019 - perosnal attack - sole content is talk diff by other user with header " Fucking unbelievable nonsense insulting my (still) hold sanity" - which may be also an attempt to canvass talk page watchers? Also - 22:45, 19 March 2019 is similar. Considering they have 72 talk page watchers, this does reach an audience.
  5. 21:34, 20 April 2018 - personal attack - referring to (I think) QuackGuru as "That w*****". Now, TracyMcClark uses precisely five asterisks (which by itself indicates this is something rude) and I think it is abundantly clear to anyone who is conversant in British (or greater Commonwealth) English what is meant by "w*****" - I would hazard a guess there is a K in the middle and that it ends with a R.
Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Icewhiz: Thanks for retrieving those dif's. That is in agreement with what I saw. Had I properly formatted this thread, I'd have posited a choice included WP:IBAN for interaction with QG. (Probably unworkable due to the overlap in interests.) And a formal expectation that TMC behave more civilly towards others. I believe there is a level of toxic behavior that has gone unaddressed for a long time. Having said that, my review also, (to be fair) showed TMC can be, and often is, quite helpful though a bit pedantic while helping. (I tend toward pedantry too, so I cannot hold that against them.)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock requestEdit

No admin intervention required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Upon my offering assistance to User:Elisa.rolle, she has requested my aid in unblocking her. I made the offer because I enjoyed reading the articles she prepared, some of which matched my interests. I went to User:Fram, who did the original block to let him or her know of the request, but I found that Fram, too, has been blocked. So now I am here to notify any interested Admin of this user's request & to hear suggestions on how I might proceed to honor it as far as I am able to. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any unblock request on their talk page. What do they have to say about the reasons for their block and the reasons for their appeal? ST47 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
As ST47's post suggests, generally speaking the editor subject to the sanction from which they're seeking relief must request an unblock, and absent exceptional circumstances, third-party requests are usually not granted. This board denied such a request the other day. If I were in your position, I'd recommend Elisa.rolle to read WP:GAB and WP:APPEAL and for her to leave an unblock request at her user talk page, which she is still able to do as she hasn't had talk page access revoked. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The user has not edited in six months, so you damn well better have an explanation for requesting an unblock on their behalf. I do not see such an explanation. Please come clean with what this is about, ASAP. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

ER was blocked for repeated copyright violations, among other things, by multiple admins (Fram's subsequent issues and/or behaviour are irrelevant, I imagine?). Can someone also remind ER that their talk page, while blocked, is solely for appealing blocks, not for speculation as to other editors motives and accusing them of attacks, which is completely unproductive. ——SerialNumber54129 11:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Kudpung: Well quite. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


No response to my note. and no further commentary. Also the IP was never notified of this discussion. OP is gently admonished to read the directions and advice at the top of the page before opening discussions here. ANI is not the first stop in a dispute and all involved parties must be notified of any discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disregard the first one. There is an anonymous user who is keep vandalizing List of It's Showtime cast members article without showing any proof or source that may allow him/her to edit specific information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vandalism. This looks like a content dispute. If you think there is vandalism here please cite diffs. Otherwise I would encourage you to have a look at WP:DR. No warnings have been issued as far as I can tell. Nor any attempt to engage on the article talk page. Also do you have an account? If so, please sign in. It makes things easier when trying to sort everything out. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Ongoing sourcing issues with OfficeBoyEdit

Since all the way back in 2009, OfficeBoy has been warned dozens of times by numerous users about sourcing issues, including adding content without sources, listing sources only in edit summaries, and using unreliable sources. Generally, OfficeBoy does not respond to messages, but when he does, he is invariably defensive and hostile. Despite numerous warnings, dozens of reversions, and a 3-day block on Feb 26, he has persisted in making these types of edits and shows no signs of stopping. I consider myself too involved to take administrative action against him, but I think it's time for the community to consider some kind of sanction against him to stop this behavior.

I first encountered OfficeBoy in Feb 2019 when he added some unsourced names to Bradford Bishop, which is on my watchlist. I reverted the edit as good faith but unsupported by the sources, and left a note on his talk, noticing other similar warnings from many other users. He restored the content two days later citing Find-A-Grave in his edit summary. TJRC reverted on Feb 13 as FG is not reliable. Throughout February, Flyer22 Reborn, TJRC, EEng, and myself all attempted to engage with OfficeBoy on his talk page. He responded with extreme hostility and dismissed concerns about unreliable sources: [88][89][90]. Around Feb 14, I spent some time looking through his contributions and either properly sourcing what I could, or removing what I couldn't. On Feb 26, Dekimasu blocked him for 3 days after he carried on making badly-sourced edits to other articles.

Since then, OfficeBoy has continued with the same behavior, including: [91][92][93][94] (unsourced edits), [95][96][97][98][99] (unreliable sources; those last two are from July 16), and [100][101] (hostility). That's not an exhaustive list, and there's plenty from before Feb 2019 as well. He has not made an edit to his talk page since February. It's clear that he has no interest in abiding by our policies and practices about sourcing and verifiability, no matter how many editors over a decade have tried to engage with him. He's wasted enough of other editors' time. It needs to stop. ♠PMC(talk) 06:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've notified OfficeBoy on his en and de talk pages, and the users I pinged above as well. ♠PMC(talk) 06:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid PMC is quite right: this guy just can't bring himself to follow the rules, and insists on basing edits on rootsweb, findagrave, and so on despite being warned a zillion times. Plus there's GO AHEAD, you ungrateful motherfuckers and you indescribably fussy, petty-minded moron and (my personal favorite) you source Nazis really suck (all linked above). At this rate he'll never be ruler of the Queen's Navy. EEng 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OB edits infrequently and mightn't have seen this. Perhaps if someone spoke to them in their mother tongue? At any rate, might we indef block until they have addressed the sourcing and incivility problems?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Death. Is coming. --The IT Crowd  Dlohcierekim (talk)
If knows enough English that he can write Seriously? Well, if you want to block a Wiki author of 15 years and of 600 written articles, GO AHEAD, you ungrateful motherfuckers. I usually put a source into my edits. I can't believe how this shitty platform treats its authors. Incredible. Kiss my ass, Wikipedia. Cheers., he obviously knows enough English to understand the many warnings he's been given.
I don't think he would claim that he does not know enough English to understand the discussion; but if that were the case, he probably shouldn't be editing English Wikipedia any more than I should be editing German Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) I agree with Dlohcierekim that a block would be appropriate until we confirm that the user understands the problems with their editing and will address them. Sandstein 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As one of the participants in trying to bring Officeboy in line with Wikipedia requirements, and the one who brought the issue to his attention, in both English and German, on his German Wikipedia talk page, I am in complete agreement with PMC's comments. OfficeBoy's edits are a net drain on Wikipedia. He makes his edits without regard for ensuring their verifiability, and uses sources that he has repeatedly been warned are not reliable. He is damaging Wikipedia, and has demonstrated that he has no intention of stopping, rejecting any guidance and warning, over and over and over again. He depends on other editors to follow and mop up after him.
Perhaps even worse, he obviously sometime has sources (mostly not WP:RS ones, though), because he'll put a link in his edit summary... and he still will not include them in his edits. Again, it's up to other editors to follow him and clean up after him.
He's been given so many warnings for so long, and been blocked, and still persists in his misbehavior. I don't see any alternative to either an indef block; or alternatively a long-term (say a year) block with a warning that the block will be made indefinite if he resumes his damaging edits. TJRC (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Too nuanced. He's had a zillion warnings, which he's openly thumbed his nose at. Simply indef him until he's able to show he understands what's expected, and then a long probation under threat of sudden death. Note to T&S: Not a threat of literal death. EEng 16:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@TJRC: My dad thought in German but spoke English beautifully. I never heard him make that sort of utterance. Perhaps we can indef him (OB, not my dad) till he rinses out his potty mouthDlohcierekim (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My tolerance level this type of disruption hovers near 0. I've blocked OfficeBoy indefinitely with instructions on how they can be unblocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Block threats to meEdit

Dear admins, if you look at this page, you can see carefully that I removed unsourced content I also remove unencyclopedic propaganda. But this user Roscelese is accusing me of vandalism. Her threats on my user page are growing day by day and I feel like quitting Wikipedia. I hope this is on the correct page. The edit warring page was too complicated to file the report. Dagana4 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You deleted a bunch of content supported by sources. While the claims seem a little WP:EXTRAORDINARY on the surface, it would be wise to engage at talk rather than accusing others of vandalism or propaganda. Suggest taking the discussion to WP:RS/N WRT the reliability of the sources from the disputed para and voluntarily closing this premature thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
But why are you ignoring the threats I got? Dagana4 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You said I deleted a bunch of content supported by sources but all of that content is WP:OFFTOPIC for History of Kolkata. I just saw it again. Dagana4 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
They're not threats, they're warnings because you've been repeatedly reinstating your edits, and continued disruption will result in a block. That is disruptive and, in this particular case, can be considered vandalism since you're removing huge chunks of content with no real explanation other than that the content you're removing is allegedly false allegations. Amaury • 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Precisely - those are actually template warnings, the recommended method of cautioning a user that their comportment may be falling outside of Wikipedia's expected norms. If you believe a source is being misrepresented or is a fringe source, you should raise the issue at article talk, WP:FRINGE/N and WP:RS/N. You should not call the edits vandalism, you should not call the edits propaganda and you definitely shouldn't start an WP:AN/I post about some template warnings from multiple editors responding to your pattern of disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Incivility by User:AmauryEdit

Amaury has been cautioned to tone it down and has agreed to do so. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I stumbled across this edit by User:Amaury which has a pretty unnecessary edit summary "And it already says, dumbass", which is both uncivil and biting a new user - especially as the edit they rolled back looks like a good faith edit to me. I left a gentle reminder to be civil on Amaury's talk page, which was reverted with the edit summary "Don't care. People should be able to read", which seems like an unproductive response. Editors should care about civility. It looks like Amaury has a history of offensive and uncivil edit summaries [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109] (these are all in the last 3 weeks). Given Amaury's reaction to my message, I don't feel like I can productively continue the conversation, so was hoping an admin could help Amaury understand that this behavior isn't helpful and politely ask them to stop. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Distinctly unhelpful edit summaries - if these were at the end of long ongoing disputes I could understand (not support, but understand) but many of these seem to jump to rudeness as a first port of call. If nothing else, I feel I'd need to ask Amaury how the rudeness is more productive at convincing people to Amaury's POV then a more civil approach Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nosebagbear - the level of aggression in these edit summaries is totally uncalled for. Amaury, at the risk of being condescending, I'd like to offer a piece of advice. When I come across a good faith but problematic edit that has been made by a fairly new account, I try to imagine that it was made by my mother, who may for all I know have recently started editing. I find that approach helpful in formulating an appropriate form of words for how to explain what was wrong with their edit. As for repeat offenders, it's worth reading WP:DENY - aggression rarely helps, it just feeds the trolls.
Basically, if you think the edit is in good faith, be polite; if you think they're trolling, then just revert and ignore. There's never any justification for insults, or for naughty sweary-words, unless you're communicating with someone you know won't be offended. GirthSummit (blether) 19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
All of these edits are against IPs editing children's film and entertainment, which certainly doesn't deserve this kind of language. I understand these kinds of editors can be frustrating (I've basically brushed it off and used guiding personal summaries to help them out), but you pretty much have to explain and help them out rather than curse them out for what definitely all look like innocent mistakes (one of them was immediately warned with a uw-4 (!) for no justifiable reason). This needs to stop, and very quickly. Nate (chatter) 19:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Blimey - that's a very good point, I'd overlooked the nature of the articles. Amaury has most likely been cursing out minors with these edit summaries. Please replace the reference above to 'my mother' with 'an enthusiastic and good-natured child'. I think Amaury needs to give a strongly worded affirmation that they will change their approach to editing pronto, or be TBANNED from editing articles about children's entertainment. GirthSummit (blether) 20:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Minor incident being blown out of proportion. Warn and move on. I would be strongly opposed to any kind of Tban. --bonadea contributions talk 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
With respect (I truly mean that) Bonadea, it's not a minor incident: it's a series of incidents. We can argue about whether they're minor or not, but the string of diffs above looks like a pattern of behaviour that the user believes to be acceptable. To be clear, I'm not looking for an immediate TBAN; I'm hoping that the user will recognise that being aggressive and swearing in edit summaries, and handing out 4im warnings for apparently good faith edits, it totally inappropriate on any page; on a page about children's entertainment, even more so. If they affirm that they will desist, I'd be satisfied with that; a TBAN seems to me to be a necessary alternative. GirthSummit (blether) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Ad Orientem, greatly appreciated. Railfan23 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism to a Cultural ContributionEdit

Closing - there's nothing to do here. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User locked:

Reason Vandalism:

Vandalism here. Erase a to cultural contribution


At the same time in French
At the same time in German

Vandalism objective:

Delete this it's photograph if it is not used

Thank you --Historiadormundo (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: He was skip the blockade--Historiadormundo (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Boy, so very not vandalism. It appears you are trying to put into the article a picture of someone who isn't the subject of the article, but that you think looks like the subject of the article. There's nothing encyclopedic about that. Deletion from the article is appropriate. Deletion from Commons is outside the boundaries of this board, but seems likely to be appropriate as well. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Um... he's now randomly tagging IP editors as a sock, perhaps in retaliation to being blocked for sockpuppetry on Commons? Can someone look at this please? 2001:4898:80E8:3:BD15:1416:1A93:77C0 (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 took care of it. –MJLTalk 01:04, 18 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)

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" [110]

Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [111]

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" [112]

Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [113]

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [114] [115] His reply to the template message [116]

Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [117]

Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [118] [119]

Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [120]

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [121] [122]

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. [123] [124] [125]

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)
[126] 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)

───────────────────────── [127] 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: [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]

[146] 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 ([147]) or implement them in some articles ([148]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([149]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([150], [151], [152]), 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: [153] 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)

[154] 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)

[155] 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 [[156]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
as does this [[157]]. 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 [158] 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 [159], follow by him recreating it again follow by another delete [160]. 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 plays out both directly and indirectly, both in plain sight and invisibly.


  • 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 hd 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: [161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178]
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)

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)


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 [179] clearly shows you drew your conclusion well before the conversation was continued. When you made your edits, the conversation actually looked like this [180] 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)

Attempted POV edits on Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's deathEdit

This article is under pending changes, and an IP is attempting to skew it by removing the word "falsely" from the image caption "Photograph which falsely purports to show Hitler with a self-proclaimed former SS trooper in 1954, from a CIA document". Of course, there is no doubt whatsoever about the falseness of the claim. I've reverted twice, but have to protect myself -- so could an admin please remove pending changes -- which carries with it the possibility of an editor attempting to protect the article being dinged for edit warring -- and semiprotect it instead? The IP involved is User:2a00:23c7:cf06:200:ac11:4f26:9556:ba37. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done. El_C 03:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I'd have gone to RFPP, but sometimes those requests are rejected because the admin looks quickly, sees what looks like an edit war, and doesn't get the context that a blatantly false "fact" is being attempted to be inserted in the article -- and so refuses the request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2019

(UTC) ─────────────────────────Isn't there an element of redundancy in the formulation "falsely purports", since the word "purports" already carries with it a strong connotation of falsehood? It reads awkwardly to me. I have no disagreement about the need to convey the conclusion of all reliable sources that these conspiracy theories lack merit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


Requesting an indef block of this user who refuses to comply with some of Wikipedia's guidelines, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS in particular, even though he has been warned in the past by some editors multiple times in his talk. Most of edits have been pretty disruptive; for instance, in the Darna (upcoming film) article, his recent additions were not in the source he provided [181], and in the Jane De Leon article he claims that a movie is to be released in 2020 even though there's no official release date for it [182]. User is also guilty of copyright violation by uploading this photo which he copied directly from this news article without copyright permission from the author. This editor is just too good for this site's policies. Slightlymad (talkcontribs) 04:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)