MundusEditus

Welcome!

Hello, MundusEditus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Help

Greetings - I have a vandalism complaint - how to escalate?

I first registered with Wikipedia in 2011 to contribute on the following article, having been an owner of various Mitsubishi Magna's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Magna

I recontributed to the article today, 6 May 2014, after noticing endless changes to the article over the last few days.

User OSX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OSX) has been vandalising/hijacking the article and causing unnecessary argument over other users' attempt to change the article's main photograph in the lead infobox to a more relevant first generation of the Mitsubishi Magna.

The History refers https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitsubishi_Magna&action=history

I happen to agree with other users (that OSX has accused me of being and/or abetting) that the more appropriate photograph for this article is that of the first generation Magna and not the white third generation TE sedan, which OSX is insistently reverting on.

OSX has been relying on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CARPIX, which surely are guidelines only.

Be that as it may, contrary to those guidelines, the white TE sedan photograph equally in breach by reference to criterion because it has been digitally altered to remove damage (front right fender/side panel), features number plates and is not recognizable by model code, trim level or related descriptor. Only a year range and generic "Magna" description is used. This could be either an Executive or Advance model - without a rear photograph, it cannot be conclusively determined.

By contrat, first generation TN Magna Elite sedan photograph (that OSX has since deleted from Wikimedia Commons) was just as representative and a more appropriate photograph for this article.

He is literally acting as a tyrant and bully.

This complaint has been prompted by his accusation that my account is fake and that I am otherwise supporting the original complainant. This complainant's grounds for changing away from the white TE Magna are sound - in Australia, automotive media and publications ALWAYS rely on photographs of the first generation Magna (or, indeed, the last) for articles on historical vehicles. The online example quoted in the History refers to this self-explanatory article - http://www.drive.com.au/motor-feature/a-salute-to-australias-10-most-important-cars-20120119-1q7ik.html

At the Australian Motor Museum in South Australia (where this vehicle was produced), the exhibited models are indeed the first generation Magna - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9543542653/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9543532829 and https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9543551821

The only other Magna at the Museum is a 1996 Magna/Verada - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9546350234/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9543569093

The significance of the first generation Magna is not that it was just the first, but also that it created the medium-large car sector in Australia (hence why the above DRIVE publication celebrates it as a Top 10 most important Australian car). The significance of the 1996 model above is that it is the first mass exported Australian-made vehicle to the USA. The TE Magna series, whose pic OSX is obsessively using, has no comparable significance and is not as representative.

Notably, having examined the History, it seems that OSX also had issue with a third generation TJ Magna VR-X sedan photograph claiming that it is an "obscure" special. It is not. As the article says, the VR-X model was a standard variant since the third generation TE and it is the most consistently and longest used nomenclature used by Mitsubishi Australia. Ironically, probably more VR-X have been produced than the unknown Executive and/or Advance TE model that OSX wants.

Can peace and cooperation be returned on this article?

OSX has gone beyond the reasonable - accusing me via the History without basis, and reversing photographs just to please his desire. Going by his Wikimedia gallery, he has other playgrounds he can play in.

What's the most appropriate way to escalate this other than manual reversions of the page?

Cheers MundusEditus (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)MundusEditus Australian Capital Territory

Original, high quality image in compliance with WP:CARPIX.

Lower-quality image proposed by MundusEditus. Issues are as follows: non-stock hubcaps, glare and shadows over the body work, damaged A-pillar, distracting and overexposed background.

It is so annoying how you keep changing identities. The whole sock puppetry thing is beyond a joke, there is no need to change your IP address three times and then create sock puppet accounts and pretend you are different people. Anyway, as has been explained to you time and time again with great difficulty in light of your persistent changing of online identities at frequent pace—we have image standards here—I personally find your clear lack of comprehension both baffling and amusing. Your poor taste in judgement of photographic quality is also a worrying attribute.

Quoted below from WP:CARPIX are the image guidelines developed by automobile editors over many years through consensus:

The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other.

...pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines; one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background. Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background..

As we choose the best quality image, not your favourite generation, your edits are against the policy and will be reverted for the vandalism that they are. It is vandalism to hijack an article for your own emotional attachment to these cars.

I repeat, because of your apparent inability to recognise this, there is no requirement that the main image be of the first/original version. This has never been the case, and all previous arguments based on this objective have failed as image selection is based on quality (so long as the image is representative). The TE sold in record numbers for Mitsubishi, it is a highly relevant model, with far more examples on the road than the now rare first generation.

The long-standing white image was replaced without consensus and in clear violation of WP:CARPIX. You have used images that are crooked, show a dirty car, have bad reflections, are overexposed, offer skewed and distracting backgrounds, images taken from an awkward height, images of non-stock cars with modifications (aftermarket hubcaps), etc.

In contrast the long-standing TE image is of a clean car in very good condition (especially since I edited out the dent yesterday), it is of the correct 3/4 view angle showing both the front and sides very well, contrasted against an attractive and simple natural background. The image is also free of glare/shadows and other distractions that none of your replacement photos manage to avoid. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it was the editor whose username is at the top of this page who asked for help, that is the editor I will try to help. If you are involved in an edit war, then there is not much I can do, because I am not an admin. I have not checked the article in question, but I shall assume that if you are willing to edit war on your talk page, then you would probably edit war in an article, as well. If an editor has problems such as you describe above, then instead of an edit war, you can raise the issue at the administrators' noticeboard. If you truly believe that you are in the right and that you have been wronged by another editor, then that is the place to go on Wikipedia.

We can also note that WP:CARPIX whisks us away to a section of a project page that is an information page only; it neither policy nor guideline. That page reflects consensus from members of the involved WikiProject and, while it not even a guideline yet, it should also not be ignored. Involved editors should consider raising that page to at least the level of guideline.

Also, in regard to this edit summary from this talk page: Restore user comment, you are not allowed to delete discussions by other users, that is true everywhere except on a user's talk page. This user may alter their user pages as they see fit within the usual policies and guidelines. WP:TALK tells us, Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred.

In closing, let me say that if you both have been involved in any edit war, then you should both strongly consider backing away from the issue for a time. This will hopefully give you both a perspective that includes what Wikipedia has achieved and may achieve in the future. I know that there are times when it seems that an edit war is the only way to resolve things, but the fact that it is possible for both of you to be blocked from editing, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, should say something to you about what this encyclopedia is not all about. You both seem very knowledgable and sincere, and you also appear to be extremely passionate about, and very close to, the subject of these cars. For this, neither of you can be faulted. To both of you, I wish only the best of everything! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Mitsubishi Magna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, socking, unjustified vandalism accusations, breach of WP:AGF, etc, as you did at Mitsubishi Magna. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MundusEditus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, how are youuuuuu. New to wiki. Sorry but I did not understand the editing restriction applied to everything. I thought it was related only to material that is in dispute - i.e. the photograph in the lead infobox - which I have not changed following the above intervention :) The edits done since were: (i) minor; (2) non-controversial; (3) add to, and did not revert or substract from, the original content (e.g. I only added specifics of the related vehicles and more trivia with a reference in support). Also, what's this "unjustified vandalism accusation"? Am I being accused or OSX? The latter compromised the content by deleting his own photographs from the article (ironically, they were worthy of inclusion but he deleted them in retaliation) but that's already been dealt with I trust :) Finally, what's this "socking" thing all about? OSX's claim that I am others?! This account was registered in 2011 if I remember correctly. Edits from various IP were by others in the same LAN. Do keep the suspension on if you think appropriate but I hope the above will give indication that there was nothing controversial or intentional in the latest edits made to bits not in dispute. It is unfortunate that an experienced Wiki user (from what I read after the appreciated intervention) chose to wage an edit war - I had no idea rules on the number of edits applied! Where can these and others be read? My edits on other pages have caused no dramas - they were all made in good faith, as in the case of the main photograph in the lead infobox. If there has been any resolution to the edit war it's because I followed all that I have been told to do so far (and will continue to, especially were helpfully explained) - some credit should be given about this. Bye Bye then MundusEditus (talk)

Decline reason:

I see no acknowledgement in this unblock request, or even below, that accusing someone of vandalism for being in disagreement (per WP:NPA) is wrong. I also don't buy the "my brother did it" argument given below about the sockpuppet. The IP sockpuppets have also not been acknowledged. I think you got off a bit easy only being blocked for two weeks considering how many policies you've violated at once. Be thankful that you have a relatively short time to wait for editing privileges to be restored, and hopefully when they are restored you'll be more collegial and less combative, or the next block may be indefinite. -- Atama頭 20:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Let me give you this:

• First off, please read our policy regarding edit warring.
• The "unjustified vandalism accusations" were what you did when you accused OSX of vandalism. Their edits were just as disruptive as yours, but they were not vandalism.
• You created used another account, P8-poseidon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and edited while logged out, to make it appear that your position in the dispute had more support. This is known as sockpuppetry.

Since I investigated your sockpuppetry, I won't act on your unblock request, but after you read and understand this information, you may want to revise your request. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response DoRD! Ok, so - as variation to my request:

• I honestly did not know of "edit warring" until User:Paine_Ellsworth mentioned it, so apologies for that one!
• In the context of "accusations", is the deliberate deletion of content also just edit warring? I did not delete Wikimedia Commons photographs to make them no longer available, this silly dispute was just confined to the main photograph in the lead infobox but then the other experienced user started compromising other parts without removing the then empty photo boxes
• Thanks for pointing out the User:P8-poseidon ... I am (partly) responsible for that one! That's my brother's account whom I introduced to Wiki after he wanted to post something about the lost MH370 flight... it predates this dispute if you check so was not created for this edit warring. I will have to have a word with him for calling me a CLOWN lol

I would like to make some edits further down in the Mitsubishi Magna article (just adding extra info in another area that was not in dispute) but if I have to serve the suspension, so be it. To err is human and to self-correct is to learn, so I appreciate the clarifications :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MundusEditus (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me - the other account was indeed created before this dispute began. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Indef blocked

I've indef blocked this account due to the persistent socking and use of sleeper accounts. Any admin is free to review without my input. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)