Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2A1ZA (talk | contribs) at 07:26, 28 August 2018 (→‎Marjdabi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Ethnoreligiously aggressive editor with borderline religious racism

    Reported user blocked as a suck puppet. Swarm ♠ 07:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The main case here is a new (a Single-purpose account) user. By his own confession, he is not here to build a wiki. The main article (practically his only field) is Syrians

    1- Evidence for Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia:

    2- Evidence for being ethnically biased anti-Christian?:

    3- Evidence for his battlefield mentality:

    4- Evidence for being rude, disrespectful and aggressive:

    • He mocked me, and made several accusations, but I dont care, I wont report these. However, his behaviour is like this toward anyone who doesnt agree with him; he scolded George Al-Shami and these are some quotes:
    You clearly a POV Levantine nationalist, your editorial behaviors, siding with other Levantine nationalists, your username also proves my point.
    Gosh... i am not even gonna waste my time arguing this horseshit opinion
    • He use inappropriate language (you can already see in former sections of this report)
    this is just another levantine nationalists garbage of an article
    Pointing out obvious things is "aggressive"??. well them, i am probably am "aggressive".

    5- I asked him many times to stop with personal insults and aggressiveness, to no avail. This has taken almost two months of wasting our time, and in the end, he wants a SYNTH to be approved represented with this:

    A genetic study concluded that Muslims in the Arabic speaking world show genetic similarities due to the spread of religion. Nacirian wants to replace the word religion with the word Arab. He want to use the results of Lebanese Muslims, who are closer to Syrians than Lebanese Christians are, due to Arabian gene flow, to say that Syrian Muslims are also distant from Syrian Christians due to Arabian gene flow, which is not mentioned by the study.

    Summary: I think this guy clearly showed that he is not here to build Wiki, just to defend his personal views, which he admitted here: and i am Syrian Arab Muslim, i care about my own people, i am not really interested in the Lebanese Christians.

    That is why I think that he should be stopped from editing the article. I have to mention that currently, the consensus of editors that contributed to the article is against him. So, this report isnt to win an argument, but to stop this flow of insults and waste of time with an editor who came here to fight.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uninvolved Editor Comment There's been a huge amount of back and forth between these two editors lately. Prior to their edits there seemed to be something of a consensus version, which I've reverted to. I'm not a geneticist and don't think I can help with adjudicating the findings of genetic ethnographies, but I think it prudent to wait until this dispute is sorted out before either editor makes major changes to the article. Simonm223 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree with you about changes. But this isnt a content dispute. This is about the behavior of the editor. Your note make it sound as if it is a content dispute, which might lead the admins to ignore the whole report! This isnt about an edit war, and no 3rr was ever broken.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Simonm223 please take a look at the original version of the Syrians article, so you can see the irony in this. Nacirian (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: The following was originally threaded through the original post, instead of placed after. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The main case here is a new (a Single-purpose account) user. By his own confession, he is not here to build a wiki. The main article (practically his only field) is Syrians

    excuse me for being a new user, but i have actually edited more than 5 articles.
    the reason why i am not that active on other articles, is that i am trying to finish one article after another, not jumb in between.
    when we reach a consensus on the Syrians article, i will shift my attention to other articles.
    PS: he accused me of being "ethno-religious biased" when i was literally in between 5 to 10 edits... and there was no hint of that other than me arguing unsourced SYNTH additions, which hilariously is now removed in the modern version. Nacirian (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1- Evidence for Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia: *He admitted coming here after an argument on youtube regarding the article. I quote him: (and yeah i argued with someone months ago on you tube who made a mention to this article and i told him, and excuse my language, that "it's a garbage article run by Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nts", and it's partly why i am here, lol...)

    you wanted to know about it, so i quoted the argument.
    BTW, it's "partly why i am here". Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2- Evidence for being ethnically biased anti-Christian?: *This user believe that Syrians are Arabs from Arabia (thats not our issue). In Academia, there are different opinions, most emphasize on the pre-Islamic pre-Arabian origin. When an editor, George Al-Shami recommended the name of a scholar, Philip Khuri Hitti, who is a Christian, and who supported the pre-Arabia origin, Nacirian said: "by people like Philip Hitti"... a Lebanese Maronite Christian??, no wonder. Its like, in his opinion, being a Maronite disqualify you or make you necessarily biased!

    "This user believe that Syrians are Arabs from Arabia".
    putting words in my mouth.
    you think Syrians are only "Levantine Semitic".
    And i am trying to balance out the article. and people can clearly see an improvement in being more direct with the sources in the modern version, compared with the original one.
    thanks to Doug and my intervention.
    and bringing the opinion of a historian to a geneticist debate is obviously useless and unneeded.
    taking the opinion of a Maronite on the subject of the arab identity is like taking the opinion of an Israeli on the subject of Palestinians, or taking the opinion of a Palestinian on the subject of Israelis, etc.
    being cautious on the reliability of the sources isn't wrong, he might be right or wrong. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    *Here, he asks me if Im a Christian and say: so you're a christian?, no offence, but i am really not surprised... I have no idea why he think its important, but he seems to believe that being a Christian means you are Anti-Arab or Anti-Muslim (Im not a Christian if anyone is interested). He is really not surprised that Im a Christian and he think that Im a Triggered Aramean nationalist and a Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nt. So is this what Christians are for him?

    I was being sarcastic when i said "Triggered Aramean nationalist", and it was a reply to your sarcastic comment.
    and i never called you a "Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nt" on Wikipedia. i was quoting an argument on you tube about you. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    3- Evidence for his battlefield mentality: *He think that other editors have no business in the discussion between me and him. When editor George Al-Shami contributed, he told him: last but not least, intervening in this discussion and also on Doug Weller page, where no one asked your opinion

    there's nothing wrong with him contributing to the argument on the Syrians talk page, but why on Doug Weller talk page? I clearly did not ask his opinion, neither did anyone. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    *He shows no possibility for a compromise that will give some of his edits, which are a direct SYNTH actually, a place in the article: he say: I told you that your watered down version of it will never be accepted by me. I will explain how he is directly committing SYNTH in another section of this report.

    anyone can go to the history of the Syrian article, and see the true meaning of SYNTH. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    5- I asked him many time to stop with personal insults and aggressiveness, to no avail. This has taken almost two months of wasting our time, and in the end, he wants a SYNTH to be approved represented with this:

    "This has taken almost two months".
    don't forget that i was avoided for 54 days, the only time here wasted was mine. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A genetic study concluded that Muslims in the Arabic speaking world show genetic similarities due to the spread of religion. Nacirian wants to replace the word religion with the word Arab. He want to use the results of Lebanese Muslims, who are closer to Syrians than Lebanese Christians are, due to Arabian gene flow, to say that Syrian Muslims are also distant from Syrian Christians due to Arabian gene flow, which is not mentioned by the study.

    the word arab, is literally impeded in the article, anyone can open the link and see for themselevs, or just take a look at the argument in the syrians talk page, or the history of the Syrians article, as i have provided every single statement with a directly quoted source. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this guy clearly showed that he is not here to build Wiki, just to defend his personal views, which he admitted here: and i am Syrian Arab Muslim, i care about my own people, i am not really interested in the Lebanese Christians.

    I said i only care about my own people, the Syrian population, stop taking words out of context. I only told you that when you told me to go put the Lebanese genetics test to the Lebanese article, i would, but i don't care. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That is why I think that he should be stopped from editing the article. I have to mention that currently, the consensus of editors that contributed to the article is against him. So, this report isnt to win an argument, but to stop this flow of insults and waste of time with an editor who came here to fight.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Doug Weller actually agreed with me that the version of the article, before i started the discustion on the talk page, is clearly a SYNTH landmine.
    and people can see a huge difference between the pre-discustion verison of the article, and the modern version.
    talk about "SYNTH"... Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) [1] Between Aug 18 and Aug 20 every edit is one of the two of you either introducing a new edit or removing the edits of the other. On August 19, you came very close to WP:3RR - and stopped just short. But an edit war isn't defined by the third revision - that's just a brightline for such behaviour. Two people repeatedly reverting each other over a weekend and never quite going over the brightline certainly might count. That's why I reverted back to the version by George Al-Shami - who had previously reverted to the version by Doug Weller - who had previously reverted to the version by יניב הורון - IE: A consensus version. Simonm223 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This consensus version was dirsupted in 18 Aug with a huge undiscussed edit that I reverted twice then we went to the talk page. So, you did what I did. My later edits were attempting to implement Nacirian's desired edits. I think you need to read the full discussion on the talk page and see the edits. Your stance now is hasty and not based on the full image.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    the "undiscussed edit" came after the first "undiscussed" "without gaining a consensus" edit. Nacirian (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said before, I'm un-involved in this dispute. I went to the page because I do have a serious concern about racism, and often keep an eye on pages where racism might become a problem, and what I saw was... a complete mess. I certainly don't dispute that quite a few things were said by Nacirian that were completely beyond the pale. But you also said some questionable things on talk. And the mess that last discussion is in makes it very hard for me to get a sense of the chronology of that argument. As for consensus on talk?I had to go back to August 4 to find a substantive edit to the talk page that wasn't one of the two of you. I don't feel comfortable or qualified choosing a side in this debate and sincerely hope that the three editors I mentioned in my previous comment can weigh in with their perspective on this mess. But honestly? That talk page is almost impossible to read at this point. So if my revert restored it largely to your version, that's fine. But please just keep it that way until this mess is sorted out.
    The fact is that you really do seem to have been edit-warring and here I'm going to talk as somebody who was there. Because the time I let myself get dragged into a protracted edit war I was pretty much certain I was on the side of the angels. And, just like in this case, the involved editors stayed just this line of WP:3RR for a long time before it eventually devolved into general sanctions, all kinds of unpleasantness and me burning out bad enough that even though I hadn't pulled any bans or blocks I took a 2 year break from Wikipedia and voluntarily walked away from those articles entirely. I'm not suggesting you should do that. But I am suggesting that it would be probably for the best to maintain what appears, from the article edit history, to be a consensus version until the other participants, who have largely been silent on this article for the last two weeks, had a chance to weigh in. Simonm223 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Simonm223 i agree with your action, a consensus needs to be reached before anyone can go ahead and edit or rewrite the article. Nacirian (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Simonm223, I understand your argument, but my objection is that this report isnt about edit wars, or the content of the article. I dont want the admins to refer me to the edit war notice-board, or a content dispute one, because thats not what Im complaining about. This report is about his behavior and words and reason to be here. Thats why I made this report. (Just to clear today's edits: He asked for a change in the History section and I made that change).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    there's nothing wrong with pointing out obvious things.
    after all, you were the one who started "pointing fingers".([2] Nacirian (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nacirian Can you please indent your comments correctly? Simonm223 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified the three editors I referenced previously as creators of a consensus version of this article and asked for them to comment here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I would point out that I tried to engage Nacirian in a constructive dialogue over here, and this is how he responded; in a very vile manner, unbefitting of any Wiki editor, newbie or experienced, I don't think he should get off the hook for being that uncivil. He has employed the C word on editors who he has disagreed with, even though they have employed reputable scholarly sources.
    Secondly, Nacirian has shown really bad faith by questioning a scholarly source's research based on their religion. When I mentioned Philip Hitti, who single-handedly built the Near East department at Princeton University, was fluent in Syriac and Hebrew, and authored many books on the history of Syria; he totally shrugged off and discounted Hitti's impressive scholarly work based on the fact that Hitti was Christian. This very problematic behavior is further displayed when he inquires whether Attar is Christian or not. Therefore for Nacirian academic credibility is based on one's faith.
    As to the disagreement between Attar and Nacirian, I think Attar's well-rated work on Wikipedia, such as the [article] Ebla, speaks for itself (he has a number of GA Wiki articles under his belt). In one instance Attar says "The paragraph you are using is saying: religion. You cant replace it with Arab if you want it to match the source."; I concur, changing that one word from "religion" to "Arab" totally changes the meaning.
    Perhaps, if the contested passages are numbered in an organized fashion with the two different versions being voted on by involved and uninvolved editors, would that help? George Al-Shami (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look!, it's George and he's siding with Attar.
    I did not expect that at all!.
    Firstly, what's wrong with my reply??, i don't see it as "vile".
    That article, since 2014, has been only a "Levantine Nationalist Garbage/Crap/Agenda of an article", and i stand by that statement.
    I am not gonna be PC about it.
    Again, if you don't believe me, just look at the pre-discussion version of the article and try to compare it with the modern one.
    I have never "employed the C word" on any editors, i don't know what you mean by the "C Word".
    "even though they have employed reputable scholarly sources.", baseless.
    Secondly, I have questioned the usage of a source by a maronite historian in an argument on genetics.
    Being cautious on the reliability of the sources isn't wrong, biasedness is a thing.
    His religion doesn't matter, if you haven't noticed, I've quoted back to you Irfan Shahîd, who is a Palestinian Christian.
    So, my "academic credibility" is not "based on one's faith".
    As for the rest of your opinionated statement on the argument between me and Attar, just proves my point that you will only take the side of Attar in any argument.
    You're using the same "illogical/persuasive/time wasting" reason to counter my directly sourced material.
    His work on one article doesn't excuse the fact that "the Syrians" article, is nothing more than a "SYNTH" Landmine. Nacirian (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-Admin Comment At this point it seems unlikely that either of the other two editors who had recent prior involvement in the page are likely to respond to this. Suggestion - although it seems both parties engaged in edit warring behaviour, Attar-Aram syria has been willing to co-operate with other editors and, when asked nicely, ceased edit-warring behaviour pending a solution to the dispute here. Furthermore, they have a pretty solid history of constructive participation in Wikipedia. On the other hand Nacirian has, on this thread, shown pretty incivil behaviour, and his claims not to have used particularly foul language with regard to editors on this page hangs on the weak defense that he replaced a vowel with an * and was referring to things he said about the users on Youtube, though he was making said reference on a Wikipedia talk page. And he persists in his argument that there's some sort of Levantine Christian cabal at work here, despite the evidence to the contrary, which is pretty much religious discrimination. Absent any further feedback from other editors at the page, it does seem pretty clear that Nacirian is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nacirian is a suck puppet of a long term abuse indefinitely blocked user: it has been confirmed that Nacirian is related to the blocked vandal Ehsan iq. This is the result of the user check.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am rather sure the term is sock puppet, rather than suck puppet. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:FenceSitter

    This discussion on User talk:FenceSitter indicates that FenceSitter is an alternate account. In that discussion, which took place two days ago, admin User:Abecedare advises FenceSitter to post the relationship between the two accounts: "update your userpage". I see no indication that this has been done.

    On User:FenceSitter, the statement is made:

    FenceSitter is a single-purpose account narrowly limited to improving Wikipedia.

    Presumably, every legitimate account on Wikipedia is here to improve the project in some way. Those who are not here for that purpose are frequently blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Given that, how is it possible for this statement to be the presentation of a legitimate use for an alternate account? If every (legitimate) account is here to improve Wikipedia, how does that allow making another account "limited to improving Wikipedia" allowable?

    I don't believe it does, and I ask that either an admin step in and block FenceSitter, or that the community ban the account as a special interest account focused entirely on "improving" articles on Identitarianism to make them more palatable to the general public, and thereby WP:PROMOTE identitarianism. [3]

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I could imagine a situation where a good faith editor creates a second account to handle a controversial topic in ways they feel are necessary but which would be unpopular within this community. Not saying that's the case here, though.
    Unless a member of ArbCom or a CU can confirm for us that FenceSitter has disclosed their original account to them, then not only should FenceSitter be blocked but a CU should try to reveal their original account so that user can at least be topic banned from political articles.
    Because of the possibility they emailed ArbCom and forgot to leave a note on their page saying "ArbCom knows," I haven't blocked yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not disclosed my main account to ArbCom or CheckUser.
    • "narrowly limited to improving Wikipedia" is a joke. If it is inappropriate, I can replace it with a more serious clarification.
    • Since the issue of COI was raised on my talk page: I am not a member of, or in any way involved with, any identitarian group, in the broadest senses of "involved with" and "identitarian".
    • I regret using this account in discussions internal to the project, in violation of WP:ILLEGIT, including especially the AN/I case of LiamNotNeeson/DistractedOften, and have committed not to do so again.
    • I do not believe I am pushing any POV. I do believe that a lot of articles around "identitarianism" lack nuance, mostly due to, I believe, the out-group homogeneity effect of editors disgusted with some sometimes quite deeply unpleasant politics. I'm trying to restore nuance based on reliable sources, especially academic ones where available. But when we hate something, it's very easy to confuse a fair examination of it for a defence of it. I am trying to do the former.
    • Mindful of User:Abecedare's warning to me concerning legitimate scrutiny, I am trying to be more sensitive to other editor's concerns. For example, here where I saw a problem with an article, instead of being bold and fixing it as I thought best, I raised the issue on the talk page, to gather consensus first. Nevertheless this seems to be the immediate trigger for Beyond My Ken's complaint.
    FenceSitter (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that while this bit of sophistry may have been the proximate impulse toward filing this report, the initial cause was this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that FenceSitter has stated he hasn't informed Arbcom of an alternative account, has not denied having one (indeed, it sounds like he's confirmed he does), has not disclosed it here and has attempted to unring the bell by removing the offending statement from his userpage, a block is in order. Gaming is never appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What have I removed from my userpage? FenceSitter (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name your other account? Kraose (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to keep it private, per the "privacy" section of WP:VALIDALT. FenceSitter (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reveal it to Arbcom and they will see if you are into same subject. Kraose (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now or have you ever been a sockpuppet? Fish+Karate 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, FenceSitter admits to being a sock, that's not the issue. The question is whether FenceSitter is a legitimate alternate account or not. They invoke privacy reasons for having an alternate account, but is unwilling to reveal to ArbCom or a CU what the original account is to verify that these concerns are real, and that the account isn't being used simply to avoid scrutiny. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @FenceSitter: WP:VALIDALT says If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below.
    That section says Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Concerned editors may wish to email the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights. Your edits are attracting scrutiny, and a number of users would disagree with the idea that your editing behavior itself is not problematic. If your next edit to any part of the site is anything but a response here that you have notified an Arbiter or CheckUser that you name in the response (so they can confirm you've notified them), I don't see why we shouldn't block you under WP:ILLEGIT and have a CheckUser reveal your main account so that account can be topic banned. You can set up an email at Special:Preferences and use that to privately contact an Arbiter or CheckUser. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have disclosed my main account to User:Arbitration Committee (from both accounts). FenceSitter (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a step in the right direction, so ArbCom can make a determination if your privacy concerns are legitimate or not. However, there's also the entirely separate issue of your POV editing on behalf of Identitarianism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am running out of good faith. Pinging User:Bbb23 to opine if this still qualifies as legitimate use of an alternate single purpose accounts (other admins/CUs are also welcome to chime in) Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would e-mail ArbCom with a link to this discussion and let them deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Abecedare (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the now-archived discussion about Liamnotneeson, I had opened a section about FenceSitter but the discussion was closed immediately afterwards, since Liamnotneeson was indeffed in the meantime. Based on FenceSitter's conduct in that discussion and their overall contribs, I had proposed action. I am reposting that. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef for FenceSitter

    Following on User:Ian.thomson's comment, in the Liamnotneeson case thread -- In my view, User:FenceSitter's behavior is the same as Liamnotneeson, just without the symbol on their userpage. Editing privileges are given freely in the good faith that people will use them to build an encyclopedia. They are not given so people can come here solely to advocate in favor of some ideology; good faith is not a suicide pact. This user's entire history of contribs = WP:PROMO violation. Declaring that one is a SPA doesn't make it somehow "better", and advocating one POV is not improving Wikipedia.. We don't need to concern ourselves with the alt account issues; the behavior of this account is enough. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have emailed the ArbCom to take a look at the issue, since ordinary editors/admins don't have knowledge of the user's complete editing history. In the meantime I am advising User:FenceSitter not to edit outside this thread or their talkpage, till they hear back from the committee and possibly get an all-clear. Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now disclosed my main account to User:Arbitration Committee. FenceSitter (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This diff seems indicative of a trend in FenceSitter's POV pushing. [6] Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That post seems to be questioning whether or not a given source supports the use of the term "far right". Why is that problematic? Paul August ☎ 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it's talking about a group that is so obviously far-right that trying to shift POV away from that is POV pushing. WP:DUCK applies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would hasten to add that there's no logical reason to doubt that the source supports it. One needs to be of the mind that the Identitarian movement is not far right for the argument presented in that diff to appear to be anything but whitewashing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef. Like events in the real world in the US right now, the FenceSitter issue runs on two tracks. The first is the question of whether the FenceSitter account is a legitimate alternate account, which seems to hinge on whether their privacy concerns are legitimate or not. Now that they've identified their master account to ArbCom, I suppose that we'll be hearing from them as to whether a determination has been made about that. (Reminder: @Arbitration Committee:)
      The second track concerns FenceSitter's editing itself. FS only edits article on the Identitarianism movement, and it's worth looking at those edits. I have an analysis underway to characterize thom, with specific diffs to illustrate, but due to the margin of this page being too small I can't post it here a lack of time in the real world, I'm not yet ready to post it. I will do so ASAP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check Special:Contributions/SouthAfrica1994

    The edits by SouthAfrica1994, a now blocked sock, seem to range from probably useful to nonsensical, for at least the few I have sampled, but I'm afraid there may possibly be some actual as yet unrepaired damage to articles among the edits. Is there a mechanism for easily screening these edits? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmm. Yeah. Well, reading glasses help... Drmies (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, not as far as I know. This looks fine to me. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Film Fan

    Hi. User:Film Fan continues with behaviour that has been brought to ANI before regarding page moves. This thread was raised a while ago about this very issue, which includes deliberate edits to stop a page from being moved back after he has moved a page, without discussion. That thread ended with Softlavender suggesting a site ban. FF was also placed under a 1RR, which is still in place, as at the end of Dec17. FF was once again brought to ANI in May 2018, with the closing notes stating "...there have been past problems getting through to this user, so if issues persist, they are likely out of rope". They know the process when it comes to page moves, and have been told in the past not to make ones that could be challenged. Along with the previous issues, and the deliberate edit to stop a page being moved back, this has gone past the point of just a one-off bit of WP:DE. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not aware of this users previous issues, so I won't be commenting on them; however, the behavior displayed today at File:Disenchantment poster.png seems to be the very behavior that the community wished to avoid with this user in the past. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Nihlus 18:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 1 week (escalation from previous block) for edit warring at the Disenchantment poster and editing disruptively to prevent move reversions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I see even their unblock request has a lovely personal attack ("...but I prefer to focus on content than peers, and I'm not a spiteful twat..."). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting for the record that Film Fan was indeffed in 2013 for "Long-term pattern of edit warring; no improvement in behaviour since coming off previous block". They were unblocked nearly a year later after they "made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block". They've been blocked numerous times for disruptive behavior since then, including edit warring and disruptively uploading. That's what the May 2018 report was for, and they were given a final warning by myself, stating that they will not be given any more rope should there be issues in the future. So, yeah, the fact that they combined those issues and are actually upload-warring as of today puts them in out-of-rope territory by itself, and that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about disruptive page moving. Same situation there. They were reported for making an undiscussed contentious page move and warned against making an edit in order to prevent the page from being moved back. That was three years ago. He did it again a couple months later, and was blocked for it.[7] At this point it was noted that Film Fan seemed "allergic to collaboration" by one user and as observed above, Softlavender suggested a site ban if problems continue. Today, Film Fan continues to make undiscussed page moves and then games the system by editing the redirects to prevent them from being moved back.[8][9][10][11] Unacceptable. It's clear to me that Film Fan is either unable or unwilling to follow through with their endless promises to change. SarekOfVulcan has blocked for one week before I could get around to indeffing. That's fine, because I think we should make it formal anyway. Support site ban. Swarm ♠ 19:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban - As Swarm makes clear above, and as I have experienced myself, this editor's behavior has been a problem for quite some time, and they do not seem to be able to change. At this point, we're in net negative territory, and a site ban is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban This user has been given rope and then given more rope. Editing restrictions, blocks etc have made no difference to their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Their most recent unblock request (with its personal attack in the edit summary) is a perfect example of the problem. MarnetteD|Talk 22:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban. That unblock request by itself probably should have resulted in an indefinite extension. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban - I myself ended up having more than one disagreement with this editor - Should never have been unblocked in the first place, Don't bother lifting it this time. –Davey2010Talk 01:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wrote this at ANI two years ago: "User has a block log a mile long, including an indef exactly two years ago, which was rescinded after 11 months because 'User has made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block', but he was re-blocked 5 months later for edit-warring. I think we may be looking at a site ban if problems continue." [12] I think a major problem is that admins have not continued to escalate the length of the user's blocks -- why is that? They went from an indef block to a 48-hour block the next time: [13]. If we had more consistent administration these issues might not continue so long and waste the community's time over and over. As it is, I'll support a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban for that unblock request alone. Not worth having on Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a Site Ban - The block log speaks for itself. When a user has dug themselves into a hole, they can be buried in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban Obviously. Also agree with Softlavender regarding admins having failed to check the editor's block log before each new block to make sure they aren't "resetting" anything. (And that's the AGF option; alternatively it could be either admins who "like" FF deliberately not giving him the escalating blocks for his benefit, or who "don't like" FF deliberately downplaying to avoid accusations of abuse of admin tools to push an agenda.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban A long history of disruption, and battleground behaviour. Not just a few blocks in the past, but a lot of them, including an indef one. Nothing has changed since then to suggest this editor is her to build an encyclopedia. Their unblock request doesn't help, including a personal attack. Also note that they edited as a sock during the last indef. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban The user's block log says it all ~AE (talk • contributions) 04:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban Unblock request was itself offensive enough for a longer block. Orientls (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban. Per the block log, and his unblock request, which shows that he can't take responsibility for his own actions. The Duke of NonsenseWhat is necessary for thee? 19:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban. While the user has proven helpful more than a few times, they have also shown that they have no interest in working with other editors. – BoogerD (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban Given they committed to changing their behaviour in 2013 but has subsequently been reported and blocked numerous times, I'd say the community has been more than generous. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyacinth and math articles/categories

    Closing as this has zero chance of going anywhere. Come back if you can submit a subastantive case of problematic behavior that would warrant sanctions. Swarm ♠ 21:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm requesting a TBAN of Hyacinth (talk · contribs) from mathematics articles (including categories). This has been long overdue, but the last straw for me is a series of WP:POINTy edits (diffs: [14], [15], [16], [17]) speculating on the etymology of the term, or trying to claim that it's unknown. There's possible gaming of 3RR to leave something in, rather than starting a discussion on the talk page here. There were some older problems at this article from them too: making inappropriate incoming redirects, adding incorrect information due to inability to read a technical sourcce, etc.

    More recently, there was a mess at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 7#Category:Square roots, where Hyacinth used the admin tools to just delete the category rather than letting the discussion play out, not notifying the discussion of his actions, and generally causing a headache over the whole thing. I brought this up at User talk:Hyacinth#Admin tools, and don't feel that he ever really addressed my concerns. More about questionable math stuff specifically, there was also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 21#graphs and the older discussion referenced therein.

    I've tried to keep this reasonably brief, but I can supply more detail if requested. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems very excessive for an argument at a page where a disambiguating hatnote (to Plug (jewellery) as an earring from Hawaii) seems plausible, and there's no discussion on the talk page. I don't know what was in the deleted categories, but even if it was problematic, I don't see why a TBAN from math (rather than a remedy regarding categories) would be helpful there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that your priority should be on improving the Hawaiian earring article, and all of Wikipedia. You have started or participated no discussions on Talk:Hawaiian earring, ever, while I have. Hyacinth (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC) It seems best that we leave each other be, if our goals are both to help Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're seriously complaining about those utterly innocuous edits, while casually mentioning misuse of the administrator tools as an afterthought? An admin can be desysopped for performing an out-of-process deletion, and then blatantly refusing to explain their rationale, as they apparently did here. How is that not what you came to AN/I for, but you're drawing the line with those Hawaiian Earring edits? Those edits are nowhere near the level of a TBAN from the subject, and the refusal to explain admin actions, while concerning in its own right, has no relevance to the validity of the proposed TBAN. This report seems frivolous, especially given the editor it's being lodged against. You need to make a serious case establishing a severe or very long-term pattern of behavior in order for something like this to be taken seriously. Swarm ♠ 09:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yanela users

    I've run across a number of editors with names starting with 2 digits and "Yanela", sometimes with additional text. I haven't run across a constructive edit from any of them, although one of them produced a rant about one of my edits which might have been constructive if I could figure out what it was saying. If some bot or database expert could produce a list of all such editors, we could see whether there was a constructive edit it the bunch. I'm sure most of them are the same editor — 24 reinstated one of 23's edits on an article in my watchlist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone can produce a list, I'm willing to notify them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur Rubin, this may work as a starting point. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well User:9Yanelazulu was blocked indef [18] in June, so I suspect all of the others (that are obviously the same person) could be blocked as socks ... Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe User:DoRD would have an opinion on what to do, since they issued a checkuser block of User:Yanela zulu f back in April 2017. The grounds that led to that block might also apply to other accounts with Yanela in their name. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked a few of them that were obviously disruptive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no memory of that block, but I apparently found them during a check of an unrelated disruptive user. I blocked five accounts at the time. Other "yanela" accounts can be found here (with some false positives included). —DoRD (talk)​ 20:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor at Christian ethics

    User Tahc is being generally disruptive and creating conditions at Christian ethics to suppress editing and displaying apparent ownership of the article as the primary author. Unfortunately his/her concerted efforts to maintain the status quo (reduce visibility and create roadblocks) on a low-traffic talk page makes it challenging for any editor to address them and means the article will likely remain start class with multiple tagged issues and a WP:NPOV issue for the foreseeable future. I have frankly run out of patience and do not plan to engage the article anymore under these conditions, but would like to enable others to improve the article in the future in a more permissive environment. I'll list below the context and Tahc's conduct that is causing these conditions, running contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for good editing:

    • In 2012, there was a consensus on Old Testament (OT) material related to the article. Because the talk page is not often-commented on, I had to request a Third Opinion to augment my and another editor's position. This resulted in a consensus that the material is relevant.
    • Some time later, Tahc came to the article and dismissed the consensus, claiming consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy instead of trying to achieve a new consensus.
    • Tahc began a did a major rewrite of the article in March 2016, removing much of the Old Testament material, and promoting a particular point of view related to the New Testament.
    • I happened on the article again and saw its state, noted my concerns about neutrality on the talk page, and added a POV tag to the article. (This isn't just my position; StAnselm also noted a POV concern at the RfC on the talk page.)
    • Tahc summarily deleted the POV tag here, dismissing, rather than discussing, the stated concerns on the talk page.
    • I requested a third opinion which another editor deleted due to a third editor commenting on the issue after the request. Unfortunately, that other editor only made an abstract comment in passing.
    • I then requested an RfC for broad consensus on whether Old Testament material is relevant to the article to highlight the lack of that material in the article as POV. The result appears to be a clearly reaffirmed consensus on its relevance.
    • Tahc dismissed the consensus as irrelevant, again asserted that there was no previous consensus, and repeated that "consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policies" (apparently a person opinion since he won't explain where he gets this idea from). The latter indicates to me that, no matter what consensuses we achieve on the article, Tahc will dismiss them based on his/her personal "standard".
    • During the above discussions, Tahc suggested that only "textbooks" that supported OT material inclusion would be relevant as sources, dismissing multiple other high-quality WP:RSs provided, and creating a standard higher than that required by Wikipedia—another apparent roadblock to maintain the article's status quo.
    • After subsequent discussions of potential material to add, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that some of the passages would improve the article. I drew from that, other previous discussions, and the consensuses, notified other editors of my intention on the talk page to begin addressing the POV concern, waited four days for comment, and then began boldly editing.
    • Soon after, Tahc reverted ALL of the edits to the "last okay version" here, invoking WP:BRD and stating ironically that discussion was required. Tahc then made clear on the talk page that he/she had not followed WP:BRD by trying to retain material that would improve the article, and making immediate adjustments to other edits. He/she just deleted them all summarily, reverting to the status quo. I notified Tahc that this runs contrary to Wikipedia guidelines which promote editing and discourage reverting to maintain the status quo, especially by editors who have written the previous material, pointing to the second bullet in "Bad reasons to revert" that fits this situation perfectly. But in an effort to move forward, I asked Tahc to identify his concerns with the edits (all from high-quality WP:RSs with a clear link to the article's subject matter) and Tahc won't do it. Tahc asserted that each passage needs to be brought to the talk page "one at a time" for discussion before putting in the article (as if there has not been discussion). Another roadblock to editing.

    To summarize, Tahc's established pattern on this Start-Class article with neutrality issues is to minimize visibility and erect roadblocks to editing. I.e., minimize visibility by dismissing consensuses versus seeking to achieve a new consensus (necessarily through outside editors due to low traffic), and deleting a POV tag that directs interested editors to the concerns. And more roadblocks through trying to impose a personal standard for material beyond Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, summarily reverting multiple edits without reading them, and insisting that all proposed edits be brought to the talk page, regardless of previous discussion, "one at a time" before including in the article. Low traffic equates that to Tahc personally approving all additions—a very effective roadblock for an editor who is the primary author trying to maintain the status quo with a well-established pattern over multiple years. As a result, my desire to try to improve the article has soured, and I don't have time to continue to bring in outside help to overcome roadblocks that take little effort to maintain due to the lack of traffic there. However, I would like to address Tahc's conduct so others can attempt to improve this article—which sorely needs it—in the future. Thanks.--Airborne84 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question - There is a section in the talk page that purports to be a Request for Comments as to whether the Old Testament is relevant. (Of course it is, but that isn't the question now.) However, it was either never published with an RFC tag, or the RFC tag was removed. Can someone explain why the so-called RFC doesn't have an RFC tag? This question does make a difference, because it does affect whether there was ever a consensus determined by closure, or whether we just have editors who are trying to game the system by claiming the force of RFCs, or whether the system is being disrupted. Why was the so-called RFC never tagged? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Airborne84 was the one who (seemed to have) called for the RfC. My guess is that he quickly did it and did not know how to do so correctly. tahc chat 01:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Airborne84's summary above mischaracterizes several actions of himself or others. Airborne84 normal attitude toward the article alternates between long periods of neglect and shorter periods of more tenacious editing. Airborne84's very first edit on Christian ethics was an article tag, and his second edit (6 minutes later) was a 1434 characters criticism of (one author's view of) Bible ethics. While we can have criticism of Christian ethics in this article, we have other places on Wikipedia to cover criticism of Old Testament ethics, namely Ethics in the Bible or Criticism of the Bible.
    • When I began edits on the article, it was mostly a history of different authors' writings on the topic. Over time, I helped rewrite the article to cover items that a modern course on Christian ethics would cover, and also to be more like other Wikipedia articles on the ethics of other religions. Doing this included removing off-topic material about the Old Testament, but some material about the Old Testament does remain. Both Airborne84 and myself have left in a statement that points out that "Christians today 'do not feel compelled to observe all 613 commandments' in the Torah"; in other words, the Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics. This form of the article with limited material on the Old Testament has had at least consensus through silence for quite some time.
    • When I removed POV tags from the article, it was because the tags did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale. Even now, it is unclear what POV or POVs Airborne84 thinks are missing from the article. On 16 July 2018, Airborne84 requested a Third Opinion without first trying to discuss me directly. User:Aquegg asked for more information before giving a Third Opinion and Aquegg proposed that books like "modern theology text-books" would be the most reliable sources to consult for the issue at hand. While I agree, this standard was Aquegg's idea rather than mine. Both Airborne84 and I presented our views, but before Aquegg could give any Third Opinion, Airborne84 decided the process was "inconclusive"-- although he only waited 2.5 hours since my last post for Aquegg's reply before he did this-- and Airborne84 began a Request for Comment. This seems to be because Airborne84 did not like Aquegg's ideas on what are the most reliable sources. If one has never studied Christian ethics much it might seem simple to verify that the Old Testament informs Christian ethics, but such a view is not found in textbooks on Christian ethics.
    • Rather than crafting the RfC to be about a particular point of disagreement he and I had, or about any particular point of disagreement he and Aquegg had, or even on any particular source he considered useful to improving the article, Airborne84 worded the RfC (in my view) to be very vague. He asked if "Old Testament material" should be "allowed to inform" the article. After discussion had already begun he inserted a clarification that he meant discussion of Old Testament material from modern sources shared "in the context of Christian ethics". This was a help, but "in the context of Christian ethics" proved misleading. Jzsj and I were able to discuss with Airborne84 a passage from Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics that showed the complexity of deciding what might seem to be "in the context of Christian ethics."
    • While Airborne84 and I did later agree ourselves that "Old Testament material needs to be clearly linked to Christian ethics", the RfC itself resulted in no consensus. Airborne84 claimed otherwise. Airborne84 then made many edits all at one time without discussion or consensus, and afterward claimed that he didn't have time to discuss passages one at a time. tahc chat 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: It was a valid RfC that ran for the 30 days.[19] It only expired recently and has not been formally closed, yet both editors are claiming their own differing readings of consensus. The RfC obviously needs to be listed for a requested close so that it provides a formal reading of consensus. As of now, it's meaningless since the consensus is obviously not uncontroversial enough to not warrant a formal closure. Once you secure an actual answer from the RfC, then you can go about implementing that consensus—with another RfC, or two, of ten, if you're incapable of collaborating. Regarding the claim that "consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy", that's entirely correct. A local consensus to include content means exactly nothing if a user objects to it on WP:V grounds. The policy is clear, unsourced content can be removed, and it's mandatory to provide a source if you want to restore it. A local consensus cannot override policy per WP:CONLIMITED. It looks like Tahc brought up a straightforward sourcing issue, and you failed to address it. That's not ownership behavior, though I understand why it might be frustrating. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm, my frustration is from the pattern of issues that I've laid out above. This wasn't intended to be a referendum on one of the (apparent) consensuses I linked to. However, I did request closure of the RfC at the link you provided. Thanks.
    In any case, I did address Tahc's sourcing issue. Directly and at length. I've agreed with him that there should be a clear link in a source linking OT material to the article's topic. I clarified the RfC to reflect Tahc's concern (he agreed above). I then listed a number of sources that provide the clear link he requested here, taking care to note how they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Tahc basically ignored them, suggesting "textbooks" should be a criterion, and maybe only one of them met that personal standard of his. Yet, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that three of them were improvements. So, I notified of my intention to edit and then added the three passages the other editor mentioned, I included material from the source Tahc mentioned (figuring naively that he can't argue with that one from discussion). Tahc simply reverted it all here to the "last okay version". And you can see in the edits that I took pains in the notes to clearly establish the link that Tahc was concerned about. And it's evident from the talk page that he didn't even read them. He just reverted them. So, the record shows that I have laboriously addressed Tahc's concerns. This isn't about his concern that a clear link be drawn anymore. It's about him maintaining the status quo.
    Tahc's pattern is to automatically revert material that changes the status quo and the POV written he's written into the article (again, I'm not the only one to notice it).
    As another example of this, Tahc automatically reverted the POV tag I added to the article. You can see above that he's claiming again I added it without discussion. This is getting tired and it's purposeful dishonesty at this point since I've pointed out to him that I discussed the tag on the talk page. It's a matter of record. I added the tag on 12 July here, I immediately went to the talk page and posted this new section called "POV Tag added" eight minutes later here (with my concerns noted). 15 hours later, Tahc followed his pattern of disruption by deleting it here. Yet he continues to claim that I'm at fault because the tag "did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale" (in Tahc's words above). But I've told him before that it did. You might ask "why" he continues with this canard?
    It's part of the roadblocks he's erected. Ignore when other editors address your concerns about sourcing. Require sources that exceed Wikipedia's requirements. Minimize visibility on the article. Automatically revert any edits without reading them or the discussion on the talk page. Claim that there has been no discussion. Ignore the tenets of the guidelines invoked (WP:BRD). Assert you don't have time to read multiple edits at once and each passage needs to be discussed individually on the talk page first. Even if they have been.
    The reason is clear. In Tahc's words above, the "Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics". Tahc appears to be the only editor on the talk page (which has brought in 8 or more editors now for comment) who supports that position. And he's written that POV into the article. Due to the normally limited traffic, his roadblocks will easily maintain that POV. I came here to try to change those conditions. Your response will determine if the article is to keep that status quo indefinitely or become more permissive for future editors. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lasha-george: adding unsourced information and failure to communicate

    Resolved
    Swarm ♠ 07:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Lasha-george (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user, with the total contribution of 22 edits, recently took an interest in Tbilisi and started to change the foundation date in the infobox [20], [21], [22], without leaving any edit summaries. The problem is their additions are unsourced (to be honest, the current date is unsourced either, but at least it is shown as approximate). After their third attempt I left them a talk page message, explaining that WP:V is a fundamental policy [23]. Their response was immediate and looked like this - the fourth robot-like revert. I would have blocked myself, and I would block indef per WP:CIR, but I am obviously involved. Technically, they did not overstep 3RR, as their four edits are within two days.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)I have reverted this users' latest unsourced edit, and left them a uw-editsummery template, as it does not appear that they were ever told about edit summaries. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Myra or someone doesn't like some academic presses

    User blocked for 48h, CU did not find anything, if the user displays same behavior after their block expires, the next discussion will be much shorter--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Myra or someone: keeps editing articles on actors such as Janet Gaynor, Richard Deacon (actor), etc. to remove assertions about the subjects' sexuality. Her argument is that New York University Press, McFarland & Company and the University Press of Mississippi, inter alia, are not reliable sources but vanity presses! She's gone into full-blown edit war territory with the Deacon article, but this is an ongoing pattern with her. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is clear they are not here (or at least not there). But this should really be an edit war complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With the Deacon article, it could go to WP:AN3. I don't think the university press issue should go to WP:RSN, so the question is, is it good-faith misunderstanding of the presses, or is it intentional disruption? —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. This is a pattern of behavior and they have been warned repeatedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good block. The remarks about the university presses are ludicrous. I notice with concern that this editor appears to be obsessed with Dorothy Kilgallen, long a magnet for conspiracy theorists. This editor added Kilgallen conspiracy theory content to November 1965 and John Erick Dowdle. Given the style of editing and in particular, the lengthy, argumentative edit summaries, I suspect that this may be another account for an editor who was active on Kilgallen a few years ago. Any further disruption should lead to a much longer block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suspected this editor of being a sock from the first moment I ran into them at Dorothy Kilgallen, but CU couldn't find anything conclusive. In any event, barring a dramatic shift in their behavior, they are not going to be around for long. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User FinalXFantasy

    Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 07:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    FinalXFantasy (talk · contribs)

    He is deleting information out of Politican infobox. Here[24], here[25], here[26] just a few examples. I reverted these and posted[27] a warning to his talk page. He removed[28] the notice and reverted all of my reversions. With the only explanation being 'not needed'.[29] Prior offices are noted in politician infoboxes. Can some administrator please give this editor a serious warning?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked indef. They can be unblocked just as soon as they indicate that they understand the issues and policies at hand and will guarantee that they do not continue. Swarm ♠ 04:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Civility complaint against user Drmies

    Drmies is often colorful. This is not news and doesn't warrant a thread at ANI. The OP is advised to spend their time doing something other than collecting Drmies's statements, flattering as that might be.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to formally complain about several of the edits of the user @Drmies:. I see several examples of swearing at other users, using otherwise demeaning language, demoralizing and/or patronizing people who may in fact be good faith editors who are new to Wikipedia, and generally exhibiting conflict-inducing behavior that would be upsetting for the average new user to read and is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

    Below are some examples I have found of edit summaries displaying a rude, dismissive attitude; please examine carefully his edit descriptions, some of which he uses to swear at other users (at one point flatly telling a user to "fuck off"). Some of them may be relatively innocuous and may be me misunderstanding, but several of the edits are clearly inappropriate. I'm starting to see a pattern of inappropriate behavior through lack of civility.

    For the sake of disclosure, I personally encountered this user when he began commenting on an ANI post I had made. It was probably not the right thing to do for me to make an ANI post at the time, but it seemed like what I was supposed to do, and one of Wiki's policies is supposedly to be "bold". I felt that this user was incredibly rude towards me for making the post (which I openly stated on the page) in the way that he commented on my post, telling me (at least twice) that I was "wasting people's time", saying "[Y]ou have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists...", and he eventually accusing me of being a single-purpose account. I was personally offended enough by this person's rudeness that I stopped editing for at least a week and wasn't sure I wanted to start again. Here is a link to that discussion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=853786883#Repeated_BLP_&_consensus_violations_by_Abecedare

    Overall, this person seems to have an attitude problem in dealing with other users. Drmies has apparently forgotten that WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, which is something I would think an administrator should have a heightened awareness of. I suggest that he be reminded of civility or be warned that failure to abide by WP:CIVIL may result in the loss of his mop.

    I invite anyone to review the edit summaries which I have linked below.

    P.S. I was advised to post this here; I posted at the teahouse first and was told that this is the correct forum.

    Ikjbagl (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the guidance at the top of this page first. It is essential that you inform Drmies on his talk page, that a discussion is taking place here. Use the template {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ Make a new section on their talk page for the purpose. Thank you. Irondome (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Irondome: Thank you for your notice/reminder. I have done so. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)@Ikjbagl: for future reference, "be bold" means don't be afraid to change articles if you think you can improve them, not boldly report others at ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For future reference, if you're trying to discuss a user's edit summaries, it's more helpful to link to the diff rather than the revision. That said, having looked through these... there's not much there. Drmies is definitely blunt and I've seen him push the boundaries of civility in the past, but the examples you've given are unconvincing... They include a diff where he strikes his own comment to say well, I am too old to be digging through eight months of diffs, so whatever (can one be uncivil to themselves?) or diffs where he says clearly unencyclopedic content is more appropriate for Facebook than for Wikipedia is not going to end in a civility reminder. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a single one of these examples comes close to being a problem-- oh the one where Drmies says "Fuck off" (or whatever it was, I'm not going through them again to get the exact quote} is edgy, but that's about it. Calling a dumb edit "dumb" is blunt, but truthful. Saying the writing in a contribution is poor -- the same. Inviting non-encyclopedic material to go to Facebook is apt. As for this complaint -- like Oakland, there's no there there. (Any complaints from Oaklandites -- Oaklanders? -- should go to Gertrude Stein and not me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Oliwier Duracz

    Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 07:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Oliwier Duracz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    A report on a user that is a bit too complicated for AIV. This user created Plush and the Freshies (which appears to be a hoax) and other recent edits were either vandalism ([30]), unsourced ([31]), or just bizarre ([32]). They also have a bunch of edits to football rosters, some of which may be OK, but I'm very skeptical of [33]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked indef for vandalism. I don't think this user's role as one of the many people modifying sports tables without providing sources mitigates the blatant vandalism, and given that I can find vandalism even in that area of their involvement, I'm skeptical as to whether those edits can be even trusted. Swarm ♠ 05:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Long term edit warring at Lawton Chiles High School to add list of teachers with criminal offenses

    Per WP:CRIME and WP:BLP, the 'Faculty Misconduct' section ought to be rev/deleted. But page protection will be necessary, too. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed. Truthbot123 added it back. I smell a sock. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added PC protection. If anyone thinks we need to be more aggressive than that, be my guest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've softblocked Truthbot123 for being a bot username. It's also pretty obvious that it's the same user as 209.251.153.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is probably the school's IP, in case anyone wants to be even more aggressive. Technically all of the negative material they added is sourced so I don't think it qualifies for revdeletion, but it all fails WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME/whatever, so it should not be added back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jaydip2078

    (non-admin closure) Indeffed for vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has received final warnings for vandalism in March, May and June, but has never been blocked, and they just committed more vandalism[34] that was very similar to past vandalism[35]. I don't think I should report at AIV for vandalism after final warning since the last warning was 2.5 months ago, and I am uncomfortable calling them a VOA since I can't tell weather their unsourced changes to sports articles were made in good faith, but I don't want to warn them again and make it look like they can wait a month and vandalize again. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed their edits and they are WP:NOTHERE it seems. Edits were mostly vandalism, removing sourced material or falsifying info on pages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Marjdabi

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

    This user is edit-warring with multiple users on multiple pages [36] [37] [38] and appears to have ignored (but removed) my warning on their talk page. They've also threatened to report the people they're arguing with to an admin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Significant sourced edits of mine were removed, I have not edit-warring with anybody. Several users cited their personal opinions into removing significant contribution. Article contributions are not decided by if a user who doesn't like it has the ability to remove it. All the sources are cited, and improvements. Marjdabi (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What we have is a new younger editor just learning the ropes What is needed is some helpfull direction as to what is a reliable source (like no click bait news) and editor behaviour when it comes to editing.--Moxy (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He is doing this on even more than the three pages mentioned above, and right now it appears that he just re-uploaded two images which had only minutes before been speedily deleted for apparent copyright violation. I think he needs more than "helpful direction", sincerely. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I doing exactly? Apparently User:2A1ZA doesn't appreciate the cited edits I've done. He has also told me o the talk that he is allowed remove edits he finds controversial. Well all the edits are cited bud, all from quality sources and the events are a significant part of the article whether you like those or not. The copyrighted images were not properly posted in the first time. They have now been replaced with the proper citation. Please stop disrupting my edits. Marjdabi (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not like some of your edits because they violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the way you approach controversy like you do for example here does not give me the impression that you intend to cooperate with other editors in good faith. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not reverted any edits, User:2A1ZA has been reverting my quality edits because he finds them controversial, my edits and contributions are cited, User:2A1ZA seems to not appreciate them. I have made significant sourced contributions. He as also suggested that I change the name of a suicide bomber to, self-sacrificing act. Probably one of the reasons he is reverting my edits my completely removing them. On Wikipedia, we should not call suicide vest bombers "self sacrificing acts". This self sacrificing act was aimed at a Tank and troops for your instance. Marjdabi (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging from this Marjdabi's edits on Battle of Marj Dabiq,[39][40], with no attempt at discussion on the talk page, and when reverted by me on Battle of Marj Dabiq, reverts my edit on Fourth Crusade,[41] an article they have never edited before, I am not convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. If said editor can not or will not learn proper etiquette to BRD, then perhaps a block is necessary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with recent edits? And why are you stalking my edits? Marjdabi (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term POV-pushing and edit warring

    Filiprino keeps POV-pushing and edit warring at the Ada Colau article over the issue on whether she should be referred as "Spanish" or "Catalan", despite having been blocked roughly one week ago for edit warring on the same article for the exact same issue. During the time of his block, I intervened in the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau#She is Catalan, hence she can also be Spanish to try to reach a consensus, which emerged in that "Spanish" (which was shown to be the preferred by English reliable sources to other proposed terms, such as "Catalan" or "Spanish Catalan") could be used if referenced in the text, which was done, for the sake of WP:VER which had been the central point of the late discussion. However, upon being unblocked, rather than engaging in discussion and trying to sway a consensus in his favour, Filiprino resorted to edit war over the issue once again ([42] [43] [44]). Note that these edits from him were done right after I tried to engage in talk in him (diff for his first comment, diff for mine), yet he went with the change back to "Catalan" anyway despite having been warned of the WP:NPOV issues in his reasoning. He stopped the edit warning after being warned twice in his talk page for this ([45] [46]), but then proceeded to post an enormous wall of text ([47]) which had little to do with the content of the previous discussion (all of it while he kept the edit war on). A second wall of text from him ensued after a reply from me, yet it was mostly filled with new POV assertions (i.e. that using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom, among others), straw man fallacies (i.e. pretending that I've used some arguments which I have not used to label them as "flawed") and I have even spotted personal attacking where he tells me that I "ignore science" and calls me "stubborn for ignoring scientists" (??), while also accusing me of not wanting to admit other cultures than the Castilian! You want to se homogeneous Iberian Peninsula! You don't conceive the Catalan nationality! ([48]). Seriously, this has reached the point of absurdity.

    This behaviour has been persistent for months on a number of articles, and it has not been unfrequent to see Filiprino involved in some sort of similar disputes in this very same noticeboard with other users, in which he has also shown an ignorance of WP:BOOMERANG and even some WP:OWN behaviour ([49]) or even going as far as to denounce others for the same behaviour he is currently adopting (i.e. that another user was blocked due to edit warring, but once his block has passed, he has reverted the page again without discussion at [50]). This very same behaviour was pointed out to him in his latest unblock request ([51]); all of this shows it is absolutely impossible that he could not know about it by the time he started editing today. I am normally willing to engage in discussion with whoever wishes to resolve a dispute, but I find it as just impossible with this user, who demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge at best (or a serious lack of competence at worst) on WP:NPOV, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:IDHT at the very least, pretending than his is the only right stance over and over again and that it must be imposed at all costs, even if it means going to continued edit warring, serious POV-pushing and even personal attacks, if not outrightly absurd accusations. Having seen this behaviour from him already too many times in the past, I can only consider this as beyond my efforts to seek a peaceful settlement. I post this here to seek an alternative solution, because this seems impossible in the article's talk page and this relates to the actual user's behaviour rather than the content itself. Impru20talk 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, I am not ignorant of WP:BOOMERANG or WP:OWN, but you are entitled to your own opinions. Thank you for your notification. I have to state that I am following the WP:BRD policy. On the matter of using WP:TEXTWALL, well, I have discussed your articles yet you have not provided any insight on the articles I provided. If I have to provide long explanations for my point of view, I will do so. In the talk page of Ada Colau 4 users have participated. Iñaki LL, Crystallized Carbon, Impru20 (you) and me (Filiprino). Impru20 and Crystallized Carbon push the POV of Spanish nationality instead of Catalan nationality. This: using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom is false. I have not said that. What I have said is that using Spanish from Catalonia is using Castilian custom and negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom, which is different from "Spanish" negating Catalan nationality. On the matter of ignoring science, is because you don't even provide insight in the articles I have provided you. You just keep referencing Google search number of results instead of discussing WP:RS for the matter of nationality definition (that is my take on the sources you provided for backing up the Spanish nationality of Colau). That's your argument. I provided you two articles talking about Ada Colau and his nationality, and also provided an article from a quite known article of an anthropology journal talking about Spanish and Catalan nationalities and their respective customs, yet you ignore them and fall back to your google search numbers. Filiprino (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Righting Great Wrongs? by User:worldnuse

    NAC: Indeffed by User:Bbb23. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This is a report that User:worldnuse is trying to use Wikipedia to publicize their views that the US legal system and Supreme Court are corrupt. Their contributions are as follows:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Worldnuse These include proposed use of their sandbox as a web host, spamming comments into 2010 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a questionable comment in In re.

    This editor is not here to be constructive and needs an indefinite block.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=856897921"