Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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

User:FenceSitter

• FenceSitter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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. [1]

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

What have I removed from my userpage? FenceSitter (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you name your other account? Kraose (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it private, per the "privacy" section of WP:VALIDALT. FenceSitter (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Reveal it to Arbcom and they will see if you are into same subject. Kraose (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a sockpuppet? Fish+Karate 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)

I have disclosed my main account to User:Arbitration Committee (from both accounts). FenceSitter (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Given User:FenceSitter's:
  1. refusal to disclose main acount(s) to even ArbCom//CU,
  2. prior illegit use of this account (see note), and
  3. POV editing in the area (eg [2] and [3]; the latter edit dilutes/misrepresents what sources, including the one the user added, actually say was the cause for the conviction).

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)

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)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

I have now disclosed my main account to User:Arbitration Committee. FenceSitter (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:Abecedare your post above is WP:OFFTOPIC here; this subthread is about an indef of this account, based on this account's behavior peristently violating WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• This diff seems indicative of a trend in FenceSitter's POV pushing. [4] Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)

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)

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

Film Fan

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

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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.[5] 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.[6][7][8][9] 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support site ban. That unblock request by itself probably should have resulted in an indefinite extension. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• 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. –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• 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." [10] 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: [11]. 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)
• Support site ban for that unblock request alone. Not worth having on Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support site ban The user's block log says it all ~AE (talk • contributions) 04:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban Unblock request was itself offensive enough for a longer block. Orientls (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• 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 Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 19:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support site ban, per WP:ROPE - the user has no interest in editing collaboratively, and their recent actions as linked above (I particularly dislike the null-editing of redirects, which is outright gaming of the system) shows their previous pledges of good behaviour were empty platitudes. Should have been banned a long time ago. Fish+Karate 08:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Oppose per WP:BATTLE. Peter James (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

If someone can produce a list, I'm willing to notify them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, this may work as a starting point. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Well User:9Yanelazulu was blocked indef [12] 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)

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)

I blocked a few of them that were obviously disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Disruptive editor at Christian ethics

• Christian ethics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tahc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Airborne84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• @Robert McClenon: It was a valid RfC that ran for the 30 days.[13] 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)

@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)

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

• Lawton Chiles High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

Removed. Truthbot123 added it back. I smell a sock. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have revdeleted the sections involved. Whilst some of them do pass BLPCRIME, some merely report arrests (not convictions), some are flagrantly obvious BLP violations (for example text that states one person has committed a sex crime is sourced to a newspaper article that merely says "... has been placed on administrative leave during an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct..."), some are merely sourced to the school's internal discipline (which may not be a legal issue and certainly aren't legal convictions which they would need to be for such non-WELLKNOWN people), and at least one source is a dead link, leaving it a BLP violation. It is always better to err on the side of caution here. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jaydip2078

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[14] that was very similar to past vandalism[15]. 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)

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)

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 [16] [17] [18] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh please you are constantly reverting an edit I've made which is sourced and confirmed citing unimportant since yesterday. Stop removing it or I will have to open a discussion here in your name. Also stop referring to suicide bombers as self sacrificing act. Wikipedia is an unbiased encyclopedia. Stop removing my cited sourced and stop your edit war. Marjdabi (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Things seem to be getting out of hand fast....disagreements on many pages. Marjdabi could you slow down on the disputed edits and read over Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia #Discussion and consensus before more reverts...no need for you to be blocked....just need to understand some basics. Will post on your talk some more info like copyright policies.--Moxy (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Judging from this Marjdabi's edits on Battle of Marj Dabiq,[19][20], 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,[21] 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)

What does that have to do with recent edits? And why are you stalking my edits? Marjdabi (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Marjdabi - it isn't "stalking". When someone's edit behaviour is challenged on ANI it is fairly standard practice to have a look at some of their other edits to see whether it is a blip or more standard behaviour. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Marjdabi also needs to understand WP:COPYRIGHT when it comes to images. All of their image uploads which they added to these articles have been deleted at Commons as copyright violations. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Marjdabi has made unilateral controversial edits to the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkish military operation in Afrin articles claiming there is consensus on the Turkish military operation in Afrin talk page for using Turkish and Russian media sources where there is none. He then reverts the restoration of the articles that I and others have made. If one user reverts several other users more than three times is this considered to be edit warring? AntonSamuel (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Marjdabi is edit warring over multiple articles and has been warned. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Long term POV-pushing, disruptive behaviour 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 ([22] [23] [24]). 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 ([25] [26]), but then proceeded to post an enormous wall of text ([27]) 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! ([28]). 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 ([29]) 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 [30]). This very same behaviour was pointed out to him in his latest unblock request ([31]); 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. Impru20^talk 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Firstly, you are not following BRD. You only stopped edit warring when you were warned thrice by three different users that if you kept on the warring you could or would be blocked. BRD means you would have engaged in discussion and stopped warring after the first revert, the later of which you obviously you did not do (and so far, your proposed understanding of what "engaging in discussion" means has been everything but constructive). Half of your replies are straw man fallacies on my arguments, with you trying to depict that I have used arguments I have not; and the other half is just personal accusations and attacks. Some of them even either completely taken out of context, or just outrightly off-topic. All of this while also ignoring the evidence provided throughout the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau before your recent interventions, just for the point of trying to impose your own, particular POV.

Then, you would excuse me, but I invite anyone reading this report to search "using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom" in the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau, which this user claims to be false, to check that Filiprino has stated this word by word, literally.

I am not going to discuss anything else, as you are just being outrightly disruptive and manipulative now. Impru20^talk 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment Also worth noting is that the POV-pushing is seemingly also being brought into a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Solution proposal ([32] [33]). Impru20^talk 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this does not qualify as personal attacks or Straw man fallacies ... I have pointed out you are not collaborating because you blatantly ignore the sources provided on the topic of national identity definition. If that is not POV pushing tell me what it is. On the other hand, WP:BRD can lead to edit warring and you are not the one to decide if it is edit warring or not. The edits you have put here from the RFC on biography manual of style provide a comment with sources for national definitions. If any opinion you don't like, even in an RFC, you consider it as POV pushing then is impossible to improve articles. Filiprino (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Righting Great Wrongs? by User:worldnuse

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)

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

TonyMorris68

TonyMorris68 started this thread: Talk:South African farm attacks#Is the Wikipedia article, South African Farm Attacks, devolving into an activist editor political racewar? which is probably exactly what you think it is from the title. This is part of a trend from this user, where TonyMorris68 accuses or implies that other editors are using racism to bludgeon the process and shut-down dissenting opinions, including me (User talk:Grayfell#To capitalize or not to capitalize words commonly used to describe racial groups?). This user's own reaction to obvious trolling seems over the top in the level offense at someone saying "Marxist swine", especially considering the editor agrees that everyone else is a "pro-Communist".

Looking at this editor's history after these red flags I found:

• TonyMorris68 has gone into similar wordiness to explain that lynched Jewish scapegoat Leo Frank's guilt wasn't overturned, and that there was a conspiracy theory that legitimizes his lynching. This is especially peculiar for someone who claims to be the grandchild of Holocaust survivors.
• Attempted to add "Dr." in front of David Duke's name (Duke's degree is from an unaccredited sham school).
• While typing this out, this editor has been aggressively re-adding a link to Duke's youtube channel I removed citing WP:ELMIN. This is part of a pattern of adding extremely questionable primary sources for white nationalists: Matthew F. Hale ("...including his mailing address in prison."); Alex Linder; National Alliance (United States); and maybe others.
• This edit introduced information about Matthew F. Hale which was not supported by any source, and altered the wording from "soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge..." to "encouraging an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge..." which is pretty clear whitewashing of a convicted neo-Nazi gang leader.

To me, this is overwhelming evidence that this editor is trying, and failing, to play a long con to use civil POV pushing to advance a white nationalist agenda, and should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE, etc. Grayfell (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Also editwarring to keep a link to a fansite in the article of white supremacist Matthew F. Hale - "[http://www.FreeMattHale.com Free Matt Hale]. Information about the trial and appeals of Matt Hale, including his mailing address in prison." and an archive of his white supremacist speeches. That might be a DS violation, as would the David Duke material above. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant to point out the irony of his accusing others of being political activists. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well when we get bored of the far-right calling us commies and loony-liberals, we can always pop over to one of our many alt-med pseudo-science articles and get called fascist pill pushing capitalists instead. Edaham (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I noticed that everyone stopped providing reliable sources on the talk page in the last four days. While that's obviously a problem with such a topic, I think it's obvious who's the contentious editor participating in every dispute in the last four days. Thanks to Grayfell for opening this thread. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • He's trying to insert a website named after the old American Mercury which is now only a bigoted anti-semitic site.[34] to The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and now he's accusing editors, specifically @Maunus, I am One of Many, and EvergreenFir: of being pro-Communist "racist anti-white marxist bigots" "neo-marxist commisars" at Talk:South African farm attacks#Is the Wikipedia article, South African Farm Attacks, devolving into an activist editor political racewar?. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So WP:NOT_HERE then. Also in the brief exchanges this user has had on their talk page, they've demonstrated a reasonable knowledge of policy. Not a new user. Edaham (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've given him a 48-hour block as a stop-gap purely for the personal attacks, though I think it's clear that stronger measures are needed depending on the consensus here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:NOTHERE block

Tony Morris has been blocked for 48 hours. I propose he be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

• Support after going through the evidence presented here. I agree that this is an editor attempting to use civility to disguise their promotion of a white supremacist POV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure they are using civility, in any way shape or form.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

However I must add that I am dubious about a block because (what looks like) they have the wrong POV. They have issues with civility and edit waring, so do many other sues who get a chance. I would rather (then) that we wait to see how they react to the 48 hour ban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

True enough; I should have said "the appearance of collegial discussion", because you're right: they do descend into incivility quite frequently.

My problem isn't so much their "wrong POV" but with their "proven-wrong-and-generally-accepted-as-immoral-with-no-major-dissent POV". Just because everybody's got their own POV doesn't mean that all viewpoints are equal. There's nothing questionable or even necessarily subjective about recognizing that certain ideologies are demonstrably worse than others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Tony can go rail on against Wikipedia's "anti-White" and "pro-Communist" agenda on Rightpedia. Byeee. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support because of unambiguous battleground behavior with an extreme dose of tu quoque POV accusations. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly here to push a fringe pov into the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support not here, and worth a check user. Doesn’t seem like a new user. Edaham (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll second the CU request EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support per WP:SNOW. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even being discussed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued editing against consensus

Vjmlhds has been blocked on 10 separate occasions due to his edit warring. I raised this issue last month here that he was still continuing to edit war against consensus, see here [35]. In response the user stated he would back off and stop editing that topic, yet yesterday he made the exact same edit again, against the established consensus on 4 separate articles, see [36] [37] [38] and [39]. It is very clear that this user has not and will not learn. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to get involved in the 205 Live debate, and I lived up to that. If you look at the revision history of all of the said articles, it was others who made 205 Live it's own section. My issue was that in Galetz' zealously he undid a bunch of unrelated edits that reflected recent happenings not involving 205 Live. He was basically throwing the baby out with the bath water because he was so hung up on the 205 Live thing. Also, Galetz has been warned about edit warring on his talk page (by another editor), so if you look at it, he is the one with the issue, not me. I lived up to my word, and stuck by it. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I reverted to the last stable version and then went back in and put back the edits that were valid. You however restored it to its own section, which per established consensus is incorrect. If you think I missed something valid than put that back, not the wrong edits.

• Lets look at the first edit [40]. You removed a tag without addressing the concerns. About 75% of the sources are primary which is way too many. Then you moved 205 live back to its own section. Then you put a huge picture of Rhea Ripley back into the middle of the article with just her name next to it, clearly thats wrong too. So what exactly did I miss?
• Now lets take a look at the second one [41]. Once again you incorrectly made 205 live its own section. You added an extra line that isn't needed back into the table. Once again what did I miss?
• The third [42] you added just the incorrect table back and an unsourced claim.
• The fourth an final one [43], you only moved it back into its own section.

So what exactly did I miss? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you did put back things you cut off, then I was in error. My intent wasn't about 205 Live, just the stuff that happened afterwords. My only suggestion in the future would be that if 205 Live is separated out again (which I had then and have now no intent on doing...as I said, I wasn't the one who separated it in the 1st place) that you just be a little more careful in making sure there isn't collateral damage with other things...just gotta watch, that's all (goes for both of us). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No matter who put it there in the first place you blindly restored it. You are responsible for every edit you make. Just like how you continued removal of this tag [44] is a violation of policy without addressing the concern. I have reminded you before we have a style guide that this is in violation of. Just because you don't view it as overly detailed, it is larger than the recommended length and someone else clearly disagrees with you. You need to follow the proper steps for removal, not just making unilateral decisions that it is ok to remove. - 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You got me...I'm a flawed editor. Not everyone can be perfect. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You literally removed it after I mentioned in ANI that you incorrectly removed it. That is not a flaw, its not caring. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ah yes, another day, another tussle over "pro" wrestling "champions". See right. This is really getting beyond ridiculous. EEng 18:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Another day another WP:UNCIVIL comment that adds nothing to the discussion by EEng - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  No, no, you misunderstand me. I think it's great that you're back on a weekly basis with a new argument over whether the cruiserweight title is being defended on pay-per-view, or whatever it is. This is worse than longevity. EEng 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Galetz EEng You two always seem to find each other. Seriously, on one side there's someone like Gomer Pyle on that one episode of the Andy Griffith Show when he kept yelling "Citizen's Areest! Citizen's Areest!" when Barney Fife made that U-turn (kinda like needless ANIs for minor issues), and on the other side, there's a Holden Caufield-esque cynical iconoclast who is saying "Look at the rubes fighting over wrestling again." Not being uncivil, just trying to make a point - Galetz, not every little thing needs to go straight to ANI, and EEng, not everything requires commentary from the stands. So let's just drop the whole stinking issue and live happily ever after...OK? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

2001:16A2:B5AA:384:5D43:1F48:2FC0:6A98

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

This page is being continually updated/violated with incorrect content about the subject - name, career, date of birth etc.

Last user made some ridiculous edits without citation, or using incorrect citations, which do not support claims or discredit factual info.

This is the user.

2001:16A2:B5AA:384:5D43:1F48:2FC0:6A98

Please investigate and revert back to previous version. Can this page also be monitored for further, subsequent activity?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadway1107 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit made was just reverted, and prior to that there hasn't been any edits on the page since June. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Canvasing over list of cryptids

user:bloodofox posted this [[45]] over at WP:FTN. This is a far from neutrally worded statement and is a clear violation of wp:canvasing. When they were informed this was not neutral their response was this [[46]]. In addition over at the merge discussion they posted this [[47]], which only pings a few users involved in the last merge attempt (there may also be issue of badgering here, as a number of exasperated posts show [[48]] [[49]]. It is clear they have major issues over cryptozoolgy and I do not think that in this topic area they are either neutral, civil or cooperative. In fact they are tendentious to an extreme, and this may well be impacting (as can be seen from at least one talk page thread) on other eds ability to even edit pages.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my response on this topic. We're talking about deep fringe territory here (cryptozoology is a pseudoscience closely associated with Young Earth creationism and ufology) that has historically included off-site canvasing and threats to my person. I get that Slatersteven is, according to his own comments, (and evident in his actions), a big fan and potential proponent of this particular pseudoscience, but, of course, we don't build the site around the requests and whims of fringe proponents (or their "fans"), we stick to reliable, independent sources (eg. WP:FRIND). None of this remotely qualifies as canvasing and appears to be an attempt to muzzle me. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is generally an okay editor who can be helpful in certain contexts, but he also sometimes puts his foot in his mouth as he is doing here (diffs can be dug up if you're into that sort of wikilawyer nonsense). The notice at FTN is perfectly factual and not a violation whatsoever. I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG, but I imagine that if sufficiently chided Slatersteven will withdraw to his normal corner. jps (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How is this "shall we say, aggressive editing by cryptozoology-sympathetic editors" neutral and not an Ad hominem?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Was the editing aggressive? Yes it was. Are the editors cryptozoology-sympathetic? Yes they are. Thus, this is a neutral description. It's even couched with a linguistic marker to indicate that he is attempting to be diplomatic. Honestly, this is not so much a tempest in a teapot as it is a non-event. jps (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I think we are going to have to let others decide if this is "diplomatic". And no not all the eds who oppose his suggestions are cryptozoology-sympathetic editors, and that is a massive assumption of bad faith. They just do not agree with his interpretation of policy, or the way he conducts his debates. Nor is it relevant to any discussion that about fringe theories (or reliable sources) that "(I've personally been threatened and seen off-site lobbying now relating to the topic).". And it is hard to see how "...and is fiercely defended by fringe proponents,..." is not seeking allies how share his POV.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish Slatersteven didn't open this. When talking about someone generally on the science side of pseudoscience debates, the standard for showing behavioural problems is automatically higher in practice (for good reason, to be clear). Bloodofox's battleground approach to the list article, with endless threads, ad nauseum arguments, repeated efforts at deleting/merging/gutting over the course of years is problematic but a couple links, some of which arent themselves really an issue, is not going to achieve anything. Bloodofox perceives enmity in folkloristics vs. cryptozoology and fights hard against the latter. Often for the good, but with problems here. Posting to ftn is not canvassing but in the merge thread he pinged exclusively people on the folklore "side" despite there having been many, many more involved editors in these threads. that's canvassing. Don't know there's anything to be done about it beyond a trout without a heap more diffs though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The editors I pinged are the most active editors on this and related topics on the site, all of which I've had disagreements with in the past and only one of whom has to date voted on any merger connected to the article in the past. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they voted differently than I did (they certainly have in the past).

As cryptozoology articles are usually watched closely by cryptozoology and related pseudoscience proponents (often defended by Rhododendrites and Slatersteven, and sometimes brought in from outside lobbying), the complaint here really appears be founded on the fact that I've attempted to bring in knowledgeable outside editors into the discussion rather than to allow proponents to dominate discourse and produce what I perceive to be pretzel arguments around WP:RS. Unfortunately, to date, none of those I've pinged have weighed in. (Note Rhododendrites curiously asked me to no longer respond to comments directed to me on his talk page earlier today: [50]). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Really LuckyLouie No edits in Cryptozoology for 2 years, Katolophyromai I gave up trying to find out when he had ever edited the page (same with Alarichall). But at least LuckyLouie has been more active over at list of Cryptids, having made an edit a few months ago. I would hardly call them the most active. Indeed it was odd you picked three edds who seem to have so inactive on those pages.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Check their edit histories. They're the most active editors on the topic of folklore on the site, particularly regarding fabulous beasts. Cryptozoology hijacking is a major problem on many of these articles, and these editors commonly rewrite articles to meet WP:RS and WP:PROFRINGE. Check out, for example, this gem—before: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partridge_Creek_monster&oldid=843159631), after: Partridge Creek monster. There are many other examples like that out there from the past year or so. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You did not ping Tronvillain, who seems to have been at least as active.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Give it a second look. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I stand corrected. I think that I am going to ask for this to be closed, because whilst I do not think this undermined my case I know that there are enough people out there who will use it in that way for this to go nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)