Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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:

• 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...)

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,
  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!

• 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?

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

• 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.

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,

"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) [3] 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".([4] 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,

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,
  not here to improve the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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

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

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]

@

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

]

• 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 [6] and [7]; 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)[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

• 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]

• WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This diff seems indicative of a trend in FenceSitter's POV pushing. [8] 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.
        Tell me all about it. 16:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]

User

A quick survey of his plot edits of nearly the past two months shows that he is constantly reverting changes to the plot so that it has remained almost exactly the same. Even his specific reverting behavior exhibits this problematic attitude; some of his reverts have justifications in the edit summary [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], but many do not: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Reverting good-faith changes without providing sufficient edit summaries (pointing to policies, discussions, etc.), especially after being asked for a rationale demonstrates an attitude of article ownership.

I noticed this with my own efforts to make improvements to the plot summary. He first justified his reverts by saying "You can't just show up and completely change the plot summary." Claiming the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article (in defiance of

Even within this framework where editors propose changes for his approval, Adamstom.97 has doggedly refused to comment on the actual content of my edits. He first claimed that they were qualitatively identical to what was there before (calling them "change for change's sake"). When I pointed out specific areas I felt were improvements, including obvious grammatical fixes, he ignored my argument and again said that my changes were "changes you made for changes' sake." Prompted by a dispute resolution volunteer, I even made a long breakdown justifying my edits and, rather than engage with my justifications, he explicitly refused to respond to them and told me "you just have to get over it."

I should note that I have attempted to address this problematic behavior at

This is a problematic approach to editing and engaging with other editors. I don't know what the best course of action is here, but throughout this he has gotten repeated reminders of how he should be approaching the process and nothing has been sticking. It's starting to get frustrating. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, you've spelled out your reasoning for your changes on the talk page. Adamstom.97 has not made any reversions to the article since you have done so, nor has he responded with any feedback on the changes. Give him some time (over the weekend, perhaps) to respond on the talk page, and if he fails to do so, implement your changes. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a lot to look at, but your assessment is not in keeping with what I've presented. When I shared a brief justification for my edits to show that they weren't just "changes for changes' sake", he ignored most of what I'd said to reiterate that they were just changes for changes' sake. When I provided a more detailed justification, he posted to say that he would not be responding to them. It's been weeks since I first laid out my justifications, not days.

Also, to say that he hasn't made any reversions to the article since my justifications is not only misleading (since it would be a token of edit warring to insist on my version when I know there would be opposition), but also incorrect. Adamstom.97 couldn't even keep from editing the article during dispute resolution when he was

asked not to by the volunteer moderating our dispute. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

We were both asked not to edit the page, and you are the one who changed it from the

WP:STATUSQUO to your own version first. You also said "feel free to revert". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I did say that. But Caknuck said that you haven't made any reversions to the article since I outlined my justifications, as if you had not been given a chance to change. That is incorrect. Your revert shows you still oppose the edits; your willingness to revert combined with your refusal to discuss the justifications is the problem, not the revert itself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of the long-time editors I know who have film or TV articles on their watchlist, much of my time is spent reverting poor changes to articles made by overzealous or misguided IPs or new users. Are my edit summaries perfect? No, but that is something I am working on and have taken steps to rectify recently. Have I fallen afowl of 3RR a few times? Yes, as have many others who were not actively edit warring but just got caught up in trying to restore a popular article (or article on a popular subject) to before it was poorly changed. In all the years I have been editing film and TV articles this has always been the way out of necessity, and on the rare occasions that issues arise from this approach they have been, eventually, sorted out in good faith. Have a look at the page history of any of the other Marvel films, for example, and you will see a small group of editors diligently reverting all the poor edits that get made to these pages every day. It's just how it has to work.

I find it suspicious that you have decided to create this report immediately after a content dispute did not turn out how you would have liked, not allowing reasonable discussion at the talk page to play out and continuing the lie that I have not been explaining myself or that I think I need to approve any changes to the article. Just nonsense, invented in an attempt to help your case. And to be clear, since you have taken my words out of context to twist them, I did not tell you to "get over it", I said that you may have to get over it if you could not prove that the changes should be made because you can't just go around changing things to how you want them, against consensus. No amount of

WP:OWNy behaviour, then it is the editor who thinks that they should not have to follow an established consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there actually a consensus, or just the changes you haven't reverted? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your snarky and unhelpful attitude, there is indeed consensus as the majority of the summary was formed from the work of multiple editors over several weeks (and thus carries

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS) with some discussion on the talk page for specific issues (one in particular, the film's post-credits scene) that resulted in explicit consensus there. The only changes since have been to resolve specific issues raised by different editors, until this mess began. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm fine with implicit consensus (though calling this "clear" consensus is problematic), but so far Adamstom.97 has treated implicit consensus as something sacred that can't change. Attempts to change it are stonewalled.

In response to charges of lying and wikihounding, please provide diffs. You won't convince anyone of your claims without evidence. I would hope that your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy would not prevent you from recognizing that, when one misbehaves and doesn't stop the bad behavior, reporting them a second time is not hounding.

By the way, the dispute resolution didn't come to an agreement that I disagreed with. It came to an impasse because you failed to follow the rules that the dispute resolution volunteer laid out and refused to actually respond to my justifications. I've already provided the diffs for this. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided that evidence yourself, as your behaviour can be seen alongside mine in the discussions linked to from here. Also, at the start of this very discussion is a whole passage from you about how I think I must approve edits to the page, which is just ridiculous. What is also ridiculous was the amount of stuff you wanted me to wade through and respond to; see

WP:WALLOFTEXT. We are all volunteers here, giving up our free time to improve these articles, and I would rather spend my time actually making improvements and discussing issues with constructive editors than argue who has a better writing style with an editor who does not understand how consensus works. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• (Non-administrator comment) I am honestly appalled that Adamstom.97 has never been sanctioned or even warned about his disruptive edit-warring, article-ownership, uncivil behaviour, personal attacks, bad content edits and so on, and I think it's one of the biggest blots on ANI that it has been unable to deal with him thusfar. I don't think anything will come from this thread because he's also a master of the ANI filibuster, but that doesn't mean that nothing should. My two cents. Don't ping me, because I really don't want anything more to do with this (to the point that I've been basically avoiding editing articles on my favourite film series for months now). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like Adamstom.97 has received a number of sanctions for edit warring, including a temporary topic ban (September 2014), , a warning and page protection (September 2017), and a temporary article ban (August 2018). There are also a number of user talk page warnings (November 2014, December 2014, January 2015, December 2017). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that I was perfect, but the insinuations you are now making are just nonsense. For the record, the above "sanctions" that you are referring to are instances where (a) another user was completely in the wrong and was blocked for it, (b) I never did anything wrong and was actually the victim of abuse at the hands of an editor who eventually drove me off Wikipedia for a substantial amount of time, and (c) there was a major misunderstanding that led to me losing rollbacker rights and learning a big lesson. Your links there have also reminded me that this is now the second time you have reported me to ANI for apparently demanding that you ask my permission before changing an article. The fact that you still think this is a real thing bewilders me.

Do I get into a lot of content disputes? Yes, that is just the nature of the articles that I edit. They are popular, everyone has their opinion, and issues often become quite extensive. Have I accidentally broken 3RR? Yes, and that is completely my bad and something that I try very hard to avoid. I am always happy to discuss issues and have demonstrated that prolifically over my many years here. Do I constantly end up in major arguments with editors such as Hijiri88 or yourself who believe that discussion and the forming of consensus do not apply to them? Yes, and that is unfortunate but it is something I have learned to deal with. Thankfully the majority of editors that I come into contact with a not like that. Am I going to allow these blatant attempts to degrade my character get in the way of the issue at hand? No. I ask that we stop having these multiple conversations, head down to the bottom of this section, and get this wrapped up in a civilised way as soon as possible so we can all get on with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Editor’s Thoughts

This dispute came to

Thanks for your perspective. It seems to me that your role as a DRN volunteer has prompted you to be equal-minded in a dispute, which can help de-escalate tense situations, but it can also create a false equivalence as you have done here. I considered your suggestion of going to RfC, but Adamstom.97's last comment at DRN where he told me to "get over it" struck me as a clear indicator that the real impediment to resolution was his behavior. This comment alone shows a disdain for civil discussion and, given the time taken to break everything down for him specifically, a quite callous inconsiderateness to other people's efforts on his behalf. Even above, he considers this point-by-point breakdown (something I only did because you had asked me to provide further justifications for my edits) an intentional act of disruption, saying "What is also ridiculous was the amount of stuff you wanted me to wade through and respond to" (and linking to

WP:WALLOFTEXT

).

If he had said "hey, that's a lot of stuff. Give me some time to respond" or "I don't have time to respond to everything, but I (dis)agree with A B C because of X Y Z" it would have shown a good faith effort in the face of limited time as a volunteer. Instead, his comments show he would rather close things off than engage in a discussion. If he doesn't have enough time to justify reverts in the talk page, he shouldn't be placing them in the first place. But I suppose you see things differently. So tell me, Robert, how should I read "get over it" as a hallmark of good editing practice or civil discussion? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:aeusoes1 - I said that neither of the editors had behaved in an exemplary manner, and you are giving me further evidence with regard to both of you. You asked 'So tell me, Robert, how should I read "get over it" as a hallmark of good editing practice or civil discussion? ' How you should read "get over it" is in full context, which you have omitted and thus changed its meaning. Adamstom.97 said that they would be willing to discuss any one change, but that if your position is that the whole thing needs to be rewritten, you should get over it. You can still discuss each of your six changes in an RFC. Before I address your rhetorical question further, I will ask you to consider that you have two-and-one-half alternatives at this point. First, you still have two RFC options. You can either publish one RFC, to replace the plot summary with your version, or you can publish six RFCs for your six changes. The fact that Adamstom.97 has chosen not to discuss the changes does not block an RFC, since an RFC is binding on the community. RFC is a way to work around an editor who doesn't discuss civilly (or with editors who do discuss civilly).

Second, you can treat the dismissal of your changes as

WP:ANI to discuss the issue without asking for sanctions. That is never useful, and I mean never. ANI is not a forum for the discussion of content disputes. It is only a forum for the discussion of conduct, and conduct is dealt with by sanctions. If the offense isn't one for which sanctions will be imposed, then the offense is one that isn't worth bringing to ANI. The only result of general complaints with no request for sanctions is to stir up anger, which doesn't help. Since you are already here, I suggest that you think about the options. You can withdraw this complaint or let it be closed, and go with an RFC or six. You can request a block or a topic-ban, and probably not get it. Or you can just want to discuss how unreasonable the other party has been, and there will be a discussion of how unreasonable both editors have been. Those are your choices. What do you want: the input of the community on the plot summary, or an angry unproductive discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

When an editor says they are willing to discuss any change, but then doesn't discuss changes while they say that they have, then the editor either doesn't know what discussion entails or is gaslighting. So when Adamstom.97 says "I have no issue with fixing any issue that the summary has" but resists even basic grammatical corrections, then his words are at odds with his behavior. That's what turns a content dispute into a conduct issue.

When Adamstom.97 strawmans my edits as rewriting the whole summary when I only rewrote the first paragraph and when he strawmans my bulleted list as a wall of text, this is a rhetorical tool to dismiss my proposed changes. Adamstom.97 shows no indication that he has considered any of my proposed changes and has instead told me explicitly that I should stop trying without giving actual reasons. I've identified that as problematic and you somehow wish to twist this into me acting poorly because you've decided to take his words outside of the fuller context in order to read him generously. I hope you can now see why your admonishment rings hollow to me. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. There are at least two types of combined content-conduct dispute. There are those where the conduct must be sanctioned in order to resume the mission of improving the encyclopedia. There are also content-conduct disputes where the conduct can be ignored or bypassed to continue the focus on improving content (which is after all the mission of the encyclopedia). Are you saying that it is necessary to sanction Adamstom.97 before the improvement of the content can resume? Or are you saying only that it is necessary to discuss the conduct of Adamstom.97 here? If the latter, it doesn't work. Discussing a conduct issue without proposing sanctions is just generating more anger that interferes with resuming discussion of conduct. What I am saying, and perhaps you disagree, is that the stubbornness and dismissive attitude of Adamstom.97 is better ignored than discussed, and that proceeding with an RFC or six RFCs will permit progress on content, while focusing on conduct will merely distract. So you are insisting that this must be addressed as a conduct issue. Are you proposing sanctions, or only discussion? If the former, what sanction? If the latter, since merely discussing user conduct doesn't help, what will be gained by discussion of user conduct? An alternative would be to discuss your proposed changes by RFC, with or without the participation of Adamstom.97, but you apparently would prefer to fixate on conduct and avoid going back to improving content. Think about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now it's a content-conduct dispute. I guess I'm getting somewhere with you. I get what you're saying. I could do an RfC and get an overwhelming community response that would drown out Adamstom.97's resistance and would likely involve a give-and-take related to my suggestions that would lead to an even better version than what I proposed. That would, indeed, fix the content issue. But that wouldn't fix the conduct issue, which is why I've come here. Not only would it do nothing to address Adamstom.97's problematic approach, but it would, if anything, vindicate his belief in the idea that even the smallest of changes must pass through rigorous scrutiny once a consensus has been established. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you want to ask sanctions against Adamstom.97, or to discuss his conduct? The latter is not helpful, and never accomplishes anything except to arouse already hard feelings. At this point a block would be punitive, so that isn't on the table. So do you want to propose a

topic-ban? Or do you have some other idea? Or are you willing to deal with the content aspect of the dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Those are false choices and strawman arguments. Just because I don't presume to know the best solution doesn't mean that I'm not seeking solutions. Also, just because I'm here trying to address a conduct issue doesn't mean that I'm not willing to deal with the content aspect of the dispute. In fact, if Adamstom.97 right now went to the talk page and started addressing the content (and I mean really addressing it, not just pretending to) then I would consider the issue at least temporarily resolved. I've even explained how he could show a good faith effort in the face of limited time he's able to devote as a volunteer.

If sanctions are too strong, an explicit warning might be a good way to create a record of community censure that can lead to stronger actions if the behavior continues. As I said, though, he has already gotten reminders of what he should be doing and none of it is taking. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 13:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offering strawman arguments or false choices. You admit that you came to

WP:ANI is to deal with conduct by sanctions. You haven't said what sanction you are asking for. You have now finally made a half-plausible suggestion, a censure or warning. I can at least oppose that, knowing what it is, and I oppose that because I think that Adamstom.97 has a right to refuse to deal with 6 plot changes, and you have a right to take your 6 plot changes to RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree with your assessment that coming to ANI without a specific sanction in mind will only stir up anger. I came to ANI with a behavioral issue and a request for assistance. The assistance could be sanctions, it could be warnings, it could be an offer of mentorship, or who else knows what. If I came with a specific sanction in mind, it would show that I care more about punishing Adamstom.97, when I would rather he correct his behavior so that this sort of thing doesn't come up again in the future.

Take note, by the way, that you have so far neglected to even address my charge of article ownership. You've seemingly ignored my evidence (perhaps with a tl;dr glaze in your eyes) and focused on me because you think I should have ignored the behavioral issue and gone to an RfC. You have made your perspective clear; I understand why you are making that recommendation, but I disagree that it is the best solution in regards to user conduct.

Now can we please focus on the charges I've made? If you don't think that this behavior is indicative of article ownership, please tell me why. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions? Closing Time?

I think that the issues have been addressed here, and it is time to close. My own recommendation is that this is a content-conduct dispute that can be dealt with by the content procedure of an RFC or six RFCs, and that this thread should be closed with cautions to both parties. The alternative is to impose sanctions on one or both of the editors. Since User:aeusoes1 disagrees with my assessment, perhaps they have a proposal for sanctions against User:Adamstom.97. If they merely want to discuss conduct, we have already discussed conduct, and more discussion won't help. Are there any other ideas? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here without a proposed sanction because I don't presume to know better than those who deal with conduct issues regularly. While I'd like to think that you are a fair-minded arbiter, your continuing insistence of this false-equivalence narrative has been less than helpful. It almost seems by your comments that you are impugning my motives; you think that I just want to drag Adamstom.97's name in the mud or that I'm not actually interested in discussing content. Do you really believe that my behavior is just as problematic as Adamstom.97's because I have come to ANI with a conduct issue when you think I could have just ignored it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you think editors can only be fair-minded if they support your position. We can chuck that in the basket along with you not having to discuss contested changes to consensus, and you being able to make up false claims about other editors to get your way. If you just focused on the issue at hand and began the RfC(s) as suggested rather than taking a phrase I used out of context and having it justify a full ANI thread then we could have avoided a whole lot of grief and mess. As I have said numerous times, I am happy to have a reasonable discussion about your concerns with the plot summary. The question is, are you? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aeusoes1 - You wrote: 'Do you really believe that my behavior is just as problematic as Adamstom.97's because I have come to ANI with a conduct issue when you think I could have just ignored it?' I am not comparing your behavior to that of User:Adamstom.97. At this point your behavior is more problematic than that of Adamstom.97, because you are insisting on addressing a conduct issue when you could have worked past it by an RFC. If you think that the conduct issue needs to be addressed before the content can be addressed (and content is the mission of the encyclopedia), then propose a conduct sanction. If you just want to discuss conduct without proposing a sanction, then, to use a quote taken out of context, "Get over it". Discussing conduct without discussing sanctions does nothing but stir up anger. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me my behavior is worse is comparing it to his. I don't see how not ignoring article ownership is worse than article ownership. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring article ownership? You've completely lost sight of what this whole issue is about, and are refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing on your part whatsoever. This whole situation continues to get more and more ridiculous. Could you not just try and get new consensus at the talk page like any other editor would? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already laid out my justifications in the talk page. The ball is in your court. What are you waiting for?

By the way, I'm not opposed to an RfC. Given the extent of this dispute, I'll likely do one no matter what the result of this discussion is — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "justifications" were unreasonable, which I have been saying all along. I want to have a normal conversation that we can get a whole lot more eyes on than just you and me, either in the form of an RfC or not. You going and writing almost 1000 words on a simple content dispute is not starting a reasonable discussion, and actually seems more like a tactic to scare me off than anything else. If you want to form a new consensus, that is not how you should go about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In my assessment of the situation,
  WP:EDR. Swarm ♠ 10:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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]

Hi.

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.[37] 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.[38][39][40][41] Unacceptable. It's clear to me that Film Fan is either
  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. –Davey2010^Talk 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." [42] 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: [43]. 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]

I'm requesting a TBAN of

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

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]

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]