Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Information

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{ subst: ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is blocked for 6 months for violating their editing restriction. The block may be appealed to the community at any point. An extended rationale precedes the discussion. Wug· a·po·des 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (HW) was given a logged warning in 2016 stating "further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block". This is unambiguous, and while it is 5 years old, the the civility policy is not unique to HW nor a secret we kept from him. There is consensus in this discussion that the comments by HW were below the level of civility we require of editors---even those who oppose blocking make this point. There is no consensus in this discussion to lift the previous sanction, and certainly no consensus that it was placed in error.

Most editors opposed to any sanctions point to the other party to excuse HW's behavior. Specifically, the civility policy states "All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response." Per WP:CONLEVEL, that site-wide policy takes precedence over the minority of editors attempting to contradict it, and so those rationales which contradict established policy are given less weight than those based in policy. Similarly, while some editors believe it is appropriate to call a spade a spade that essay advises remaining civil in doing so and nevertheless is secondary to our community-ratified policies per CONLEVEL.

Considering rationales based in policy, editors are generally opposed to an indefinite block based on a 5 year-old warning. There is disagreement over whether a block of any length is the ideal strategy, or whether we should renew the warning. Editors in favor of a renewed warning are in the numerical minority, and other editors rebut those rationales claiming that a new warning would not encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Editors point to the active, unambiguous sanction stating that a block will occur, the previous failed attempts at dispute resolution for similar behavior, and continued present behavior. For these reasons, there is a consensus that a short term block is better than a second logged warning.

For the sake of completeness, there were a number of other threads of discussion which are worth summarizing.

  1. Editors raised concerns about HW's signature: (1) that it is disruptive or uncivil, and (2) that it violates the guidelines at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. There is no consensus to require it be changed.
  2. Editors raised concerns about the content of HW's userpage, particularly a previous revision from 2018 which juxtaposed a gallows with an unsourced accusation that a living person materially aided treason. This was removed as a violation of our policy on content related to living people, but some editors contended it was permissible political speech. The community gives wide leeway to editors in decorating their userpage, and there is wide consensus that political displays are generally appropriate. However, the user page guidelines forbid advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit such as "defamation and acts of violence." Similarly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. As the content has been removed, this thread is moot, but editors are reminded that their userpages must comply with Wikipedia policy and United States law at all times.
  3. Editors, including HW, raise concerns about John Pack Lambert's (JPL) ability to maintian categories relating to biographies of living people. There is no consensus on whether to place editing restrictions on JPL, but any editor may raise those concerns civily and with evidence in a new ANI thread specific to those concerns.
  4. Editors, including HW, raise concerns about Beyond My Ken's (BMK) civility. There is no consensus to place editing restrictions on BMK, but any editor may raise those concerns civily and with evidence in a new ANI thread specific to those concerns.
  5. Some editors support merging Category:Possibly living people into Category:Living people. There is no consensus to here to do so, but editors may request this merge at WP:CFD.

Given the discussion summarized above, I have blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for 6 months as a community-imposed sanction for violating his previous civilty warning. As this is a community-imposed sanction, it may be appealed only to the Administrators' Noticeboard and may not be overturned unilaterally by an administrator. Wug· a·po·des 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [1], edit summaries at [2], [3], [4], [5], and generally at [6] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Wikipedia.

Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

 //  Timothy ::  talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  //  Timothy ::  talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken ( talk)
    For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 ( talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    Imagine my surprise on clicking. E Eng 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
"String 'em up, I say. It's the only language they understand". The box has now been removed. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There is much about 2014 that was good. That episode was not one of them. Nobody emerged happy with the outcome. If you would like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page archived it would be better if you asked him politely, rather than as a shopping list of complaints at ANI. Cabayi ( talk) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Cabayi, unfortunately I was not editing Wikipedia back in 2014, so was unaware of that hoo-ha then. I had no intention of having a shopping list of complaints; that was just one of the first things by which I was struck when I visited their talk page. I am well aware of what BMK has pointed out; I had replied to it but that reply was caught up in a RevDel. Sdrqaz ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
    • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
    • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
    • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes
  • And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.
About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".
When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [7]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.
Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [8]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [9].
Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.
Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:
  • Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
  • Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
  • Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
  • Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
  • Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
  • Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
  • Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.
Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.
So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.
I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

  • The diffs in the original post
  • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
  • Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).
Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

 //  Timothy ::  talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support: as proposer.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich  harass/ hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich  harass/ hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • It was not a "logged warning", it was a straight-out civility sanction: i.e. If you do X, you will be blocked. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz ( talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
    I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich  harass/ hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things ( personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. -- JBL ( talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, and if JBL JPL is problematic, someone should open a report on them and make a proposal, but their disruptiveness doesn't make HW any less uncivil or disruptive in his own right, and is not -- in fact -- a legitimate justification for an "Oppose" !vote. The closing admin should ignore any !vote that does not carry with it proper justification. Nor is this a one-time situation regarding HW. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • You cant even be bothered by your own admission to take the time to do any investigating into HW's complant, so your !vote is meaningless. I look forward to when someone raises a complaint about you and people take the same approach. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @ Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;). [FBDB] -- JBL ( talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)
  • Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? -- GRuban ( talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [10] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [11] is not ignored.  //  Timothy ::  talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. -- GRuban ( talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama ( talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticizing a series of problematic edits involving BLP articles. That is not uncivil. Johnpacklambert by his own admission was disregarding available online sources, and making arbitrary decisions on who is alive or not. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately". Dimadick ( talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm a huge fan of expecting civility. And HW's comments aren't at that bar. I'm not certain anything less then this will get them to pay attention. But while it could be said much better, is anything said by HW inaccurate? We appear to have an editor who has a very high error rate. Calling them out on that seems like the right thing to do. HW hurts their (important) message here. A calmer approach might have resolved the problems by now. I'm not sure what the right next step is--this proposal seems like it's likely to be used as a hammer. But I don't see evidence that anything less will get HW to pay attention. (I'm neutral on this for now, mostly just musing and seeing where I get to as I type this.) Hobit ( talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose sanctions if the main or only complaint is reminding John Pack Lambert via edit summaries that his playing around with people's alive status is utterly incompetent. Further, I would WP:BOOMERANG this and ban JPL from changing such categories, given his longstanding display of incompetence in doing so. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Eh, this is still open. But anyway ... look. There's an ongoing sanction against HW. He's contravened it a number of times. His block log is active going back over a decade, so whether he's been personally mean to JBL recently is scarcely the issue. What IS the issue is this: do sanctions actually mean anything, or can they be safely ignored as long as an editor's made enough edits? Ravenswing 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Insurrectionists' gallows

Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Wikipedia over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 ( diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz ( talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: I note that User: Chess has, coincidentally, edited Wolfowitz's user page to remove said userbox. I assume it will probably return sooner rather than later. —— Serial 07:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Came here from the ping. The userbox is a BLP violation plain and simple. We can't just wantonly accuse living people of criminal behaviour without sources. Calling for the death of a living person makes it 100x worse and could result in WMF actions ( Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm). The fact he was the President of the United States and that it might be a common political belief that he deserves to die only matters in the sense that threatening death upon on a President is potentially in violation of US law and certainly has no bearing on whether one is allowed to violate BLP. WP:BLPTALK is extremely explicit that BLP applies to all namespaces including userspace and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."
I wasn't aware of this AN/I thread when I removed the userbox (I patrol userspace for BLP vios and personal information and what not) but I stand by my decision and this isn't really something up for debate. The userbox violates BLP regardless of whether it is acceptable political speech. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

Given that this discussion is close to being automatically archived, I request that an uninvolved administrator determines what consensus (if any) has emerged from the discussion. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

An additional comment came in not too many hours ago. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just in case anyone still believes that BMK and some others are genuinely concerned about civility in edit summaries (rather than inflaming old quarrels), I suggest you review these bon mots from BMK's more recent contributions. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. And is there even a sign of a warning . . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talkcontribs) 01:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Rev id's that start with "8" or lower are not recent. Levivich  harass/ hound 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Civility is a slippery slope :-) Vikram Vincent 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Whoa. That is a surprise. What's with all the fuck-derivatives, there, Beyond My Ken, if you don't mind me asking? - The Gnome ( talk) 14:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • So HW's official explanation for why they have been uncivil while under a civility sanction because of the nature and extent of their incivlity is that another editor who is not under a civility sanction has at times used colorful language? Perhaps they should recall that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not considered to be a legitimate argument in and of itself. And perhaps others might remind themselves of what the nature of HIW's objectionable edit summaries were that caused him to be sanctioned in the first place [23]. Hint: It wasn't for using colorful language, it was for multiple personal attacks against an editor. So I rather think this is an apples and oranges situation, and not relevant to HW's behavior to boot. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see where someone might think that POTKETTLE was relevant -- even though it's not, because our situations are entirely different, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz being under a civility sanction, whereas I am not -- but "gaming the system" is obviously completely irrelevant here. If that's what he's on about he's grasping at straws. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are different. You have been substantially protected and largely avoided any perm sanctions despite your actions. HW has been fucked repeatedly. The argument that they should be punished more severely while simultaneously getting away with similar is not just pot-kettle, its amoral. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've been "protected" and he's been "fucked repeatedly", huh? You might want to compare our block logs to see how much I've been "protected".
    In any case, this report, and the proposed sanction, is not about me, it's about HW's continuing incivility while under a civility sanction. I understand that the "whataboutthem"-ism of pointing at someone else is a frequently used tactic to attempt to get the heat off oneself -- one often used in contemporary politics to create false equivalences and confuse the public and the press (which should know better) -- but such sleights-of-hand are rarely successful, even when repeated by enablers with hidden prejudices, unless the audience for them is extremely gullible, a category I do not place the Wikipedia community in. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Deepfriedokra

  • Really, there are points in this "discourse" where y'all should be ashamed of yourselves, or run for Congress. Just go back over what's been written and consider how it would go down if written by someone else.
  • Request for closure? I don't see a consensus to sanction HW at this juncture. The fallacious arguments, hyperbole, wikilawyering, and false analogies (0n both sides) not withstanding, despite being presented with great gusto and enthusiasm. Some of y'all need to take some calming breaths and regain your composure. Y'all are really great people and great editors when you are calm.
  • However. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is really no excuse for the level of harshness in your interactions. Do we need a list of people to IBAN you from interacting with? Were it JPL alone you've been rude to, an IBAN would be the answer. How do we stop your behavior? I'm a shoot-from-the-hip kinda guy, and am ready to Indef you right now based on your behavior. Cutting through all the sophistry, that's what it comes down to. I await your reply.
  • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz That signature is really disruptive and offensive. Don't you think it is time to move past that? As to the political screed on the user page. If we took all of those down at once, the servers would overload. My opinion is they have no place on Wikipedia, but we let established users get away with that sort of thing. I question whether the community would tolerate it if it were pro-Trump.
  • I see no consensus for any action, and that is one of the many failings of this venue. Partisanship dictates outcomes rather than fairness and objectivity. I'll leave it for another admin to look at. I cannot and will not act unilaterally. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Closure

So, a 6 month block for the first block since the original restriction was placed (HW was last blocked in 2014), despite there being no clear consensus in the above discussion to block? Another example why a community de-sysop procedure cannot come soon enough. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)It was a valid close for blunt statements bordering on personal attacks. That, as well as the gallows user box, warrants a block. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. And the arguments against blocking boiled down to "it's okay to ignore an editing restriction". Grandpallama ( talk) 14:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, a six month block after the last one was ~7 years ago, does seem to be unusually harsh. Can you maybe touch on why you opted for half a year instead of, say, a month or two? Thanks! El_C 15:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty heavy. And while the overall pattern of behavior may—may—"warrant a block", as a three-week old editor may say, the gallows thing is a distraction at best. —— Serial 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I can only begin to imagine how things would look like had the US Capitol insurrectionists made (lethal) use of the gallows that they built on-site — which, in my view, many of whom intended to do, but thankfully simply did not get a chance to. //Sorry for the OT distraction. El_C 18:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Depends, I guess, whether one sees the userbox as still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression, El C.( [24])
Who are you, and what are you trying to say? No, I don't know how to use the page's history! El_C 18:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: The context was not HW's previous blocks, the context is the current discussion and how participants interpreted the behavior since that block. The block policy is clear: The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden. So while looking to previous blocks can be helpful in determining "the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior" it is not the only factor in the decision. For example, the logged warning was from 5 years ago: that's two years after the block you mention, so even after that block the community has already had to expend energy to prevent further disruption and it didn't work. Returning to the discussion at hand, participants discussed the patterns and likelihood of a repeat. While consensus was formed largely on the basis of the previous warning, it was not the only rationale editors had for supporting a block.
While some editors were not swayed by the userbox issue, some found it deeply troubling. That BLP violation was added in 2018, 2 years after the logged warning. While editors disagree on whether it alone is worthy of sanction, participants certainly did not view it as a sign that the 2014 block or the 2016 warning were effective at reforming a pattern of disruptive polemics. Even you, El_C, admit that you would have found it problematic were you aware of it prior to this month: At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. If we take you at face value, that means by your own admission we were hosting an illegal death threat against a sitting president for two years before it became a "relevant political statement". Should that inspire confidence in me that the present conflict is a momentary lapse and not a pattern of behavior likely to recur? Now add on the rest of the context: your argument was strongly rebutted by multiple editors, and there is a current consensus by editing that the material should not be re-added to the user page since Chess's removal has gone unreverted for 5 days at this point despite the active discussion. Moving on, other editors brought up his signature, characterizing it as "incredibly whiny" and disruptive for multiple reasons. There was no consensus to require it be changed, but that doesn't mean there was a consensus that it was benign or not a reflection on HW. Despite this extensive discussion, it's still there. Does that inspire confidence that a gentle hand will bring about the change the community wants?
Hell, even people defending HW pointed out a pattern of incivility, they simply try to excuse it through various means. The result of this is that multiple editors suggested an indefinite block bordering on an outright community ban. There was no consensus for an indef block, but clearly a significant portion of the community is worried that this behavior is highly likely to continue without serious intervention. One editor claimed that HW was " not compatible with a collaborative project, and another claimed he is "a net negative to the project". Multiple editors expressed frustration that an (expected) weak hand would be ineffective and lead to more problems down the line. In this situation, the blocking policy recommends a longer rather than a shorter block.
If after a month or two, HW believes they have changed and the block is no longer preventative, they are free to appeal it and I would support as I do all well reasoned and contrite unblock requests. But quite frankly, given the above, I laughed at the idea of "a month or two"-long block. My first draft of this close was for a year long block, but I reduced it by half because I thought that was too harsh. You're very reasonable El_C and someone whose opinion I deeply respect; read the community concerns above---read your own words dispassionately---and tell me whether a softer touch would bring about the change the community clearly wishes to see. Imagine any other volunteer organization where this record was presented to HR: do you think they would respond more leniently or more harshly than I did? As always, I'm open to being wrong and welcome review, but I don't believe I abused the discretion afforded by the discussion and blocking policy. Wug· a·po·des 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I too thought a block was likely needed because there were repeated egregious breaches of our civility policy and little sign of reform. After reading it all through a couple of times I baulked at trying to summarise the debate, so kudos for not letting this get quietly archived. Fences& Windows 22:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I didn't intimate (or mean to, at least) that you exceeded your discretion or otherwise acted in violation of the blocking policy. The block length just seemed odd to me, as a first impulse, is all, which is why I asked for you to maybe expand on your reasoning. To that, thank you for the substantive explanation. I have read it in full and found it illuminating. I, otherwise, have no additional follow up comments or queries. Thanks again! El_C 22:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I was against the block and supported a warning only, but I think it was a good close, having been thoroughly convinced by the rationale of the closing statement and the expansion above. Levivich  harass/ hound 23:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

BunnyyHop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Slavery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BunnyyHop has a long history of POV pushing sections. On the previous ANI he was warned if he keeps adding POV sections, action would be taken against him. He has not stopped. He has tried add a random paragraph quote in Wikipedia's voice, I reverted these edits as they were disruptive. At which point he accused me of being on a "anti-communist crusade" completely unrelated to the article, assuming bad faith, and attempting to derail the conversation and making useful discussion impossible. BunnyyHop also has prior disruption on the article Slavery, removing sections he doesn't like and tagging them as minor to avoid it being reviewed. BunnyyHop does so here and here. This is not BunnyyHop's first time of trying to derail conversations with accusations of bad faith, as shown by his talk page. Des Vallee ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee ( talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee ( talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. ( t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [25]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes ( talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.
I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:
I think this individuals contributions, [26] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).
They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.
They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).
This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).
I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  //  Timothy ::  talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
"No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)
A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp× g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
    The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [27] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [28] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [29] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [30] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.
I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.
This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.
Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.
I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop ( talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]) and WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop ( talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [37] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban BunnyyHop hasn't stopped making POV pushing edits since last time, as well as him now, doubling down at pushing his POV even harder. Des Vallee ( talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

Just because you feel you know Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't mean you do, trying to override consensus by saying "I am right and this a break in policy therefor I can ignore consensus" without understanding guidelines or consensus one bit isn't going to work

bold and italic added by me
Well, what did I do this time? A simple [[ ]] edit, with a little note to the previous edit diff, where I affirmed:

+ [[]]; furthermore, local consensus shouldn't overwrite Wikipedia's guidelines, local consensus shouldn't violate WP:NOR nor WP:V

Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.
-- BunnyyHop ( talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BunnyyHop: I decided to make a proper comment after taking a break from this. This ANI report came only five days after the closure of the previous one. The three diffs provided by Des Vallee when opening this report include one Talk page comment I made on 2 February, and two edits I made on 26 October and 26 December of last year, before the previous ANI report was even started. Then Des Vallee posted an additional three diffs: Two edits I made on 24 December of last year and one warning I received on 1 December. In other words, the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an "anti-communist crusade." I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to "continued POV pushing".

After that, other editors have essentially repeated the exact same accusations made in the previous ANI report, based largely on my previous edit history from before the last report. I wish to emphasize again that it has been less than a week since the closure of that report. In that time, I have only made 24 article mainspace edits, and 12 of them have been small edits of 50 characters or less. It is true that I am involved in several long-running content disputes, and I have continued to engage with those disputes since the last ANI report. Note that I've had 47 Talk space edits as compared to the 24 in mainspace since the ANI report. I am mostly just trying to resolve the disputes that I was already involved in.

These other editors continuously accuse me of "POV pushing" for what I consider to be simple engagement in content disputes. All I want is to resolve the several content disputes that I have already been involved in for some time, and then move on. But it seems that my very act of engaging in those disputes is considered "POV pushing".

I have discussed every edit (in fact, one of the accusations against me is that I discuss too much). I would like to ask my accusers what, in their opinion, it would be necessary for me to do in order to engage in our content disputes without it being POV pushing. It seems to me that their only request is that I simply stop disputing the content they prefer, with nothing else being considered good enough. I think that is self-evidently unreasonable.

I would also ask everyone reading this to consider the dates on the diffs used to accuse me. I can't go back into the past and undo edits I made in October or December. But for the future, as I said, I wish only to resolve the content disputes I am already involved in and then move on. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee ( talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee ( talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [38]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [39] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  //  Timothy ::  talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.
I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  //  Timothy ::  talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it ( link):
On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»
In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»
In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»
The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»
Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.-- BunnyyHop ( talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. ( t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp× g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly -- BunnyyHop
Offtopic CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry to jump into an an unrelated discussion, but it happens to be right above the discussion about me. Timothy is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring in [ [40]]. To me it's pretty obvious when you look at his edits. To copy/paste what I wrote below:

Thank you t. In regards to [ [41]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [ [42]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [ [43]]. Or this [ [44]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine".

It seems that Timothy's thing is getting onto pages about early 20th century communism, push original research, report those who call him on his sources. Stix1776 ( talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose a topic ban. I'm reading the justifications, and honestly Vallee and Timothy are POV pushing just as much if not more. The justifications for a topic ban seem way out of proportion. Stix1776 ( talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The above is simply a trolling comment/vote, from an editor with ~100 edits, clearly retaliation for the ANI I filed below, and from an editor pushing the same POV as BH. Please see [45] for their response to an admin leaving a ds/notice for them in this area.  //  Timothy ::  talk  11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Stix1776 See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this isn't looking good for trying to get retaliation. Des Vallee ( talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  //  Timothy ::  talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee ( talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee ( talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [46], [47] on the same page where they did it before: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ( [53]), ( [54]), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).( KIENGIR ( talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
  • If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  //  Timothy ::  talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.
Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  //  Timothy ::  talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  //  Timothy ::  talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [55], whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  //  Timothy ::  talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now ( far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.
The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @ Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @ Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @ The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ( [56] [57] [58] [59]).
There was also a Talk page section about this exact text that got opened on 13 January, without any involvement by me.
So, once again, we have a content dispute that is presented as POV-pushing simply because I am involved in it. This is the real repeated pattern that TimothyBlue is talking about. In this case, it's a slow-burn content dispute that began without me back in November 2020 (!), and that I only joined yesterday. I count a total of 10 editors who have been involved in this dispute over time so far, on both sides (for and against including the disputed content). There were no accusations of "POV-pushing" until I joined, in spite of other editors holding the exact same position that I hold, and reverting the exact same text that I reverted.
So, I believe that TimothyBlue is indeed correct that this example is illustrative, but in the opposite direction from the one he suggests. I joined a content dispute and was accused of POV-pushing for simply supporting one of the existing sides in that dispute. That is exactly what keeps happening.
-- BunnyyHop ( talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.   Nixinova T   C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD ( talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've been paying more attention to these disputes on the linked pages and they are indeed content disputes and not behaviour issues as the OP projects. Agree with TFD that this complaint is again a badly written piece. Perhaps they should try out Rosguill's ANI reform proposal for the next complaint. Vikram Vincent 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here is Bunnyyhop still engaged in their usual tendentious behavior about Mao Zedong, casting asperions on other editors saying their source evaluation was just their own POV while defending fringe sources and material. Crossroads -talk- 05:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [60] They tried passing off where a book review of a revisionist-history book from a "radical left-wing" publisher described the book's POV as a claim by the peer-reviewed journal itself that published the book review. This is a perfect example from this very day of how this user is continuing the same propagandizing and learned nothing from the previous ANI. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads -talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [61], didn't get them, but found a review summarizing the content of the book in a well-respected journal. He provided the quotation to you. He also provided the full review for you to look at, but you made up your mind about the reviewer without reading the review. Instead of acknowledging your own error of interpretation, you accuse BunnyyHop of "sleights of hand" and myself of "gaslighting." This, too, is illustrative. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just going over the diffs that have been presented, this is reasonably sourced and attributed; this is removing a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that had gone completely uncited for months; and this (regarding this edit) seems like a reasonable dispute over sources and WP:DUE weight. That isn't to say that Bunnyyhop is necessarily right in each case, just that these are patently obviously legitimate content disputes, not something that could reasonably be used to justify sanctions. Perhaps Bunnyyhop could be more cautious about assuming good faith, to be sure, but it's a bit silly to raise that objection while simultaniously making accusations of bad faith over a content dispute; and I'm not seeing a lot of presumption of good faith extended towards Bunnyyhop in the talk history of that page, either. Is this earlier comment really indicative of someone who has WP:CLEANHANDS when it comes to assuming good faith in this dispute? -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose BunnyHop is systematically deleting unsourced claims and POV claims that are poorly sourced. These are commendable actions, not reason for sanctions. He/she should probably stop marking these are minor changes, but they should be allowed to keep up the good job. Dimadick ( talk) 09:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for admin evaluation and close

  • I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.
Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.
Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  //  Timothy ::  talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  //  Timothy ::  talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment request that all the frequent commentators on this ANI thread find an appropriate study group. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate political lines and consequent practice. The discussions degenerate into tedious polemics since none of the participants' contributions can be judged fairly—Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the discussants can not agree on reliable sources, or don't know any, there is not much chance of active encyclopedia building. Recommend voluntary topic avoidance for all revolutionary thought topics, to include talk pages and especially ANI—to be reconsidered in twelve months. There is no chance of any of the discussants reaching a consensus and no particular desire of anyone else here to devote attention to their problem. — Neonorange ( Phil) 06:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This again? User makes questionable edits, we get a bunch of people who seemingly have similar political views defend them for making POV-pushing edits about those views, etc (My hands aren't clean here either, I !voted in the previous ANI). This has turned into a mess. I have to agree with Neonorange here, this is going to waste more time and turn into another sprawling thread in which it's going to be hard to find a bunch of neutral admins that have the time to read through everything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. TimothyBlue summed it up well: "this individual[']s contributions show they are here to push a personal and pos[i]tive viewpoint of anything related to Marxis[m]–Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about" this topic.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Continue to Support topic ban: related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed and admins should consider a NOTHERE site ban.
More recent examples of POV pushing and editing against consensus
  • Removal of content they do not like, against talk page consensus: [62], [63]. See talk page here Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour
  • They want to remove GULAG, China and North Korea from examples of modern slavery (see talk page plus their edits), but added a section on US prisons [64]
  • They have repeatedly been rebuffed in their attempts to push their POV at Slavery, now there is this Talk:Slavery#Draft RfC, an attempt to dismantle an entire article simply because they want to remove the above negative information about communism.
  • Using AfD to delete content against their POV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red fascism
  • Inserting content wihtout due weight to push their POV [65]
  • Removing the title historian from Anne Applebaum (a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, with three major works on this area of Soviet history) - a BLP violation: [66]
  • Using extermely biased primary sources to push POV [67]
  • Misleading edit summaries to add maintenance tags for material that doesn't fit their POV [68]
I think the example of adding the United States to examples of Modern Slavery, while removing North Korea, China and the GULAG shows this editor will not stop pushing their POV in articles related to communism.
The evidence in this ANI and the previous ANI, should be enough for admins to end this DE POV pushing with a topic ban for articles related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed and consider a NOTHERE ban based on there edit history.  //  Timothy ::  talk  17:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Bunnyyhop's statement: I believe this report is skewed, and my defend follows:
Slavery article
TimothyBlue's diffs are presented anachronically. I'll provide correctly timed diffs to not mislead anyone. On 19 February, I replied diff to Zloyvolsheb's response on 17 February, diff and asked Timothy to mediate a RfC to solve this dispute. To summarize my present argument: Academic sources clearly present a distinction between slavery and forced labor, as well as the International Labor Organization. However, some such as the Anti-Slavery International - although not academic - refer to forced labor as a form of contemporary slavery. The «History» section of the current Slavery article is Chattel Slavery's per WP:COMMONNAME, so, therefore, unfree labor cannot be included here but rather in unfree labor and « contemporary slavery». If we decide to include forced labor in the Slavery article, as proposed by Timothy, then we also have to include the history of Bonded labor, Forced migrant labor, Sex slavery, Forced marriage and child marriage, Child labour, Debt bondage, Wage slavery, and so on, which is absurd per Wikipedia guidelines. The current Slavery#Contemporary slavery could include a summary of forced labor (state-enforced and through the market), without creating subsections. This is my argument, and I don't recall it being addressed by those who refuse to move the content. diff Timothy replied that and went further in detail that «Slavery is a broad term;», ignoring what I and Zloyvolsheb pointed out previously while looking for a more neutral, objective approach. Ironically, the sole reply from those who reject any change in the source gathering section I opened did NOT include a single source. However, I decided to introduce a section on the United States penal labor system diff on 20 February, as well as other three edits, to introduce a Gulag scholar and add proper attribution.
This prompted a response from Crossroads on 05:31 23 February diff, asserting that «expert sources ([...]) need to be clear that this is slavery, specifically», removing this newly inserted section about unfree labor in the US, using exactly (!!!) the point of my argument. He also removed diff the neutrality-section template, whilst accusing someone of " filibustering" and that "Not needed per talk page", although he NEVER participated, something I realized afterward.
Responding to this, I removed on 16:08 of the same day the other two sections that did NOT mention slavery in any way, per Crossroads, diff.
I removed on 16:11 diff redundant blockquotes, which violated WP:DUE and whose main point was already summarized without the need for blockquotes. I replaced the sourceless estimations of deaths with the proper estimation per the GULAG article on 16:33, diff, and added a source-needed template to a source-less phrase.
Ironically, Timothy reverted on 17:04 diff those edits (including the ones adding sources), but did NOT revert all of it - only to Crossroad's, which is truly inconsistent - I used Crossroads' rationale, yet only MY edits were reverted. The edit summary was «Rv editing against talk page consensus to push POV», although this has NOT been discussed on the talk page, and probably won't be as Timothy decided to revert it and report it here instead of writing a proper response on the talk page.
AfD
A true concern - a WP:POVFORK - which was correctly and cordially argued against by two other editors, which I agree. Unfortunately, your response diff added nothing to the discussion, as it consisted mostly of NOT assuming good faith and personal attacks, commenting on the contributor instead of the content - which also applies to the current reply I'm commenting.
The rest
The rest is simply based on WP:PA and not WP:AGF, based on blatant exaggerations and misinterpretations, as well as cherry-picking parts of diffs. For instance, on Applebaum - the Pulitzer Prize is a prize for journalists, not historians, hence the replacement. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and historian would be better, but to say this is a WP:BLP violation is ridiculous. Such is the result of not WP:AGF.
-- BunnyyHop ( talk) 21:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:AGF is specifically not a shield against criticism, especially at ANI where behavioral problems are dealt with. Your addition to Slavery was clearly WP:POINT. It was a bunch of non-expert media sources like Vox and The Guardian, and some that are blatantly political like the "World Socialist Web Site". [69] The other recent evidence above from TimothyBlue is serious too. You should have reformed after barely escaping the last ANI without sanctions, but you've continued the same behavior. That is why a topic ban is necessary. Crossroads -talk- 21:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Civility is needed inside and outside of ANI. So, the "problem" has now changed to the sources I used? I gathered that text as well as the sources from the main article, but they're easily checkable. I'm asking you to be objective, don't use weasel words such as "some that are blatantly political", when in reality it's just one. The WSWS quotes the ILO, which takes a 2-second search to verify: and %241.15&f=false here. It should be replaced, but I don't concur this justifies a "topic ban". -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • BH's comment above about why they added content about the US prison system, shows the time wasting game playing they are engaged in. This was not done to improve the article but to be pointy and serve their own purpose. Adding content they think is inappropriate, but doing so to serve another purpose is DE.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Although those who defend keeping the history of forced labor in the chattel slavery's history section do not really present any reasonable argument to hold it, and usually resort to other methods such as this ANI report and creating a false image of consensus, the article still presents the history of unfree labor in chattel slavery's section. I want to move it to their respective articles, but as it is, forced labor goes there. I'm surprised those who held the position that forced labor should be in the history section of that article are contradicting their position in this ANI now that I decided to expand it to include the United States, the country with the biggest prison population. In my opinion, this serves to show how unsolid the opinion of those who want to keep the history unfree labor in the section about the history of Chattel Slavery is. None of those who have recently defended a position opposite to mine participated in the source gathering section I opened on the 10th of February, only Timothy - which did NOT gather a single source. It seems as if Timothy is avoiding this «time-wasting game» by using ANI as a shield, evading making a proper argument to back their point. Timothy's reply that slavery is a broad term ignores that, A: The great majority of WP:RELIABLE sources MAKE a clear distinction between forced labor and slavery; B: The history section in that article is referent to chattel slavery; C: Penal labour, unfree labour, labour camps and contemporary slavery (the latter being a term used mostly by non-academic organizations such as the Anti-Slavery International) already have their own articles; D: If a term has multiple meanings, it should be WP:DAB; E: If we were to accept Timothy's argument that "slavery is a broad term" plenty of articles would have to be merged into that one, not just unfree labour (a clearly distinct term);
-- BunnyyHop ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Chattel slavery is its own section, appropriately separate from the modern slavery section; no one has suggested doing what is claimed above. Based on BH's comments above about Wikipedia articles and trees, I think WP:CIR is a factor that should be considered, BH should not be attempting to restructure articles. I've started working on a child article for the chattel slavery summary section and others editors are working on the article; it will take work and time, but hopefully this will be submitted to GA review, but if BH is allowed to continue, including along the lines of what they suggest above, it will never be stable enough.  //  Timothy ::  talk  20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The article is directed at chattel slavery, hence the redirect. Slavery is used, per WP:COMMONNAME, referring to chattel slavery. This I failed to consider, as well as this: I have actually not seen a single WP:RELIABLE source saying forced labor is a form of slavery. I gathered a total of 6 reliable sources on this, and none support this conclusion. The source you uphold as justificative of this, Anne Applebaum, is WP:FRINGE, as a Gulag scholar disregards her introduction (where she makes such comparison - between the Gulag and slave camps), as well as all others which do NOT make such equation - between the Gulag and slave labor, and more importantly, between penal labor and slavery. It's hard to grasp what your argument is because you simply do not cite any sources. Also, I have NEVER been notified of any attempt to split the article (which would be my previous position regarding any splits, before considering WP:COMMONNAME). -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 22:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
diff: As it stands, Timothy reverted an obvious move from History (of Chattel Slavery) to Contemporary slavery without presenting any argument, solely "no consensus". -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
To summarize my argument: I believe sections about forced/ penal labor which do NOT get labeled as slavery by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that is, WP:RELIABLE sources should be removed from the slavery article per WP:OR, and if there's any minority view on the subject (as is the case with Anne Applebaum and the Gulag - which I don't know if it's considered WP:FRINGE) it should be included with WP:DUE weight in the contemporary slavery section, which is a summary-styled section on the cases of Chattel Slavery over at Contemporary slavery, without the need for a summary-styled topic. As it stands, penal labor camps are included in the history section about Chattel slavery summary-styled, which is completely WP:UNDUE and based on the WP:OR that these two clearly distinct terms - slavery ( chattel slavery) and forced labor are equal. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 22:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Among others things, the above comment is another example from BH of why Wikipedia has WP:CIR. If admins come to a consensus that my editing is unconstructive in this area, let me know and I will step back from the subject; for now I'm going back to working on the article, the chattel slavery article, and the outline and bibliography I'm creating for the topic.  //  Timothy ::  talk  23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Your avoidance to discuss the point of the subject and the resort to guidelines such as WP:CIR without developing it any further bothers me. -- BunnyyHop ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Dtt1 and Ashish Chanchlani

Blocked indefinitely. MER-C 10:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dtt1 is tendentiously attempting to create an article on this Youtuber. Articles have already been created and deleted as A7, and then created and deleted after AFD, and created with a variant title in order to game the history, and deleted after AFD. The title was then salted, but a Deletion Review said that re-creation should be allowed. There may have been a misreading of the DRV as to whether re-creation was allowed in draft or in article space, but it has been re-created yet again in article space, and has been tagged for deletion by User:Pradixicae. The current AFD should simply be allowed to run, but then Dtt1 filed a case request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which does not handle deletion disputes. I have closed the DRN request as forum shopping. This was vexatious litigation at DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, more name gaming about a week ago: Ashish chanchalani (see Teahouse thread 1 and Teahouse thread 2). That was not created by Dtt1 but by a new user who has since been globally locked as a LTA. It looks like there is a marketing push to get an article about Chanchlani created. -- bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Title Blacklist

I recommend that Chanchlani be title blacklisted to prevent future gaming of naming protection. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be a good idea. -- bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • And to add onto this, I don't think the suspicions here are remotely unfounded or coincidental. Nearly every page move Dtt1 has done is moving sock-spam (or coi-spam) into mainspace:
Rohanpreet Singh - created by a declared paid/coi editor, moved within 24 hours of submission by Dtt1 who was a "brand new" user at the time
Rohan Solomon - recreated by dtt1 following CarryMint's several blocks
Toranj Kayvon/ Toranj Kayvon - recreated/moved by dtt1, following known upe sock farm, Shringhringshring's block
Pratik Gauri/ Pratik Gauri - moved by dtt1, sock spam by ShaiksKings
Khushi Shah/ Khushi Shah - moved by dtt1, which also led to their temporary block for socking, from the ImSonyR9 a well known and prolific paid sock farm
R Nait/ R Nait - moved by dtt1, a creation by a prolific spammer Swarup Kumar Solanki
Yasir Akhtar - moved by dtt1, created by known spammer Ayesha Mallik just weeks after their block and Dtt1 joining
Bandish Bandits - moved by dtt1, created by Godiswithyou
Viral Shah - another ImSonyR9 upe creation, even acknowledged by Dtt1, moved to mainspace
Just Sul - yet another ImSonyR9 UPE creation
Yasser Desai - their first page move, a long term spam target by a variety of spam socks, was moved to mainspace by dtt1 within hours of becoming extendedconfirmed
I could continue but I think my point is demonstrated here. When you hear hoofbeats... It seems so unlikely to the point of improbability that Dtt1 is some special unicorn who has just showed up at all of these paid-for-spam articles out of happenstance. CUPIDICAE💕 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic-Ban

I recommend a topic-ban against Dtt1 having to with Ashish Chanchlani.

  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - per the clear case presented by Robert McClenon - wolf 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • conditional suppport as a second choice if the siteban proposal fails and on the condition it extends to all BLPs broadly construed as they have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding (or unwillingness) to abide by WP:BLP. CUPIDICAE💕 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as second choice.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite
  • Indef, there's no way Dtt1 is not an UPE as mentioned in this SPI from September – Thjarkur (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • support both a tb and indef should they come back. My UPE suspicions aside, Dtt1 lacks the competence to edit BLPs, as evidenced by my multiple warnings to them about sources and their continued insistence that policy based decisions regarding said sources are "reliable." It's like talking to a brick wall. I'll also note, failing an indef, a BLP topic ban broadly construed should be placed to prevent further disruption. They've been warned about BLPs, sourcing and deprecation but insist on adding unreliable sources to support content in blps. CUPIDICAE💕 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indef as UPE per the evidence in Ticket:2021021310003214 and other indications of being a paid editor such as their vehement defence of this spam magnet by citing SEO spam sites, their attempts to do the same elsewhere and their moving of sock spam to mainspace. Blablubbs| talk 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    For context, the ticket provides credible evidence that Dtt created Ashish Chanchlani in exchange for undisclosed payments. Blablubbs| talk 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indef for UPE - There's no way this isn't UPE. On Wiki evidence is clear enough, OTRS ticket takes the cake. Wikipedia isn't for promotion. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indef for UPE - This editor had drawn my attention when they tried to create Sapna Choudhary Sapna Choudhary a salted page made by multiple socks previously. His creation log is full of promotional non-notable pages that have been deleted. Ticket:2021021310003214 is damming too. All in all in my opinion there is enough here for a Indif block for undisclosed paid editing. --- FitIndia Talk Admin on Commons 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indef for UPE - 2021021310003214. Cabayi ( talk) 10:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indef for UPE per the ticket and edits. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indef – pretty obvious UPE issues even though I can't see the ticket. And this post is a prime example of other problems discussed above ( WP:IDHT, difficulty/refusal to understand the requirements for sources for BLPs, which turns into a time sink for other editors). -- bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Site-Ban as per comment by Bonadea about above post by subject editor saying that they work on items that are salted and banned. That is, the subject editor is saying that they are here to break the rules. I've inserted a subhead for the calls for indefinite block. I can't see the ticket, but I can see what amounts to a middle finger. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support site-ban as first choice. Jack Frost put it more concisely than I would muster: "There's no way this isn't UPE. On[-]Wiki evidence is clear enough, OTRS ticket takes the cake." PS: Technically, I think this should be a community site-ban, not an indef; accounts that appear to exist for the sole or primary purpose of undisclosed paid editing aren't going to be allowed back.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:AnotherEditor144

Blocked indefinitely by Moneytrees. MER-C 10:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I ask, how on earth does a two day old account, knowing you can add sub-pages to his user space, straight through some AfDs then arrive at an Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsuser. I find it very suspicious and wondered if this is a continuation of a banned user. Something seems very fishy to me. Govvy ( talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user definitely rubbed me the wrong way, as well. Nobody requests suggestions from SuggestBot 22 minutes after creating their account. Nobody subscribes to the Administrators' Newsletter before they're autoconfirmed. Nobody starts archiving their talk page within three hours of account creation. This one definitely quacks like a duck, although I'm not sure what the backstory is. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably simple block evasion. Some sort of CheckUser action may be warranted. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ, I concur. This is not a new account and I concur Ockham's razor aka duck suggests block evasion is involved. But who's the master, I am unsure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I was doing a lot of research when I was anonymous so that I was prepared. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at checkuser evidence for this account, and I couldn't conclusively associate this account with any other. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Could be a WP:CLEANSTART, which is allowed. Fences& Windows 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
And some people are anons for months or longer before creating an account (I think I edited, in random and minor ways, for almost a year before deciding to formally become a named editor rather than an occasional typo fixer). However, the policy, deletion, and squabbling focus of this party is highly suspicious, and I see that the account is already blocked. I wonder why this was opened as an ANI investigation instead of WP:SPI, which seems like the proper process for this.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The user hasn't edited since this thread was opened. The point may now be moot, and in any event there's nothing we can do about it unless the master can be identified. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I scared him away, who knows! Or he decided to recreate himself with less red-flags! heh. Govvy ( talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This is my first account, not a clean start. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
People can be blocked for disruption, trolling or obvious block evasion even if the original master isn't clear. Blablubbs| talk 14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Where are the diffs? AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 14:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of disruption, trolling, or obvious block evasion, I merely made the point that people may be blocked even if there is no master. The original block here is an example of that. But since you asked: I do have trouble believing you're a new user, and your conduct here and here does give me pause. Blablubbs| talk 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
What conduct are you talking about? Also, I am not connected with the other user in any way. Extraordinary Writ says there is no master. User:Slykos is not involved. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • They seem likely to be part of the Niceguylucky cluster. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    The other sockpuppets are only possilikely, Andrew Davidson, so I would probably be unlikely to unrelated when checked. I am not connected with Niceguylucky in any way. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Per Shibboleth, I think this is likely another case of failing to watch the How to return secretly and successfully to Wikipedia training video.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    Even if this was a clean start (which it isn't), I could not have found that video. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • So, I finally had some more time to look through AnotherEditor144's edit history and re-examine this; hence, here is a more expansive answer to the question of where the diffs are.
    You have stated that you did a lot of research on Wikipedia because before you started editing. This research must have indeed been quite expansive, given that you have, among other things, you are apparently familiar with the letter code system that was formerly in use at WP:RfCu, which was replaced by SPI in 2009 and have cited a rather obscure essay at AfD. It would stand to reason, then, that someone with that sort of familiarity with Wikipedia would know a lot about our conduct standards in project space. For example, I would expect someone who claims such knowledge to know that !votes like these [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] or close suggestions like this [83] [84] aren't considered particularly helpful. Such a person would also know that it isn't good form to respond to almost every comment in an AfD discussion ( [85] [86] [87] – in one of these, you managed to ping Extraordinary Writ 7 times for no apparent good reason).
    Similarly, one would expect a user so familiar with the history of SPI to know that the system hasn't been in use for twelve years and that "block evasion" doesn't negate the prohibition on connecting named accounts and IPs, or that users with 24h-old accounts are discouraged from acting as a clerk (as is anyone else who isn't one).
    The chronology of events also gives me pause. In your 4 days on Wikipedia, you have racked up 351 edits. Of those, only 33 were to mainspace. However, you made lots of edits to Wikipedia-space. Your first edit to an AfD was, by my count, after just 8 mainspace edits. Despite this inexperience, you also proposed a new speedy deletion criterium on your second day on the encyclopaedia, after having invited yourself to a wikiproject, authoritatively denied a suggestion that wasn't an edit request on a talk page and inserted a pointless clarify tag after a "cum laude" on your first.
    In summary, what baffles me here is that I would assume that someone who has lurked long enough to know of – and participate in – all these processes would also know enough to not be consistently disruptive. Combined with the fact that you seem to have little interest in actually contributing to the encyclopaedia, I have my doubts about your claims about not having prior accounts and about whether you are here for the right reasons. I like to extend newcomers the benefit of the doubt, but AGF is not a suicide pact, and my birthday wasn't on the 19th. Blablubbs| talk 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
(mistake fixed: "because"->"before" Blablubbs| talk 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC))
(and another one. I should drink more coffee. Blablubbs| talk 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC))
  • Addendum: Here's a permalink to AE144's comments that were removed by JayBeeEll as "indistinguishable from trolling"... Blablubbs| talk 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    • This does not constitute trolling in any way. It was said because it could be rewritten. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Blablubbs, some of your arguments can be refuted.
  1. The essay that I cited, specifically WP:TNTTNT, was reached by following a link from WP:TNT, which someone else cited.
  2. The letter code system was found by searching the 2009 SPI archives and I have no knowledge of WP:RfCu.
  3. I was not looking at conduct standards. Knowledge can be strong in some places and weak in others.
  4. The action taken in your first diff was a reasonable action. People say "Delete per X" or something similar (where X is any user) very often, as are your 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th diffs.
  5. In the 3rd diff, WP:GNG is a good reason to keep/delete. Notability is one of the key factors in deciding what belongs in Wikipedia. The same reasoning applies to the 6th, 8th and 10th diffs.
  6. In the 7th diff, this is reasonable, as this has been done before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations.
  7. After your first set of diffs (which, in my opinion, is too many), your 14th diff was responding to a clear consensus, as was the 15th.
  8. For the 16th through 18th diffs in the 2nd paragraph, you have not provided a rationale for your reasoning.
  9. The proposal was ill-informed (I know that), but it was motivated by this closed AfD, and I did not know that the proposal would be rejected at the time.
  10. I have withdrawn my so-called "invitation", and they were suggestions anyway, not inviting myself like you said.
  11. The denial was (or at least was supposed to be) in good faith, and the rationale was valid.
  12. Many people do not know what cum laude means, and the article had high visibility on the Main Page when I inserted the tag, so I was asking someone to improve it.
  13. To an outside observer, I would have been coming in good faith.
  14. Your statement was very long, almost to the point where someone would not read it saying 'tl;dr'. This means my statement also has to be long.
Please review this before trying to use measures such as blocking. -- AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 20:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Just fixed some mistakes at 20:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose NOTHERE indef

  • I think the trolling has been going on long enough by now, and I don't plan on engaging it further. Glancing over this discussion, there seems to be no serious doubt about the fact that you are not a new user and not here for the right reasons. If someone behaves in a way that makes them functionally indistinguishable from a block-evading troll, we don't need a master to block them as a duck. Blablubbs| talk 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. Blablubbs| talk 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    Oppose What exactly is "functionally indistinguishable" about me and a block-evading troll? AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - This user is clearly here for the wrong reasons. For starters, the sort of trolling exhibited in AfD discussions is not acceptable. I was pinged eight times in one discussion (plus a ninth ping that wasn't delivered and three messages on my talk page), and the thorough evidence submitted by Blablubbs shows additional badgering at other AfDs. The user seems to think that Wikipedia is some combination of a social media site (see, e.g., this this list of messages to users who ostensibly "supported" or "defended" them), a soapbox (see, e.g., the continuous badgering at AfDs), and a game. AnotherEditor144 is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and that's sufficient to revoke the privilege of editing. See WP:NOTHERE. Additionally (and independently), this user displays numerous telltale signs of sockpuppetry, as clearly demonstrated above. It's a clear fail of the duck test, and, as a result of the numerous unconvincing denials, methinks the lady doth protest too much. If the user has a change of heart down the line, there's always the standard offer. But until then, an indefinite ban is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm bored of these kind of users, this user is obviously a returning character here to waste time, so I've blocked them. Reviews are welcome, if anyone really cares. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk/ CCI help 05:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Why I am not surprised this ended up here, thank you @ Moneytrees: for pushing the red button. Govvy ( talk) 11:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

I've been trying to reach consensus on the Talk:Gina Carano page under "Jewish bankers tweet", but one editor user:Sangdeboeuf keeps posting personal attacks against me. I left a polite note on his page when he started being rude/confrontational, then a warning when he made the first personal attack, then a final warning when he made another personal attack. He has now made a third. He deleted the note/warnings; a cursory examination of edit summaries on his talk page indicates he has deleted other warnings on other issues from other editors in the past, and may be a habitual offender trying to skirt warning guidelines. Other editors on the page are being helpful, so I'm going to keep trying to work with them. Gershonmk ( talk) 20:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk ( talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
  2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
  3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."
On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."
Gershonmk ( talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [88] [89] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [90] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads -talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users ( Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one ( Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk ( talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has a long-term habit of disruptive uncooperative editing, especially via extreme WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:IDHT by claiming no one else presented policy-compliant points, constant demands that other editors WP:SATISFY them, continuing to WP:FILIBUSTER when not satisfied, misusing policy to suit their ends, and even attacks.

This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [91] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [92] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ( [93], [94], & [95]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [96] [97] and have been uncivil. [98]

Relatively brief discussion at Talk:Latinx where all these behaviors, as well as their obvious tendentiousness to keep out a source they don't like, are on full display. And the same IDHT, misuse of policy, tendentiousness, and FILIBUSTER are equally visible lower on the same page, where CorbieVreccan also told them to stop edit warring and WP:DROPTHESTICK early on.

Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [99] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI ( link to exact diff).

An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [100]

See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [101]

I'm aware I've linked to discussions, not just diffs, but the misconduct is such that a single diff often doesn't really explain it. I trust that if admins look at those discussions, they will clearly see the behaviors I've described. This user cannot be allowed to think these are acceptable behaviors and need to be clearly told what the consequences are for such editors. They are driving other editors away from their pet topics, which I suspect is the point ( WP:OWN). Crossroads -talk- 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) added a bit Crossroads -talk- 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

  • 9 November 2020, American politics: [102]
  • 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [103]
  • 2 December 2018, American politics: [104]
  • 5 August 2018, BLP: [105]
  • 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [106]

Crossroads -talk- 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [107] [108] This one was very nearly a violation: [109]

At ANI previously, was warned about edit warring and disruptive tagging. Crossroads -talk- 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall ( talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation ( WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall ( talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall ( talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
[I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Would an admin kindly close this thread, which has devolved into forum-shopping for content disputes that should be addressed on the article talk page? Thanks. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Not at all; this is about your misbehavior and the fact that it is a long-term pattern. Admins need to address this somehow. Why do we even have pages like IDHT and FILIBUSTER if the editors who engage in that are freely allowed to do so even when reported at ANI? Crossroads -talk- 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I direct admins to my original complaint, at the top of this section. Gershonmk ( talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences& Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [110] is not a personal attack? This [111] much like this [112] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads -talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [113] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [114] [115]Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads -talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CLEANHANDS is relevant when bringing something to ANI, and is particularly important when you're trying to argue that something is part of a pattern or when raising issues related to civility, personalizing disputes, and AGF. In this, for instance, which you linked yourself above, you opened the discussion with Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved, which is hardly WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? -- Aquillion ( talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • But the fact is that that is an essay, while AGF is policy. By my reckoning I did barely more than disagree with your position across a few pages, and that was all it took for you to permanently drop the presumption of good faith and categorize me as a bad-faith actor forever (see the utterly innocuous diff you presented below, which I assume was one of the catalyzing events.) Please correct me on that point if you disagree and are willing to state that I broadly act in good faith, and I'll apologize for that summerization; I know that comments can sometimes come across as more hostile than intended. But by my reckoning both my record and Sangdeboeuf's are essentially clean and (in disputes with both us and several others) you have consistently failed to convince people that they should be otherwise. If you constantly find yourself categorizing longstanding editors in good standing as bad-faith actors, and few others seem to agree, the issue may be that your sensors are miscalibrated and that you are too willing to assume the worst of editors you come into dispute with, rather than large swaths of Wikipedia being part of a sinister cabal arrayed against you. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though MOS:QUOTE as a whole clearly says they can. Such time-wasting twisting and dishonesty should not be waved away. And I gave many more examples. I knew that if you showed up here, you would definitely take Sangdeboeuf's side. In fact, your editing strategy is quite similar: [116] WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads -talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That isn't what Sangdeboeuf said. They plainly read your statement as saying that a quote is better than an interpretation as a general rule; policy does specifically say otherwise (though obviously that doesn't resolve the dispute itself, because then you have to argue whether a quote is justified in this specific case.) That's the most basic exchange on policy related to quotes there is. Interpreting it as a debate over whether quotes are allowed at all (something that any editor would know) requires a disconcertingly hostile reading. You are correct that the 2019 and 2020 RR3 reports overlapped by a few days less than a year (I got the dates for the 2019 and 2020 ones reversed in my head, since the first diff's dates are so close a year apart), but that doesn't change the broad gap between them or the entirely valid reasons Swarm gave to Netoholic for refusing to block in 2019 - again, all those outcomes are extremely standard for reports of that nature. Similarly, I don't particularly understand what your intention is with presenting this diff, beyond the commonality that I've made an argument you disagree with; I decided not to keep going and get into an extended dispute there or go through the drudgery of breaking down individual problems and holding RFCs, since the amount of work the article requires is staggering, but I 100% hold by my argument that the article, as a whole, has serious POV issues, especially when it comes to giving undue weight to a few highly-opinionated sources of comparatively low quality. But you don't have to agree with that to recognize that it is a valid position to take - ultimately you just need to recognize that editors can have a sharply divergent perspective on an article, its sources, and the related policy while still editing in good faith. (And as much as I hate to contemplate how fast time is passing, 2019 was roughly two years ago - things from back then are absolutely stale, absent an much more convincing pattern than you're alleging here.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the quote matter, the context disagrees with this narrative. Crossroads -talk- 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [117] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sangdeboeuf generally seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS problem that runs along "cancel-culture behavior in furtherance of a social-justice activism PoV" lines. I've seen many examples of this, but the WP:BLUDGEON behavior at this RM is a good case in point. Sangdeboeuf needs a lengthy time-out from the relevant topic area (narrowly or broadly); or, rather, other editors need a break from Sangdeboeuf. I favor topic-bans over blocks, since it allows a topically problematic editor to continue to participate, away from the locus of their disruption. The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence do appear to constitute personal attacks, but probably not the second (which was kind of snide, so more of a general WP:CIVIL thing). While it is true that competence is required, WP means something quite specific about that, namely a general ability to get along with people at a collaborative project, a habit of thinking and writing that is more or less logical, and the ability to write/read English well enough to meaningfully participate. These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint and your expression of it or don't agree with your stance-taking. Just, no. If anything, trying to abuse WP:CIR in this manner is itself a CIR failure on Sangdeboeuf's part, of the first kind (lack of collaborative temperament). Same goes for some other diffs, like the one from Crossroads showing "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like." This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. This is also an element in the first diff from Gersonmk. And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects, not subjective assumptions of intent.

    This sort of stuff is also pretty obviously the nature of Sangdeboeuf's problems here generally: if you do not agree with Sandeboeuf on a view that this editor feel socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy, so Sangdeboeuf will harangue, insult, and browbeat you in hopes that you run away or at least that you might seem discredited to other editors in the discussion (to the extent they can wade through all of Sangdeboeuf's repetitive ranting). The fact that this technique generally does not actually work is immaterial; it's still anti-collaborative battlegrounding that is corrosive to the project and stressful to Sangdeboeuf's victims.

    If this ANI fails to conclude with any action: Given that Sangdeboeuf's disruptive patterns have a strong tendency to cross the lines of two WP:AC/DS topics at once (modern American politics, and gender/sexuality), we should probably just ensure that the editor has {{ Ds/alert}} for each of these topics, within the last year (I see from above that this is so, notified of both in October 2020 or later), and take any further such incidents to WP:AE for quicker action. (Just put the evidence up front without making people ask for it, and put it in newer-to-older order.) ANI tends not to be very useful for this sort of thing, because it turns into back-and-forth blathering (AE won't tolerate much of that), and because of the "I agree with your viewpoint so will excuse all your behavior" attitude on the part of too many in the ANI peanut gallery. The AE admins are generally better able to see that a majority of editors liking a viewpoint has nothing to do whether particular behavior in furtherance of that viewpoint is permissible.
     —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

    These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint – if you could provide a WP:DIFF of where I did any such thing, that would be helpful. Thanks. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Repeat: "The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence". The very fact that you were attacking another editor for alleged reading-comprehension competency problems is staggeringly ironic.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I already pointed out where I struck the first comment after Gershonmk complained about it. The third comment has nothing to do with anyone's personal point of view, unless there's a legitimate point of view in which the various iterations of Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers/financiers ... she did not know the men pictured were Jews ... many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism (e.g. [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]) can be considered anything other than claim[s] about Carano. I think I showed considerable patience with an editor repeatedly [123] [124] [125] [126] denying the obvious reality that their proposed text was directly about the subject of the BLP, and therefore subject to stricter sourcing requirements. Such behavior is also a form of disruption. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. Does that mean you'll be striking your above comment re: my thinking that you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy? Thanks again. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 03:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    No, and these ridiculous WP:SANCTIONGAMING attempts are going to get you nowhere. Describing your pattern of battleground behavior in which you treat other editors as if they are enemies, stupid, or crazy, and go out of your way to paint them as mentally deficient or up to no good, requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. It requires nothing but observing what you're clearly doing in the diffs presented as evidence. If you continue to play this game of "I can be a WP:JERK all I want as long as I can imply anyone criticizing me is doing it too, even if it's not actually true", then I guarantee you are going to receive sanctions, probably sooner than later.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Describing your pattern of battleground behavior ... requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. That's exactly what you just did: if you do not agree with San[g]deboeuf on a view that this editor feel[s] socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy. Unfalsifiable claims sure do come in handy when you want to accuse someone of acting in bad faith. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects – where is the observable evidence of me WP:FILIBUSTERING anything at the talk page where Crossroads made that accusation? Note that WP:FILIBUSTERING specifically means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, not one you or Crossroads happen to disagree with. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    In other words, as long as the editor filibustering denies the obvious fact that the consensus of multiple editors is against them, then it isn't filibustering, apparently. Don't forget to remind us that consensus is not a headcount, so you are free to dismiss everyone else. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    The consensus of multiple editors was not clear in this case, with opinions being evenly split, as I mentioned above. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Not at all evenly split, as I outlined above, to say nothing of all the other discussions that have been linked. Crossroads -talk- 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    At the time ... I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Seems fairly evenly split to me. Despite your claim that Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion, I don't see anything in their 12 February comment that suggests that. More to the point, you don't get to declare "consensus" in a dispute where you're personally involved, and then use that as a basis for accusing others of misconduct. That's a blatant abuse of the process. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    This is just more WP:WIKILAWYER hand-waving. You cannot evade the community finding you disruptive by trying to nitpick over exact wording in guidelines and essays and policies. If you are being disruptive, you will be made to stop being disruptive. If you don't think FILIBUSTER applies, then try BLUDGEON, TE, etc. There is no question that you are disruptive when it comes to this topic area. I'll be "happy" to pore over details of a large number of diffs of your behavior if this ends up at AE or ArbCom, where that level of analysis is actually useful. At ANI, it's a waste of time. PS: In case you think you can start the BLUDGEON behavior again, you should recall that the last time we were discussing that I warned against it and pointed to someone blocked or T-banned for it, right on the same page the same day. The same is true this time around; see #Bludgeoning (Bus stop) just below, in which someone got outright site-banned for it. I encourage you to learn from this.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC); PS added 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    At ANI, it's a waste of time. How very convenient for you. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [ [127]] "Do you even English Bro?" Rendall ( talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • These are not examples of personal attacks, and Sangdeboeuf is disputing the reliability of sources used in the article about Gina Carano. There should probably be more discussion on the sources used, and less fingerpointing. Dimadick ( talk) 09:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to note this WP:UNCIVIL and accusatory comment from Crossroads towards Sangdeboeuf a while back: [128] WanderingWanda ( talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Extended confirmed protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged AE action. WanderingWanda, notwithstanding that, I would strongly recommend you refrain from publishing any and all Crossroads-related sleuthing in matters where you are otherwise uninvolved (unless egregious). Thanks in advance. P.S. noting that I have not reviewed this thread closely, for whatever that's worth (basically, am just here to announce the aforementioned ECP action). El_C 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Poisoning of well on AfD

Vincentvikram has been tagging active editors by falsely accusing them of being canvassed [129] [130] and after I warned him on his talk page against this WP:DE he went ahead to double down not only on his talk page, [131] but restoring the same false accusations on AfD, [132] [133] and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR. [134]

Even after knowing all this, he is now derailing the AfD by encouraging me to report his misconduct. Given the editor is editing since 2007 and does not understand what he is doing wrong, this is a case of CIR and thus I am reporting it here. Shankargb ( talk) 05:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Vikram

Context: The AFD in question is a highly polarised one as it is currently in the news as events unfold, with very strong opinions on both sides.

  • Starting with the easier accusations. An IP posted a delete comment at the top of the AFD which another editor moved down the list inorder. I highlighted the delete vote to help the admin count it. I thought I was being helpful.
  • I tagged four accounts for either SPA or canvassing since I had reasonable doubts after visiting their talk pages. I tagged Shankargb with canvassing tag after seeing at least five sections (a sixth section he had deleted) with warnings of disruptive editing and two sections with DS alerts(within one year), the last being yesterday. If I am wrong about the SPA/canvassing concern I will apologise.
  • Shankargb made a comment about "no personal attacks" and yet talked about my comprehension stating The problem is with your poor comprehension skills. Instead, he could have just talked about what aspects of the stub were actually puffery.
  • I tagged krao212 since that account was ten months old and had at least ten sections with warnings of DE and two DS alerts, and all these were in related areas and hence my genuine concern.
  • Two other accounts I tagged were clear cut SPA cases.
  • What I do not understand is why would Shankarsg delete the tag for krao212 instead of just his?
  • The tag I re-added was not shankargb's but krao212 and shankar objected to it and removed it twice. Why does one editor fight so vehemently for another account that has so many DE and DS warnings?
  • Finally, I don't like being threatened. I don't think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything. Have a discussion with me but don't add a threat at the end of that sentence and Shankargb added threats thrice. It in fact is a bullying technique and I called it. If he wanted to make a report just go ahead and make a report. I was acting in good faith and will accept a mistake if I have made one either knowingly or unknowingly. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this section per procedure as I don't want to add anything more here, unless OP wants to add something? Thanks Vikram Vincent 07:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait! Did I read this correctly?! Shankargb wrote above ..and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR and gave this as an example? I voted "Keep" on that AFD and highlighted the "Delete" vote of that IP. I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. Vikram Vincent 08:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Vikram Vincent, getting a Discretionary Sanctions alert is not an indication than an editor is doing anything wrong; they simply inform editors of the particular rules for a topic. Having been in previous editing disputes is not evidence of having been canvassed. Tagging other editors on the opposing side of an AfD can be disruptive and should not be done without evidence - I think you were being excessive. Note that Sadads is the article creator, so not a neutral party.
There is no need to refactor comments to bold recommendations - AfD closers will read the full debate.
If we regarded editors saying that they may report an issue to ANI as "making a threat" then that would have a chilling effect on discussions of editor behaviour. Fences& Windows 10:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok Fences and windows, noted on the DS and DE. However, I did not refactor to change a vote from x->y as claimed by OP. Best! Vikram Vincent 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Was going to come here and say that Shankargb's comments are out of touch with the reasonable work that Vincentvikram is doing to keep the conversation organized and structured with comments for the closing admin. There are a lot of signals that this topic is beginning to solicit participation from folks who are loosely connected to the Wikimedia space and don't understand the conversation. (I was even harassed on Twitter by a hindu nationalist extremist/conspiracy theorist because I created the article in November (since deleted)). I was purposefully not tagging/commenting on individual accounts because I didn't want to get targeted in a situation like this. Sadads ( talk) 11:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Fences and windows: would appreciate you or another uninvolved admin keeping an eye on the AFD/discussion, to help navigate this, Sadads ( talk) 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I collapsed the back-and-forth between User:Shankargb and User:Vincentvikram at AfD as resolved. You have made 10 and 29 edits to the page, as the 3rd and 1st most frequent editors, respectively. Both of you should now let others comment to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the debate.
Other than adding a comment to clarify that the article had been moved back, I didn't see any other need for admin action, Sadads. The general notice about canvassing is up and any closer will know to take short comments from new and IP editors with a pinch of salt. It'd be helpful though if you would self-identity as the article creator in your comment at AfD. Fences& Windows 12:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Fences and windows: Its more I think there are likely to be increasing problems, that I suspect will scale at some point-- for example, yesterday on twitter there was a solicitation participants. Sadads ( talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There is IMO a halfway decent argument for calling this AfD early in recognition of a steadily increasing heat-light ratio (evidence in part by this thread), lack of any new relevant arguments, and the reality that this is a two-outcome AfD at this point (keep or no consensus). Not sure anyone wants to step in that, though :) (and also, I !voted to keep, so I'm not exactly uninvolved). Just a thought. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No further action needed here after Fences and windows; AfD is a Keep (and I have !voted accordingly). Close this. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I do generally find the wear and tear of Vincentvikram to be disturbing as well as the constant attempt to make meaningful discussion useless, the statements on personal "reading compression" is not allowed and completely irrelevant and looks like an attempt to poison the well of discussion to me. Des Vallee ( talk) 06:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback. Will try to improve my engagement in the future. Best! Vikram 07:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Preservedmoose

An attempt to have a calm, constructive discussion with Preservedmoose resulted randomly in a barrage of attacks by the latter towards me. Mind you, he is yet to show proof for ANY of these accusations, heavily violating WP:ASPERSIONS and whatnot;

Your name is History of Iran...perhaps I should accuse you of violating these protocols, considering you go through numerous pages on Wikipedia and selectively add/control what information fits your prerogative. Yes--a journalist from Daily Sabah is supporting a nationalist Armenian perspective. None of the sources that I provided are from Armenians. One is Turkish,one is from the UK government. One is from the EU. You are not the king of Wikipedia.

You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. Your name is HistoryOfIran, your main interest is ancient Iranian history, and you edit articles to minimize certain other cultures at the expense of a Pro-Iranian narrative (such as this one).

Well, no, they are. You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. I'm using that as an example of you being selective and loose with your criticisms--precisely what you are accusing me of.

You initially accused me, with no explanation, of pushing an agenda for providing reliable, non-Armenian sources that suggest an Armenian presence/influence in Commagene. You're repeatedly pushing a pro-Iranian narrative here and on other articles (for example, the Orontid dynasty) at the expense of sources mentioning Armenians and other groups and then you repeatedly accuse and threaten people who add these sources.

-- HistoryofIran ( talk) 20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran has a history of removing reliable sources. User could not provide rational for why sources were removed, despite repeated requests on Talk:Kingdom_of_Commagene, and instead accused me of removing sources, pushing an agenda, providing bad sources, and threatened to get admins involved. User has a history of such behavior. I also suggested moving beyond said argument if HistoryofIran could provide reasons for removing my sources. HistoryofIran neglected to do so. HistoryofIran instead accused me of "still going off on" user, said any edits would be a continuation of an edit war, said "I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia" and continued to refuse to provide rational for behavior or removal of sources--"This discussion is over." User has done this on other pages as well, such as: http://webot.org/info/en/?search=Talk:Orontid_dynasty#Uncertain_origins_of_Orontids_needs_to_be_addressed ( talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I rest my case ^^. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
How is what I'm doing any different from what you are doing, besides the removal of verifiable sources, which I did not do but you did (although you oddly accused me of doing this--actually, this is what started the argument)? You baselessly accused me of pushing an agenda, but when I accused you, you got upset and reported me. It seems like rules and etiquette apply to others but not you. Preservedmoose ( talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
You didn't remove a reliable source? What's this then? [135] So let me get you right, because I said you were removing a reliable source, apparently that means I accused you of pushing an agenda? How does that make any sense? And if it did, does that give you a free pass to attack me? I'll let the admins deal with this. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Some more diffs in relation to userPreservedmoose:
  1. Removed seven WP:RS sources that show that a king of Armenia was Zoroastrian. No edit summary/explanation. [136]
  2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation. [137] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever. [138]
Looking at the evidence, it appears that user:Preservedmoose is persistently trying to "fix" what he doesn't like to see. Given that he tries to put news outlets and other non- WP:RS material [139] [140] on par with academic scholars in order to push a pro-Armenian irredentist narrative, and even bluntly removes material written by academics specialized in the history of the region, I truly wonder if he's actually here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

On 2 May 2020, user:Biainili posted on his talk page what articles need "improvement", asking Preservedmoose to do these "improvements". Specifically mentioning Kingdom of Commagene and Tigran the Great(These parts especially: "Mother: Alan princess[2]", "Religion: Zoroastrianism[3]").

On 15 April 2020‎, user:Biainili removed Zoroastrian and references from Tigran the Great, oddly Preservedmoose on 30 January 2021, removes Zoroastrian and references from Tigran the Great. Proxy editing? Even more telling is the talk page discussion that Preservedmoose seems to have missed completely!

User:Biainili also goes into detail about Urartu. Guess who has been editing Urartu? Pinging C.Fred, who warned Biainili of proxy editing and El C who also warned against proxy editing. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Kansas Bear, but I'm afraid I'm unable to draw an immediate connection between the two users, though this is only at a glance. El_C 18:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do lurk around ANI. I'm for a block of Preserved Moose, and possibly a sockpuppet investigation if Biainili continues to act like preserved moose. Overall though, at least a month long block of preserved moose for personal attacks in the form of/and accusations of POV, where the community determines there isn't POV. 4D4850 ( talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4850, I've seen you 'disclose' that you're not an administrator a few times on this board. No worries; there's no need to do that. Everyone is invited to contribute, express their opinion, as well as propose (or oppose) what they think are appropriate actions to deal with problematic editing on this board. This is the "Administrators' Noticeboard", but it exists so that members of the community can get the attention of admins as well as the wider community, and seek administrator intervention on behalf of the project. With very few exceptions, at the end of the day, it's the community itself that decides what's appropriate and acceptable, including whether administrator actions are themselves appropriate. Yes, admins can [often] act unilaterally and impose sanctions using their best discretion, but they're ultimately just editors themselves, but who are also entrusted (by the community) with certain tools to protect the project, and help keep Wikipedia ticking. So like I said, you don't need to announce your non-admin status when posting a comment (everyone can see your user rights as well, if they wish; I don't think anyone will be confused as to whether you're an admin). Just letting you know. :) Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Symmachus Auxiliarus: Ok, I just want people to know that I'm not one of the people provided with admin powers. I know I don't need to, but I also don't want people to confuse me with an admin up front due to throwing policy around (typically, I find personal attacks by the reported or the OP, and support blocks of the personal attacker.) I just think it's something people should know. Sorry if it clutters up ANI. 4D4850 ( talk) 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Preservedmoose clearly has a pro-Armenian agenda, and is resorting to personal attacks rather than rational arguments. Perhaps his/her recent edits require scrutiny. I am not certain whether HistoryOfIran is right in emphasizing the Iranian influence on Commagene, but he/she is at least attempting to seek a resolution through the talk page. Dimadick ( talk) 10:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Est. 2021

Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This editor seems intent on being as disruptive here as he was in wp.it, where this account is blocked as a sockpuppet of his earlier account Vicipedianus x, which has an extensive history of blocks for PA, edit-warring and block evasion. The move-warring at Agro Nocerino Sarnese (a page that as it happens I created), edit-warring to downcase appearances of that proper name in other pages such as Cava de' Tirreni and general WP:IDHT don't bode well for his future here. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The only disruptive user here is you, who vandalised a page for no reason, with a false edit object. I left a message on your talk too. My earlier accounts display an appropriate disclaimer, and they are listed on my userpage, so don't try changing the topic and let me assume good faith. About the name 'Agro nocerino-sarnese' I explained you twice already that this name is not in English, it's in Italian, hence it must follow Italian linguistic rules: adjectives in the names of Italian geographical regions are not capitalised, and there is always a dash between two of them ( cf. Appennino tosco-romagnolo, Appennino tosco-emiliano). Don't pretend I didn't explain it three times already now. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That edit doesn't at all look like vandalism to me. — Czello 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Czello: Have you compared the two versions of feast of Our Lady of the Hens? He deleted FOUR SECTIONS for no reason, including all the notes and references, with a false edit object. It does look like vandalism. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
It looks far more like a content dispute issue to me than vandalism. Vandalism is deliberately attempting to harm Wikipedia for malicious reasons, which I don't think this edit is at all. — Czello 14:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That's not a content dispute. He talked about the name ' Agro nocerino-sarnese', but he didn't say a word about the rest of the page he wholly deleted. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The dispute over the proper capitalisation is a WP:Content dispute. I suggest you re-read the policy if you think it isn't. As for the other reversions, it's not clear to me the reason for them but it's clearly not vandalism. At most, it was carelessly reverting a bunch of edits when you only dispute one. By incorrectly calling it vandalism, you discredit any argument you may have in my book. Nil Einne ( talk) 02:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Nil Einne: I suggest you re-read the page, instead of commenting without awareness of the facts. The edit I called 'vandalism' had nothing to do with capitalisation. He deleted several paragraphs for no reason. Read his version of the page, then check my version. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Est. 2021: You're missing the key point I was trying to make. You said it was vandalism. It clearly wasn't. There is an active content dispute over the capitalisation of the article. Given the content dispute, reverting your capitalisation change was not necessarily wrong and definitely not vandalism. As I also already said, they reverted a bunch of your edits. I'm not sure why they did so. Either they disagreed with several of your edits and felt it best to revert without yet offering a real explanation anywhere that I saw. Or they disagreed with the capitalisation change and so reverted them. As I already said, that is careless editing but not vandalism. As long as you continue to call it vandalism, your credibility here is badly damaged. Nil Einne ( talk) 05:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers

After a little edit-war, despite I had explained him why his edits were wrong, the user Justlettersandnumbers ( talk · contribs) tried to discredit me here on the AN, defaming me multiple times, assuming bad faith and calling me disruptive. I' ve been patient and respectful, but the user doesn't stop discrediting me. He just did it again in this talk. Please, stop him! Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Page moved back to consensus version (even if by virtue of WP:SILENCE alone). Move protected indefinitely. Est. 2021, please do not move war. If you do so again, you may be sanctioned. Please propose move requests for any and all moves that are likely to be contested. Thank you. El_C 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I'd say the same to you. Move warring is ill-advised, especially when the title change isn't of an especially urgent or drastic nature. El_C 15:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, El C – in an ideal world I would not have moved it a second time; in an ideal world I wouldn't have needed to – the user would either have listened to advice or started a discussion. I'm still waiting for someone other than me to revert the dozen or so instances where he's downcased the name of this place. But as you say, it's not particularly urgent or drastic. Thanks for at least partly resolving this ridiculous dispute. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Justlettersandnumbers: Don't pretend being a victim, you made it ridiculous reverting tens of edits without a doubt, deleting multiple paragraphs from the article feast of Our Lady of the Hens for no reason and defaming me several times because of your illogical tantrum. Three explanations didn't suffice for you, so I followed El C's advice. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 21:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

PS. Is it normal to delete talks? Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Some editors do it. Whether you want to call it normal or not, they're entitled to do so per WP:OWNTALK so it's no concern of ANI. I suggest you drop this complaint since AFAICT, while neither of you come out shining, neither of you have done anything requiring admin action yet now that the article has been returned to the older title and move protected. Rather than continually calling something vandalism which wasn't or wasting more time trying to argue it is at ANI, why don't you open a discussion at Talk:Feast of Our Lady of the Hens talking about your other edits (excluding the capitalisation change) and why you feel they are beneficial. And if Justlettersandnumbers agrees with your proposed changes or doesn't respond, and if there is no other disagreement, reintroduce those edits. (To be clear I mean minus the capitalisation change. While article text doesn't always have to follow the titles of main articles in this case there doesn't seem to be any reason for a difference. So the dispute over capitalisation is best resolved via the RM.) Nil Einne ( talk) 05:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Disruptive Editing.

Hi, i would like to seek admin help for a major problem that i am seeking. There are many users who i feel are targeting me by attacking my created article's. (Sheikh Asif), (Sardar Nadir Ali), (Thames Infotech), (Imtiyaaz Rasool) These are the users/article subjects which these users tried to make and since i am from kashmir i know that they are not notable and they are just trying to use wikipedia for promotional activities, So i used to report them but these guys have started a gang and they are now attacking me. They have been trying to do disruptive editing on my first article Zeyan Shafiq, as you can notice that they have been trying to delete it from past many days, and now they have put it up on an AfD, but the main issue is that they are manipulating the AfD discussion by using new accounts to vote and comment 'Delete' . This article was edited by many experienced editors, was even made live by an admin (fences and windows) but they still call it as promotional content even though it was thorougly checked, It was even put up for 'DYK', but still these Vandals are just trying to use fake accounts and comment Delete without giving any proper reason. I want to request the admins to help and guide me on how do i deal with these people? Because they are just wasting all my hardwork. If i start working on another article i am sure that they will disrupt it as well. i was a new editor who made many mistakes in the past but after that i learned a lot, i haven't made any mistake since so long because now i know about all the rules and now i am ready to contribute to the Wikipedia but these vandals and fake accounts are just making my work hard. Thanks Hums4r ( Let's Talk) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thamesinfotech/Archive, and the AfD of an article the OP created (and which I edited), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeyan Shafiq. The accounts are not named here, but Hums4r you need to do so, provide evidence of disruption, and inform the users of this discussion. Note I have been mentoring Hums4r and did not advise coming here. Fences& Windows 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, I did freak out momentarily at seeing someone named "Imtiyaaz" dragged to ANI. M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Lol M Imtiaz bro; even I was accused of being a sockpuppet by these people but I didn't prefer raising this noneissue to ANI. Their comments are available on my talk page. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
the user who opened this thread has been globally blocked for abusing multiple accounts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, this situation calls for a mandatory meme. M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Bender the Bot

problemo solved. The bot is all happy now. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, can someone take a look at the bot? It is going bananas. Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be doing routine stuff, changing http to https. Anything specific that caught your eye? Fram ( talk) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It is doing what it is supposed to, I think it might be concerns with the rate? Changing *thousands* of http-https for whitehouse.gov may be hitting some people's watchlists heavily if they are interested in US politics (or in fact anything the US has opined on). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
If the cluttering up of one's watchlist is an issue, one can filter out bot edits. Paul August 19:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be edits like this which replaced "|url=http..." with "|url https..." (i.e. omitting the "=", breaking the template - I think the bot has stopped doing this now. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem was caused by a coding error on my part. It affected about 150 pages, which I fixed manually. Thanks to Lotje and Bsherr for pointing this out, and for fixing some of the mistakes as well. -- bender235 ( talk) 21:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

2800:810:486:9A0B:C5EC:544F:B817:A84/48

A user with the range 2800:810:486:9A0B:C5EC:544F:B817:A84/48 ( talk · contribs) has a really long history (2 years) of disruptive edits that has intensified lately. The uses "fixes typos" but it is actually removing credits and personnel from pages, [141] [142] [143] [144] removing sourced content, [145] [146] [147] or directly violating the BLP policy. [148] [149] [150] (CC) Tbhotch 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You need to notify all parties with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 ( talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
still should be blocked. 4D4850 ( talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Baffling and likely NOTHERE edits by Text mdnp

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely. A dizzying mix of unrelenting incoherence coupled with a singular determination to promote WP:FRINGE content. Their response in this very thread seals the deal. El_C 06:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not quite sure what to make of this user's behavior, but it sincerely appears they are WP:NOTHERE. While respecting that people's worldviews differ, this user's edits indicate that they are a few standard deviations away from the norm and align with the sort of stuff I hear on Mysterious Universe.

Background: This user first came to my attention for their edits on Talk:Alex Jones in which they suggested that the language used in the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia ( [151]). Their use of 5-dollar wordsalads makes it especially hard to parse and take seriously. E.g.:

  1. Proposing we replace text in Alex Jones with ""Infowars postulates dialectical discourse on news events (based on historical insights to treason/lies/veils) - to widen scope of media coverage, outside of embedded media ("propaganda"), greater good statist military industrial complex mass media bottlenecks"" ( [152])
  2. "... deserve better than short sighted zeitgeist agenda-lexicons" ( [153])
  3. "Terms like "conspiracy theories"/"fake news" to wholly describe Infowars/Jones in the intro section - do Wikipedia & Jones a disservice. We need to put words like "postulated media/culture dialectical values/studies" &c. ( [154])

Unusual behavior: Reviewing this user's recent edits, the above pattern persists. I found few edits I would consider constructive (e.g. [155]). Some of the more unusual edits included:

  1. " Santa Claus as the acceptable bogeyman (swartz piet) "murder in the quantum ghost house"" ( [156])
  2. "Sub-tabloid type websites as sources for main text is what negated my interest in Wikipedia as anything other than a really good search engine type hyper-concordance &c. " ( [157])
  3. "I did feel I was only changing a para-semantical psi fold issue, ergo a "minor edit"" ( [158])
  4. "Any sources for ethnicity used as a boogeyman to enforce deals? There is a rarely discussed concept in society, where fear of the "other" (african/asian/mongol), is used as an impetus chaser/driver to strangely deform/enforce deals via " off the books", implied, & " word of mouth" adjuncts to that deal. Does anyone have some sources about this to add to any relevant section of the article? See Taboo; unspoken rule; Zwarte Piet; " Deal with the Devil"; " Blood oath"; Deadline; Penalty (Mormonism). " ( [159])
  5. ""Jew" is a zeitgeist slang term that must be reframed. There have been many attempts to delegate "Jew"/"Jewish" to a non official name which describes better Levantine/Silkroad migration & politics. This talk archive must have a set of these attempts, so we can collate right sources into a final argument so Wikipedia can use proper nouns rather than contentious colloquial slang as an actual article title. "Yhudeen" type words would be the psi clean ideal? " Jew (word)" &c would remain of course. I am non trying to be controversial or a para-forum weirdo. " ( [160])
  6. "...how the word "Jew" is a oddly ironic anti-Semitic slang term & should be delegated to a section of "Yudheen" type articles/word. The always superstitious cone fade of language over history, delegated the J & Jdr & Dji sound into a esoteric priestly tongue (gate keeper lexicon/jargon). Source in your local frames the words/sounds "Djra Rua" compared to "Ya/Yu" words as what people are always morphing "wind worship" spooky long-psi taurus-field concepts ideas into." ( [161])
  7. "Using a dialectical lens to explore zeitgeist taboos, ..." ( [162])
  8. "I appreciate your editing prowess anyway without you resorting to any critique via pazuzu slander politics?" ( [163])
  9. ""Seiðr" as the ancient learning of sly seething to seek & sort & sleuth. This is a taboo word behind civilisation (seth/semitic/"scyth"/"cyber"/"sino") ... that this word is non in the articles etymology - even as a possibility - is proof at the psi wraparound sets of the very subject that Lucas was exploring with "Sith" in Palpatine-Vader-Skywalker story-arc." ( [164])
  10. " UNESCO "Intangible heritage rights" to cannibalism, pederasty, kinder-eros, blood oaths/ initiation, mystery cults/schools, human sacrifice, torture, inquisitional dialectical training ( Satanic ritual abuse)" ( [165])

User page: Nearly half (43.4%) of this user's edits were to their own user page. Only 15% were mainspace edits. ( XTools)

Their user page ( [166]) contained nearly incomprehensible content about " Goo" and magic and

I climb crypto-cognitive trees seeking knowledge. "Wikipedia as tangible legacy of early TCP/IP "Internet" using 2nd hand goods, mailorder, & 6hex magjicke (circa 1k96rdg/AD/CE)". Wikipedia extraneous/expendable to legal spiral global system (non legally binding via national standards unallowed resource by many developed and developing nations) "... para-koru/kuru of glow-ba'al elite". Will Wikipedia survive thee newest world order gate?

That we exist in a crypto-corporate-religio-state long-term inter-stratagisma ("a tulpa land of backroom deals, kuru, & pederasty, &c"). Will Wikipedia succumb to scandal & shunning? Wikipedia is non Draco-Sharia Law friendly per'se; ergo the crypto-quantum streams of Ch-q'AuLLAH'palotel will non tolerate the comradely wiki-gnosis of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is xeno-psi‽


Last, I wish to acknowledge that I will be adopting " pazuzu'd" into my lexicon. What a delightful term; has the same feel as めちゃくちゃ. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I mean, while I suppose it can be somewhat entertaining trying to find whatever the logical thread is behind any of that esoteric stream of consciousness, I think, ultimately, that sidesteps from the heart of the matter. Which is that Text mdnp seems singularly determined to push WP:FRINGE views, doing so by advancing conspiracy theories as well as trying to soften the mainstream definitions of known conspiracists as conspiracists. That, in my view, fails to meet minimal standards for retaining editing privileges. El_C 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In looking for this editor's contributions to articles in order to judge their quality, I came across this one frpom 2014, in which they admit to having a previous editing identity. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the perspective team ... this made me laugh in a good way (genuinely). Having experienced abuse in all settings - & dismissing this as cultural fallout from animal magnetism control legacies - I will non apologise by finding this Socratic irony & veiled debates/deals to social goo tiresome. So I do slant heavily on the esoteric aspect of life ... but only to non be a hypocrite or spreader of malaise & veiled "non knowing" tricky social cues & dues &c ... I am non against any group or historical perception control ideals/actual - just deconstructing stuff to live in truth & love any so called enemies that pop up. I have noticed that my edits to non political articles go unmolested - even using this same belief "that objectivity is possible" ... Wikipedia is great as a search engine & para-concordance type effect ... fair journey to you all, thanks for the craic. Text mdnp ( talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting that WP:Communication is required, and that "communication" means more than typing words in a sequence. It doesn't appear to me that this editor is able or willing -- I don't know which -- to communicate their thoughts to other editors in a way which can be understood. Such an editor is of no use on Wikipedia, and should be indefinitely blocked until they commit to actually communicating with other editors, if they are capable of doing so. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Tisquesusa

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely for engaging in personal attacks that are beyond the pale (inline redaction applied to this very thread, as a consequence). El_C 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

They seem to mostly be making constructing edits, but this evening they went rather non-linear. They have been adding links to Commons from categories, which I have been removing as they are misplaced. They posted on my talk page today at User_talk:Mike_Peel#Instead_of_destroying_my_work,_you_could_do_something_constructive,_don't_you_think?, and I have responded there in good faith, but then I saw their other edit summaries. A neutral intervention here would be useful, please. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Those 8 edit summaries from today are extremely offensive. That is unquestionably unacceptable behavior that should not need to be pointed out and discussed with the editor. Schazjmd  (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
(Redacted) and ASK ME FIRST. Instead of destroying my hard work. GTFO}} Tisquesusa ( talk) 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) You might want to strike out those personal attacks, Tisquesusa. It's not going to reflect well on you. Oh, it seems that they've already been indefinitely blocked for that.Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 21:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
They've already been blocked, so I've taken the liberty of redacting it myself. signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe you are correct. The page User:Tisquesusa/Más Muisca looks like straightforward G11/U5 stuff to me. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a long time very productive editor, who may have simply have blown a gasket. Can we not try somehow to rescue them? Paul August 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Tisquesusa was for the most part a productive editor, but they have a consistent penchant for engaging in henious personal attacks when angered, which has happened on several occasions, separated by months of editing without incident. An indef block was inevitable, in retrospect. Take this from the editor who probably has the most charitable opinion of him. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all for looking into this, although it's sad that an indef block was the conclusion, their productive edits looked good but I didn't realise it was a repeating issue. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 09:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes. But that this may well have been a "repeating issue", that doesn't mean that their indefinite block is not a net negative for the project. Paul August 13:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has far too high a tolerance for personal attacks as is. It is weird though that a long term editor with over 38,000 edits gets indeffed blocked with about as much fanfare as a newly registered vandal, so I may as well give a bit of an euology. Tisquesusa for the most part got quietly on with his work and did not interact with the wider community, which may explain the lack of defenders. His work expanding Muisca and geology related topics is considerable and cannot be ignored, though I won't exactly miss his unique citation style. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The more I hear the more I think we should reconsider the indefinite block. A net positive is a still a positive. @ El C: ? Paul August 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

[Internet quite spotty today, so hoping this goes through.] Paul, I deem insults that deride autistic persons, even when obviously not intended as such (i.e. to deride said persons, specifically, as opposed to a passing insult) to be of an extremely serious nature. That said, I didn't check the user's history much upon seeing the redacted content, and so I have no idea whether their previous NPA blocks were of a similar nature. I just indeffed as an immediate impulse (hopefully, seen as decisively). Now, if said previous NPA blocks were, indeed, not of that nature, I don't mind you, Paul (or any other admin), alteing the block pending your approval of their unblock request. Any changes to the block, be it reducing it or lifting it outright, are alright with me, in that instance. In that instance, I do not require any consultation or even notification for any impending action the reviewing admin sees fit to take. In short, otherwise, happy to let others handle it from this point on. El_C 16:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The contents of the previous personal attacks were just as bad, but because they get have gotten revdel'd you can't dig them up for comparison. For instance, in one previous attack which got him a one month block [ [167]], Tisquesusa referred to BHG as a "creature" and a "freak" and suggested that they might be a man. They also referred to the deletion of portals as the "shoah", a frankly idiotic and horrific comparison. Tisquesusa is a productive editor, but he is also neurotic and cannot be expected to reasonably respond to disagreement. In order for Tisquesusa to be unblocked, he must acknowedge that he cannot make henious personal attacks against other editors he disagrees with, he must not add categories that do not exist to articles, and that he understands that if he makes henious personal attacks again he will be indefinitely blocked. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
[168] relevant page for admins to see redacted personal attacks by Tisquesusa. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
For anyone who wants to see Tisquesusa's contributions to the encyclopedia, I think User:Tisquesusa/Proud pieces and User:Tisquesusa/New articles speak for themselves. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Hemiauchenia. Yes, I already got the sense that they are quite accomplished. But, as for their conduct otherwise, I think I've seen enough — which is to say, having viewed the first diff in these Nov 2019 revdeleted series only ( revdel diff). Questioning BrownHairedGirl's (ping) sexual identity, and stating about her that: This creature has a mental issue, and so on. That's too much for me. I don't care that it happened two years ago. For it to happen even just a second time is too beyond the pale for me. So, put me firmly on the record as opposing any unblocking for the foreseeable future (if ever). We should not tolerate egregious misconduct of that nature in the form of a 3rd (?) chance. El_C 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree, even as the editor who has had the most positive interactions with Tisquesusa and collaborated with them on several occasions, the fact that he has after repeated personal attacks, never apologised or acknowledged that they are wrong means that an indefinite block is the only realistic option, which is sad, but entirely due to Tisquesusa's own conduct. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, just noticed this. Calling portal deletion Shoah! I have no words — or rather, the words I have are not fit to publish. El_C 18:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
On an emotional level, I'm all for getting rid of this $%@##*$. But ... on a more pragmatic what-will-make-our-encyclopedic-content-better level, he seems to be a NET POSITIVE. Look, many of our most productive editors are ... how shall I put this ... prickly assholes. If I recall correctly the greatest volunteer contributer—by far—to the OED was a complete asocial nut case. We need to do everything we can to keep such hyper-productive editors. If that entails a more nuanced approach, so be it. Paul August 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Paul August, indef just means he needs to acknowledge what he did wrong and commit to not doing it again in the future. There should be no consideration of reducing or removing the block without that assurance. Schazjmd  (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
So we won't let them go on making massive contributions to our encyclopedia, unless they publicly admit that they've been an asshole. Well yes that is what a mature adult would do, a good person who cares about other people's feelings. But that may not be who we are dealing with here. If we only allowed mature adults and good people to edit well ... who among us would be left? Paul August 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You, for one, Paul! Face-smile.svg El_C 17:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: Well, that's kind of you to say so. But, given this mother f'ing virus trying to kill us all, I'm just about to blow a few gaskets myself. Also recently I've been working more on a long time aspirational goal of mine to become more of a curmudgeon, so watch the fuck out! Paul August 18:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a mighty fine lawn you have there, Paul. Mind if I, erm, get on it? El_C 18:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Paul, this isn't about the occasional "go fuck yourself" outbursts and variations therein — I have a fairly high tolerance for that, among admins, I think. This is on a whole other galaxy. El_C 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I get that ... Nevertheless ... Paul August 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It is a pity given the contributions, but there are some heavy behavioral issues there. Pity we didn't have a bot that just scanned every published edit (and edit summary) for profanities, and prevented an edit being published that contained them. Won't solve it all, but would solve a lot, and underline this is not acceptable? Worst case scenario, it would increase the thought and art-form behind finding new profanities that would get around the bot ... so at least there would be entertainment. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Range block

An editor has been disrupting AN/ANI and now my talk page - editing as 107.77.224.109 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 107.77.224.125 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 107.77.224.202 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) so far. Please can somebody range block? Giant Snowman 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Will block /24 range. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: now back at 107.77.223.131 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)... Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Even if they are committing unambiguous vandalism, they still need to be notified with an ANI-notice. That is the most common mistake by OP I see on ANI. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard and Scott Siskind

On Talk:Slate Star Codex#Potential new COI between David Gerard and Slate Star Codex?, Gbear605 noted that David Gerard had been a source for a New York Times story on the blog Slate Star Codex. Gbear605 asked if this constituted a conflict of interest, since David Gerard is an active editor of that article. In the ensuing discussion, Distelfinck linked to a tweet of David Gerard's which said "why say in a million words what you can say in 14". This is clear reference to Fourteen words. Rather than contest that he had called Scott Siskind (the blog's author) a Neo-Nazi, David Gerard tried to justify his comment and even repeated the "14 words" allusion. There seem to be clear pro and anti editors involved in the talk page discussions so some friction is expected, but I find this David Gerard's comments about a living person unacceptable. Mo Billings ( talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I urge all to read the linked discussion, and the following section.
A group of editors, including Mo Billings, who appear to be fans of the subject, are claiming a COI that doesn't fit any requirement of WP:COI, and keep not putting together any complaint in a proper form, preferring to cast aspersions.
One has raised an off-wiki tweet. In the course of the existing discussion, I have linked an email from 2014 from the author of the blog, in which he literally says he is an advocate of "human biodiversity" and wishes to use the blog to propagate this going forward - not yet in an RS so not usable on the article, but arguably supporting my off-wiki tweeted summary of the author's views with the author's own words.
Not that an off-wiki tweet is a WP:COI at Wikipedia, and Mo Billings should understand this. We have a group of Slate Star Codex fans who seem to think not being a fan constitutes a COI, and editors of opposing views should be voted off the article.
There is also an effort to get non-RSes into the article.
Various editors casting aspersions, including Mo Billings, have been asked to properly substantiate their claims of COI in the accepted manner, or stop casting aspersions. Instead, they have continued casting aspersions - David Gerard ( talk) 23:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I am not a fan of Slate Star Codex. I have no particular interest in it. I am not a contributor there. I am not even a reader of the blog (although I did read some pieces of Siskind's earlier work because of a dispute about including his name in the article here). My two edits to the COI discussion are this and this. I have already stated that David Gerard's involvement did not constitute a COI based on our guidelines. This ANI discussion is about his specific comments about Scott Siskind in that discussion. Mo Billings ( talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You're claiming a COI, but not a COI per policy? That is literally WP:ASPERSIONS, surely? - David Gerard ( talk) 00:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I am reporting that you called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Please stop trying to deflect from the issue. Mo Billings ( talk) 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It turns out I'm allowed to have off-wiki opinions about article subjects, including that the scientific racism advocate who sought out scientific racists for his blog and was famous for his prolixity could be summarised as "why say in a million words what you can say in 14" - and that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and does not constitute any sort of COI, either in Wikipedia terms or in colloquial terms, and that you're making a bizarre claim saying it does - David Gerard ( talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The allegation by Mo Billings notes that you have defended these allegations on Wikipedia, so this is not about your off-wiki behavior Aapjes ( talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I was one of many sources, and not even one that rated naming. I was asked to comment as an expert on the LessWrong subculture, and you can read WP:COI on subject-matter experts as well as I can: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. And no, I have no financial interest in the article - David Gerard ( talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That's not what's meant by subject-matter expert. You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 (that's based on a five-second Google search, so maybe longer). See WP:BLPCOI, which is policy: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki— ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest". SarahSV (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
See above. None of this is a Wikipedia COI, or even a colloquial COI. Your argument comes down to a claim that non-fans of a subject should not be allowed to edit an article about the subject, and you know that's never been the case at Wikipedia - David Gerard ( talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 - I'm concerned about the precedent you're proposing to set here. I don't think "has tweeted negatively about someone" constitutes a significant controversy or dispute in the context of BLPCOI, and I'm fairly certain that that's not how the policy was understood when it was drafted and approved. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I mostly get that argument from the cryptocurrency spammers, who seem to sincerely think that if you're not an advocate you shouldn't be allowed to talk about their favourite thing 'cos that's a conflict of interest - David Gerard ( talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
And the obvious extension of this concept would be that anyone who tweeted positively about this person must also now have a conflict of interest and be prohibited from editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to note here, I'm the editor who most recently brought up an apparent COI on the article talk page, and I realized now that I handled it incorrectly and acted in a way more like casting aspersion than I intended (I thought I was handling it correctly but realize now that I misread the guidelines on handling COIs). Gbear605 ( talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is now one of those discussions that are going across the wiki. Here's the RSN section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reason_and_WaPo_on_NYT_on_Slate_Star_Codex - David Gerard ( talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking to the New York Times as a source on a subject, you should probably find something else to edit. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

NYT is rated Generally Reliable at WP:RSP, and has consistently been found to be a top-tier source. It's not perfect, but your claim is almost entirely incorrect in the context of Wikipedia - David Gerard ( talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You missed my point completely. There are 6 million articles on this project, and you appear to have a conflict of interest on one of them. This one. Why not avoid it? It's fine for Wikipedia editors to be part of the news -- but they should edit other topics. Whether or not the Times is "Generally Reliable" isn't at all relevant here; and I can comment on RSP elsewhere. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Last I checked, Wikipedia wanted topic experts to stick around, and nowhere have I seen any indication that David Gerard has used Wikipedia to continue any dispute. It's weird how often Wikipedia editors confuse NPOV with being conflict-averse, and that seems like the only plausible reason to invoke WP:BLPCOI. There is not "interest" here. We all have opinions. Being open about those opinions is not some unforgivable sin. Responding to people about those opinions on some other website is not an inherently bad thing. Having people point-out that someone has an opinion is not a valid way to disqualify that person. Good lord, what kind of precedent would that set? Grayfell ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Looking forward to the diffs - David Gerard ( talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Per your wider online activities. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Do you have diffs from Wikipedia? If you don't have those, then your findings are unlikely to be, for example, WP:COIN material. Being a critic of an article subject is not a COI - David Gerard ( talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
          You regularly make your personal dislike of Scott Siskind known throughout the internet. This is beyond having a run-of-the-mill personal opinion -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On both the RS noticeboard and the Star Codex talk page, David Gerard has accused Scott Siskind of being a support of scientific racism, while saying on the talk page that there is no WP:RS to support this allegation. I think that this is another instance where David Gerard made an unacceptable personal attack on a living person, who is not here to defend himself. Aapjes ( talk) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article is, of course, support for this claim, as I noted on the talk page at length, also citing the SSC article the NYT linked as their evidence for the claim - David Gerard ( talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The NYT article doesn't claim that Siskind is a Neo-Nazi or a supporter of "scientific racism" (which is not the same thing, anyway). You argued that the part on Murray proves this, but the NYT article only makes the vague assertion that Siskind aligned himself with Charles Murray, but doesn't say how. Surely this cannot be interpreted as a claim that Murray and Siskind have identical beliefs on all topics, which would be an absurd claim to make about two different people. If you follow the link they provide, he only did so on class differences, not racial differences. The page on Murray also merely claims that one of his works, The Bell Curve, has been accused of supporting "scientific racism", not that it is an established fact, or that any of his many other publications have been accused of such. The blog post by Siskind that the NYT article uses as evidence also makes no mention of The Bell Curve.
On the topic of Siskind, you seem to believe that we should treat highly contentious claims as fact, without any need for proper WP:RS to support those claims. In general, you seem to have far, far lower standards of proof for allegations against Siskind than for other claims. Aapjes ( talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not for nothin' or nothin', but I still haven't seen any diffs of on wiki edits that would require sanctions. Last I checked, tweets shouldn't be used for evidence for on wiki sanctions unless it's coupled with poor wiki editing. See above where NedFausa got banned because of poor BLS editing AND tweets that showed they were on a mission to disparage the person they're editing here. I don't see that in this case. Nor do I agree there's a COI just because someone has made known on a non wiki website their opinion of someone. IF David Gerard never tweeted would anyone notice through their wiki editing that they would have those opinions? Valeince ( talk) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page section linked at the top of this section has me and Grayfell asking for proper cites for these claims of COI, including me asking one claimant directly for diffs. They reply that they don't like noticeboards, but they saw the edits going past. I suggest that this would not pass muster at WP:COIN.
This is an effort by fans of the article subject to vote non-fans off the article - David Gerard ( talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I started this discussion and I started it for one reason alone - your "14 words" comments. You can try to to frame this as something else if you like, but I have no particular interest in that blog, its supporters, or its enemies. This is about your actions. Mo Billings ( talk) 03:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Valeince: I linked it above, but I will quote here: Siskind has literally admitted 14 words in one million was his strategy for SSC. David Gerard called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi, here, on Wikipedia. How is that not sanctionable? Mo Billings ( talk) 03:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Mo Billings:The phrase “Neo-Nazi” does not appear in that diff so I think you need to retract that statement. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Horse Eye's Back: I believe uninvolved editors will have no difficulty understanding what David Gerard was saying with his "14 words" reference. He was calling Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Feel free to ask David Gerard what he meant if you have trouble seeing that. Mo Billings ( talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved editor, I had no edits anywhere related to this subject before stumbling across this discussion. He may certainly have been implying that but he does not actually appear to have said the exact words you said he said... Implying may still be an issue, but you not sticking to reality when describing the actions of another editor is also an issue. Again I suggest you re-write the claims you’re making to more accuracy reflect reality. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You should also note that I agree on your larger point, it might swim in a pond, have feathers, quack like a duck look like a duck smell like a duck have 100% duck DNA, shit duck shit, lay duck eggs, but unless multiple WP:RS call it a duck we need to avoid doing so in any wikispace (all assuming that BLP applies to this duck of course). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO, no criteria or cautions laid out at WP:BLPCOI have been met. Neither the "avowed rival bit or what a "reasonable person" would consider a conflict-of-interest, per footnote "E". Editors are allowed to have opinions, even strong ones about a subject. Unless an actual edit on-Wiki can be presented as problematic, this filing is devoid of merit. Zaathras ( talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • After reading what DG has written about the subject over the last year or so on his blog and twitter, there is no doubt in my mind there's a WP:BLPCOI here. Levivich  harass/ hound 02:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Where, exactly, is the evidence that he is continuing a dispute on Wikipedia? He can say whatever he wants on his blog and twitter, but for this to apply here, there has to be a direct connection to on-Wikipedia behavior. No more vagueness. Explain it with diffs. If you cannot, or cannot be bothered, don't throw this out as if it were a vote. Grayfell ( talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLPCOI says Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. DG has been involved in a significant controversy or dispute with the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit material about that person such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich  harass/ hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It's more of a no-evidencer. Supply on-wiki diffs that you consider show this, and how - David Gerard ( talk) 08:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It says whether on or off wiki. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am curious, can you use a source that's looped to a wikipedia editor from a wikipedia article? Sounds like some kind of loop back. Govvy ( talk) 11:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no, and it depends on the subject. A subject matter expert who happens to be a wikipedia editor being quoted/interviewed/published in a reliable source is useable. Albeit its frowned upon if they do it themselves. It comes up a lot with academics who want to use themselves as sources, and then get annoyed when we come back "Come and talk to us when you get published." On the wider issue, I am also of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI regarding Siskind here. If you are acting as a source for off-wiki newspapers on a topic, tweeting negatively (and frankly, I would also apply it even if it was positively) about that subject, you shouldnt necessarily be prevented from editing the article but you should certainly not be throwing around accusations of a living person being a neo-nazi. If they are a neo-nazi and reliable sources back that up, plenty of other editors are available to do that. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This implies I have stated that in the article, which I absolutely have not. However, this is about me expressing an opinion in a tweet, rather than in article space - David Gerard ( talk) 12:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I really dont care if you express it by fucking carrier pigeon. That you use off-wiki methods of denigrating people because you are prohibited from doing so on-wiki is not a plus point in your favour. If you want to off-wiki indulge in your freedom to express your opinions, you dont also get to on-wiki pretend that they dont matter. Freedom of expression is not freedom of consequences when on-wiki policies clearly state off-wiki actions will be considered. Why dont you tell everyone how you lost your CU rights after posts on your blog? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with those who've said that David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    P.S. I find the requests for diffs or the claims it must be on-wiki to demonstrate a COI bizarre. Most COIs are off-wiki. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Ivanka Trump has a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. No I don't need diffs to demonstrate Barack Obama and George Conway have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. The only issue is whether we are able to discuss it, or it needs to go to arbcom lest we run foul of WP:Outing which is separate from whether it's a COI. Since no suggested redacting parts of the opening comment, and indeed David Gerard has effectively confirmed they made those comments, I'm assuming that they've previously confirmed a connection to said Twitter account. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    One more comment. I'm not suggesting any action against David Gerard at this time. I'm strongly opposed to blocking people just because they continue to edit articles directly when they have a COI if their edits aren't actually harmful in and of themselves. And to be clear, this includes any edits even ones which aren't simple corrections. If no one can find a reason to revert the edit which isn't some variant of 'COI editor' or find some problem with the edit, then don't revert and don't block. I don't believe doing so is justified by our policy. Paid editors are a little different. However, as with all editors with a COI, I'd strongly urge David Gerard to stop editing the article directly, and they should consider they may be subject to a harsher sanction than they normally would if they continue to do so and their editing is found to be problematic. Demonstrating a problem with David Gerard's edits would require diffs, maybe that part of the source of confusion, I'm not sure. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • David Gerard, will you agree not to edit about this topic going forward? Levivich  harass/ hound 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it just me or do others find that this particular situation have similarities to this particular case? spryde | talk 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This proceeding feels like nonsense on stilts.

Countervailing strong opinions on an article topic are standard on Wikipedia. It has never been the case at Wikipedia that strong opinions on an article subject preclude editing on the subject. As NorthBySouthBaranof notes, this would presumably preclude fans from editing also.

Such a precedent would launch off-wiki stalking of editors, giving their opponents incentive to comb through their social media in an attempt to impeach them by any means possible.

The claim is that a tweeted off-wiki opinion on the author of the blog that's the article subject is overwhelming evidence of a WP:BLPCOI.

The tweeted opinion is not backed to Wikipedia RS standards of independent third-party coverage, but it's entirely unclear why an off-wiki opinion needs to be - because it is indeed backed by primary sources by the subject, including his own direct admissions as to his views (which I pointed out, though I did not link them), and I'd think that's enough for someone to tweet an opinion that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

This is being leveraged into a claim that I should not be allowed to edit an article on the subject - even though all my edits on the matter have been in accordance with WP:RS, including defending the article from inclusion of unreliable sources.

(In fact, it is being claimed that explaining my tweet on the talk page when directly asked to explain it is a violation of BLP.)

I don't believe my opinions and knowledge of the article subject constitute a WP:BLPCOI, and I don't believe that the evidence has been offered to claim one.

I think my editing record on the article shows that I can separate opinions from what constitutes good Wikipedia sourcing. Despite repeated requests, no-one has offered evidence that I have not edited in such a way. No drastic actions, considerable talk page discussion.

I'm open to a substantiated case otherwise, but it's repeatedly not being substantiated - David Gerard ( talk) 15:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • You know what you wrote and that it wasn't just one tweet or even just limited to Twitter. Anyone can post a collection of quotes of things you've said about the blogger and other living people like the blog's readers, but really won't you just agree to avoid this topic? There are six million other articles as has been pointed out. It would be better if this ended with you taking the feedback on board and making a voluntary commitment. Levivich  harass/ hound 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That isn't addressing what I said, I don't think it 's too much to ask that you do so in making such a request - David Gerard ( talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not here to play rhetorical games with you. You know what you wrote about this person. You know what BLPCOI says. Either you comply with BLPCOI or you don't. If I have to take the time to gather quotes and post them here, it's coming with a TBAN proposal. I don't need to spend time proving to you what you wrote on your own social media or blog, nor do I need to quote BLPCOI to you again. So you decide whether you want to have the community continue to investigate this matter or if you want to take the feedback you've received here on board (you have a COI) and act accordingly (don't edit the article). Levivich  harass/ hound 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm involved in a small content dispute with David Gerard, so take that into account. But it seems to me that if you're a source on a story about a subject, you're not independent of that particular story, and should not be involved in editorial decisions involving how that story is used at WP. Since David Gerard has stated that he is a source for a recent NYT story about Slate Star Codex, I think he therefore should not be involved in making decisions about that particular story, such as removing criticism of it from the article, as he did here. And he probably shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether the published criticisms of that story are reliable, as he has been here. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That's fair enough not to edit directly re: the NYT article, actually - so sure. Though discussion of it is another matter - David Gerard ( talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ArbCom very clearly stated in the 2018 Philip Cross/George Galloway case that "An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest." ( spryde also noted the relevance of that case) David Gerard, you are likewise involved in a controversy/dispute with Siskind/Slate Star Codex, so you should refrain from editing about this subject. Please re-read that ArbCom case because it is a closely analagous situation. Fences& Windows 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On due contemplation, and with my respect for Levivich, he's right. I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward - David Gerard ( talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Can we discuss your on-wiki comments about Scott Siskind now? Mo Billings ( talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      What do you mean? David has agreed to not edit that page going forward. His problematic behaviour is hopefully over, move on now. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see an acknowledgement that the "14 words" comment (and his suggestions here about Siskind supporting scientific racism) were violations of WP:BLP and will not be repeated. I note that David Gerard has made no agreement not to edit the talk page so the question of his comments on Siskind is far from a dead issue. Mo Billings ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ David Gerard: Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are "prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind"? Mo Billings ( talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

It appears that the consensus of the community is that David Gerard should not write anything anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind. It also appears that David Gerard does not agree and will not stop voluntarily. I propose a community-imposed topic ban on the topic of Scott Siskind, broadly construed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe you missed it but he agreed to stop voluntarily in his comment above at 16:49, 21 February 2021? Levivich  harass/ hound 18:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Diff: [169] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind'?" asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC), Diff: [170] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    It seems overly hasty to go down the "topic ban, broadly construed" path. First, in ractice, what articles would not actually be covered by the voluntary stop he already agreed to? Second, I'd suggest that assuming good faith in this case means not leaping to the conclusion that he won't immediately try to worm through a loophole. Third, WP:BLP cuts both ways: if David Gerard is forbidden from editing a topic because he is an external participant, then by the same token, he might well be discussed at Talk:Slate Star Codex as a figure in that kerfuffle, in which case he ought to be able to make non-self-serving statements there, just as we allow anyone to do on the Talk page of the article about them. For example, if the article Slate Star Codex mentioned him and made some biographical statement that became outdated, he ought to be able to suggest an update and provide an appropriate source. I'm concerned that "broadly construed" would impede that. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter ( talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    I can see significant value to a tban in the sense of actual enforcement; in terms of people actually staying away from aspects of the project they've sworn they'll quit, if wishes were horses we'd all own stables. The talk page considerations are reasonable, and I think 'broadly constructed' here can be interpreted or explicitly stated to permit the self-referential talk page editing traditionally offered to COI subjects unless he becomes tendentious on it. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose even article subjects can generally edit the talk page. Now that DG has agreed not to edit Slate Star Codex directly, I can't support this without some diff of inappropriate behavior. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as an enforcement method, not a punishment -- to use the traditional line, "preventative not punitive", or the actual reason we impose these at all. David Gerard's choice to step away is laudable, but as a heavy contributor to the topic it's completely understandable that detachment might be neither immediate nor easy; the project has a long, long history of people having difficulty staying away from topics that trouble them. David Gerard is a valuable contributor to other areas of the project, and I think a tban is the soft option here -- it ensures he can continue editing in those areas without being dogged by the desire to return to an issue where he has COI problems, possibly raising more serious sanctions against him. I reiterate my point earlier about trial-permitting talk page access if he desires it. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. Given the editor's agreement to step away, this seems premature, and maybe a bit punitive (or at least overly harsh, even if meant to preempt further disruption). Since they've agreed not to repeat their behaviour, and have agreed to what essentially amounts to a voluntary and self-imposed topic ban (of sorts), the issue seems to be dealt with. I'd support a formal (and logged) final warning with the agreement that any further disruption will be met with this particular sanction, which can be imposed by any administrator as a normal admin action, without community consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we can not trust the word of one that's been given the admin bit then we have already lost. Also, any formal warning is just punitive at this point as I think David realizes this thread and his promise will be diff'ed should he stray from his self-imposed topic ban. Slywriter ( talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, the amount of trust and confidence wrapped up in adminship has varied significantly throughout the project's history. When DG got the bit, Jimbo had only recently stopped hand-appointing admins. That's not a statement that either DG or other 2004-cohort admins are untrustworthy, but seventeen years is a long time and the project is unrecognizable to how it was, including in terms of admin expectations. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I didn't comment above but I'm doubtful that David Gerard even has a COI in the first place. Obviously he strongly dislikes Scott Siskind, but that's not the same as a COI, otherwise there are very few people who could edit Osama bin Laden, Richard Spencer, or David Icke. The only thing that even seems a little like he has a COI is that he was a source for an article on Siskind. But that still doesn't quite sound to me like a controversy or dispute with Siskind, nor does it make him Siskind's rival, which are the actual standards at WP:BLPCOI. I think any situation which would make him covered by WP:BLPCOI would have to be two-sided: that is to say, either Siskind would have to come out and say he doesn't like Gerard either ("dispute"/"rival"), or else we would have to have some third-party source cover Gerard's grudge against Scott ("controversy"). It's near the line and so I think Gerard voluntarily declining to edit articles about Siskind is a good idea, but I don't think he's required to do so. Loki ( talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support this sanction, except DG has seemed to accept Levivich's BLPCOI argument. I'll say a bit more in the hopes of encouraging DG not to make any more Scott Alexander related edits at all. (He might already intend that, but strictly he only seems to have committed not to edit the Star Codex mainspace page.) I know DG means well and thinks he's helping the anti racist cause. But it was rather disconcerting to see someone try to associate a progressive Jew who lost relatives in the holocaust with neo nazi propaganda like 14 words. Various studies have consistently found that on average the Star Codex audience leans well to the left. Scott Alexander is well respected by the tech elite across the planet. Many of the founders and senior execs from the large platforms read his blog. Even UK Christians, while rejecting his atheist worldview, see SA as a person of exceptional compassion, courage and honesty. If DG thinks he can square up to someone like Scott Alexander that's up to him. But the place to push his heterodox views would be his own social media or via his mates in legacy newspapers like NYT & FT. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose No call for this as user has voluntarily agreed to step away. Revisit iff (not a typo) an issue arises in the future. ValarianB ( talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, for now My main worry is that the editor will keep making veiled or explicit personal attacks on the talk pages, like accusing Scott Alexander of racism and insinuating that he's a Nazi. Or insinuating that I'm canvassing people on one side of the issue on Twitter, without providing any evidence. An actual topic ban also prevents the editor from editing the talk pages, unlike the choice of the editor to not edit the article itself. However, perhaps abstaining from editing the page will stop this kind of behavior. If so, a topic ban is unnecessary. Aapjes ( talk) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as overkill. Loki makes a reasonable point above that a voluntary recusal wouldn't have been obligatory, even if it is preferred. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter ( talk) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • To elaborate: disliking the subject of an article isn't a conflict of interest, and if a newspaper interviewing someone about a topic is enough to create a COI, then we'd be painting with a very broad brush, catching a lot of benign examples in addition to genuinely problematic ones. For instance, I'm a physicist, and as such I'm occasionally approached for comment by science magazines who want an outside expert's opinion about a story. Does that give me a Conflict of Interest about the subject of that story? It's not my research, I don't have a financial or reputational stake in it — I just have the background knowledge to be able to talk about it. That's the same background knowledge which I would bring to a Wikipedia article. Would my doing so be illegitimate? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      • If you can remain neutral, disliking a BLP subject is not an issue. That is not that case here. David Gerard called a BLP subject a Neo-Nazi. Mo Billings ( talk) 20:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Sometimes, the neutral description of a living person is "neo-Nazi" ( one example has already been mentioned in this thread). Neutral does not mean kind. So, in principle, I can't honestly say that describing someone as a neo-Nazi, or implying they are fascist-sympathetic more generally, ought itself to be a disqualification. Looking at the edit where the implication was made, I'd say that it improperly cites a claim in a self-published source about a third party, which is a bad thing to do on a BLP talk page. Consequently, yes, stepping back was a good move, but I'm not seeing a case for a formal ban. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I think, when an editor tries to remove reliably sourced content from an article criticizing and article they themselves contributed to (e.g. removing reference that the Reason article says The New York Times wrote a "hit piece"), that clearly violates the WP:COI guidelines. SkylabField ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • There's as yet no consensus over at RSN whether the Reason piece is suitable, with both WP:RSOPINION and WP:UNDUE concerns having been raised. And David Gerard didn't write the New York Times story that the Reason piece took issue with; he was interviewed for it, and the end result is whatever made it through the NYT editorial process. If he had, for example, removed a negative review of a book that he himself wrote, that would be qualitatively different. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not necessary to prevent disruption in light of the voluntary commitment. Voluntary solutions > involuntary solutions. When an editor makes a voluntary commitment, we shouldn't assume that it'll be violated (in letter or spirit); that would be the opposite of WP:AGF. And, we don't TBAN people just for having a COI. Levivich  harass/ hound 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Levivich: actually, I've seen a few TBANs for BLP COIs (remember the Kamala Harris "whitewashing", for example?). Not necessarily saying current me likes or doesn't like the practice, but rather that it does happen. As for this particular case, I've only skimmed but, as usual, I agree voluntary solutions are better than involuntary sanctions, and so would oppose this myself. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Levivich, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles (2018), which examined an editor making negative edits to BLPs (and to biographical material in other articles) and being in a dispute on Twitter with one of the subjects. In particular, see Principles 4.1.10 and 4.1.11. SarahSV (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support David Gerard has stated I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward. He has not addressed his "14 words" comment, made on the page page of Slate Star Codex, which clearly implied that Scott Siskind is a Neo-Nazi. He has not agreed to stop commenting on Siskind. SlimVirgin has stated David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex per WP:BLPCOI. I asked David Gerard to comment on his understanding of that statement, but he has not. I am concerned that without some formal topic ban, we will be here again discussing the same issue in a few weeks or months. Mo Billings ( talk) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those claiming that "David Gerard agreed to stop:, in this diff: [171] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind? asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC) [172] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Unreasonable application of WP:GOLDLOCK

Article has been unprotected. GirthSummit (blether) 16:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi, can someone please remove the full protection that has been placed on this article Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? Those of us who regularly edit that article do so respectfully and without significant conflict or disruption. Recently this user Jfraatz just turned up out of the blue and started edit warring and did not engage in any conversation at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I don't see full protection as necessary, it seems like a massive overkill, why cant we just block the disruptive editor: Jfraatz? They turned up, started edit warring and never discussed anything at talk, why are we all being punished for their poor behavior? Can someone please remove the full protection and apply sanctions to the disruptive party rather than locking out all the non-disruptive editors who regularly contribute to this article in a civil and constructive manner? Bacon drum 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like there has been quite a bit of reversion and edit warring on that article the last month and a half, not just by this new user. Anyway the first stop for this is to ask CambridgeBayWeather as they're the admin that placed the protection. You shouldn't bring it here until you've had a response from them. Canterbury Tail talk 02:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Canterbury Tail. So why not just WP:BLUELOCK the page? Regular contributors should not be locked out until March because of the poor behavior of others, locking the entire article is way over the top, IMO. Bacon drum 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

As an addendum to this, can anyone explain why the Ronan Farrow article is gold-locked until May? There appears to have been some edit warring in December 2020 that warranted the lock, but there as been no activity on the talk page then and one of the accounts responsible for the edit warring has since become dormant, so I think that continued full protection is unwarranted. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Jayron32: the admin who protected the page. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
On that page, there has been some edit warring over a fairly sensitive BLP issue (it's not offensive, per se, but it certainly is the sort of thing that Wikipedia has an obligation to get right). If another admin is willing to keep an eye on it and reinstate protection on an as-needed basis should the problems come back, I have no objections to that admin removing the protection if that admin thinks that the problem has passed. -- Jayron 32 12:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've asked for the protection be lowered at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ronan Farrow. Levivich  harass/ hound 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki on Sky

The account Wiki on Sky claiming to be a paid editor, though lacking basic editing skills, tried to CSD-PROD the above page while also trying to delete sourced content. They also tried placing paid contributor tags on the bio page and my talk page. In the past, an IP claiming to be the subject of the bio had asked for the page to be deleted which was reflected by an admin here. I cleaned up the page and tried to get a wider opinion through an AFD which resulted in a Keep. The above editor was blocked for 24h for DE and yet continues disruptive editing post block. Vikram 10:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


Dear Admins. The page isn't cleared yet so how this person have places wrong nad false allegations to my client account? He is a scammer and disruptive editor. Kindly stop this person from disruptive editing because he is an editor with false info & he is trying to offend my client. SO kindly block this person from editing & my request is to delete the page becuase all the allegations are wrong. Wiki on Sky ( talk) 10:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • This editor has a declared conflict of interest in relation to this article and their behaviour is clearly disruptive; I have posted a firm warning on their talkpage to this effect. To be honest, their ongoing single-minded advocacy for their clients appears to be posing a net drain on editor resources. Their objection appears to be in relation to a one-line mention in the article of allegations of tax-evasion by the subject; this appears to have a reasonable source, and does not appear undue. A partial block for Wiki on Sky from Angelica di Silvestri might be helpful to stem this nonsense, however if they keep it up for too much longer I think they will have well and truly reached the end of the line. (n.b. I closed the AfD). -- Jack Frost ( talk) 10:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned up the article on Angelica as well as her husband Gary to comply with NPOV. I found better sources (The Atlantic etc) for their tax problem, so hopefully this will be the end of the disruption.— Diannaa ( talk) 16:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wiki on Sky, do not attack other editors, or cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Vikram is trying to collaborate with you, and is not a "scammer". There is a process for deleting articles, which can be found at WP:AFD. Be sure that you read the directions there carefully, and that you also read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Otherwise, you're likely to blocked if you can't assume good faith, edit collaboratively, and demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE. Please, read the links that I've provided, so that you can avoid any trouble going forward. As Jack Frost has pointed out, your approach thus far is not acceptable, and you're treading on thin ice. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 03:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

אלכסנדר סעודה (Alexander Sauda) and Sundayclose

The user Sundayclose is constantly deleting my edits, generally as "poorly written".

I participate in the Wiki4climate project. I get an official certificate for making 10 good climate edits in the the "Wiki4Climate" online edit-a-thon in 2020. What can be confirmed by his organizers User:EMsmile, User:EBclimate, User:BethMackay, User:Mcnlisa, and User:TiffChalm100. Therfore, my edits are not "poorly written". I always pass my edits through a spelling and grammar checker until it said that there is no mistake. Sundayclose never explain what is the "mistake".

The user is constantly deleting my edits without reason, what is a Disruptive_editing. As the edits that he revert are always those who are related to climate change, I think that his activity is a classic example of Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Undisclosed paid editing for fossil fuel interests. This is a classical example of "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or Wikipedia:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

Therfore, I ask to:

Permanently block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia.

Below I attach the edits that made sundayclose as proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Effects_of_climate_change_on_human_health&oldid=prev&diff=1005833053

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sustainable_city&oldid=prev&diff=1007796001

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=World_Economic_Forum&oldid=prev&diff=1005832961

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change&oldid=prev&diff=1005832669

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Climate_change_in_the_United_States&oldid=prev&diff=1002789539

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Effects_of_climate_change_on_human_health&oldid=prev&diff=997647273


-- Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה ( talk) 10:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC) @ EBclimate:@ Mcnlisa:@ Jim1138:@ TiffChalm100: @ EMsmile:

  • He's not deleting your contributions for any reason other than things like "In January 2021 was published a study that shows a possible link between climate change and specifically the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the study due to climate change in some places of the world were concentrated more types of bats harboring corona viruses." are really poor English; yes, it's understandable, but it has at least five grammatical errors in it. (it should be "In January 2021, a study was published that showed a possible link between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the study, in some areas of the world climate change had led to a higher concentration of types of bats harbouring coronaviruses" or similar).
  • Similarly "Officially, China declared as a target to build 285 Eco cities. The implementation is not always successful.". Spelling and grammar checkers may produce understandable English, but they rarely produce good English. Also, you shouldn't be using Forbes contributor pages as sources - see WP:FORBESCON. So to sum up, reverting poorly written English isn't disruptive editing, nor gaming the system, nor uncivil, nor sockpuppetry. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ אלכסנדר סעודה: what Black Kite said. You have edit-warred to reinstate your edits, without even changing the access-dates on the references, after running a spell-check on them. It's not your spelling that is unacceptably bad, it's your grammar. I and others have now had to fix your English (and note that no English spell-checker will pick up mistakes in non-English words like Deutsche Welle), and you have apparently missed Black Kite's other point, that blogs by Forbes "contributors" are not an acceptable source. I'm sorry to say that a certificate for participating in an editathon is not a guarantee that your edits will not be changed, or even reverted; see the statement that appears above the edit window in the skin I'm using: "Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Sundayclose was maintaining the encyclopedia. Thank you for the update at Climate change in the United States. But please make your future additions short and simple, use accurate access-dates, and let other editors fix them. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two comments made before me. The request to block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia on these grounds needs to be denied for sure. However, I would kindly suggest that in future, the talk pages of the articles could be used to work out better English for those text additions. So if I was Sundayclose I would perhaps revert the edit but also put in the edit summary "see talk page". Then on the talk page I would start a new section where I would copy the deleted text in question and say to the user "this paragraph is not clear, can you please clarify what you were trying to say?". It is a bit more time consuming but I think this particular editor means well and deserves a bit of extra time, not just a straight revert. For comparison, this is how I did it on an article talk page with another editor: here. EMsmile ( talk) 00:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ EMsmile: I appreciate your comment and will give it all due consideration. I should point out, however, that if I start the numerous talk page discussions myself, I might as well just fix the edits. I certainly don't mind fixing edits for occasional grammar and stylistic problems, but most of this editor's edits are abundant with such problems, as has been noted by others here and on their talk page. I have suggested that this editor post proposed edits on the articles' talk pages. That is much simpler and puts the responsibility on the editor making the edit. But my suggestion fell on deaf ears, as did my suggestion to edit the Hebrew Wikipedia instead of the English Wikipedia. I also suggested that the editor seek a Wikipedia mentor, which often can help both the editor and Wikipedia improve; but again, refusal to consider it. I agree this editor usually has good intentions (except when trying to discuss their problem edits), but as we all know who have encountered this type of editor, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There's only so much we can do to rescue an editor who simply doesn't have the English writing skills to competently edit, and that's what we're up against here. Thanks again for your comment. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • אלכסנדר סעודה, as noted by Black Kite above, unfortunately your contributions are poorly written. No worries, though. All this means is that you should probably think about proposing some of your edits on the talk page first, rather than making them directly in the article space. I know this can be annoying and burdensome, and causes arbitrary delays for some edits that seem otherwise acceptable and straight-forward, but if you post something that's poorly worded and/or has grammatical errors, someone else (like Sundayclose) has to clean them up. They're not being disruptive, and it's not personal, even though it might feel that way at first. And as Yngvadottir said, any contribution to the encyclopedia can be deleted or modified, and they often are. Rarely does anyone's work stand as is, in the same form as it was submitted. I empathize with those who want to contribute to the English Wikipedia when English isn't their first language, and their language ability is perhaps not as polished as the community expects. But there are always people willing to help, and your English language ability will improve as you contribute (from what I've seen of others in the past). Don't be disheartened. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I will use short and simple edits and I will propose difficult edits to discussion in the talk pages. I was thanked for many of my edits and many of them was developed after. Most of my edits did not meet opposition. There was edits with mistakes and other users help me to fix them and learn. Their reaction was similar to what you said me now.

For example, I learned how to copy in Wikipedia, how to cite from link with Commons Creative Licence. I think that my English had improved and I hope it will be better. I am glad that there are people willing to help me improve my English. Of course I am happy when users fix my edits. I heard that one of the policy of Wikipedia is to help new users and to encourage them to write in Wikipedia. But I do not think that this is the case with Sundayclose. He is not fixing, he is deleting. When I tried to understand what was wrong with my edits, generally he writed:

"I'm not arguing any further. I've made my point. I'm trying to help both Wikipedia and you avoid problems. If you can't accept the reality of your limitations, I can't convince you. You'll just have to keep making the mistakes until you lose your editing privileges."

"As I said, I'm not arguing further. I'm just waiting for your next huge mistake and eventually your loss of editing privileges. Minimizing your problem won't prevent that"

"You are not fluent enough in writing English to edit on the English Wikipedia. Please restrict your edit to the Hebrew Wikipedia."

" You do not have adequate English skills to competently edit the English Wikipedia. You can be blocked after repeated incompetent edits. Please restrict your edits to the Hebrew Wikipedia. "

And as I said, others users acted in completely different way. And If my edits was so hopelessly bad, I probably would not be invited to participate in the Edit-a-thone and would not get sertificate. So decide by yourself if it is "civil", "friendly" and why is he doing so.

http://webot.org/info/en/?search=User_talk:%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A8_%D7%A1%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94#August_2020

http://webot.org/info/en/?search=User_talk:%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A8_%D7%A1%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94#Spell_checker

@ Symmachus Auxiliarus @ Yngvadottir @ Black Kite (talk) @ EMsmile

-- Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה ( talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@ אלכסנדר סעודה: Thank you for promising to restrict your article edits to the very simple and propose the rest on talk pages. That may well provide a workable way forward. I see from your user page that you have published on climate change and the environment; thank you for being willing to contribute to the project. But I am disturbed that you are continuing to present Sundayclose as having treated you badly, and although I am not an administrator, I have changed the section heading to a neutral one. Following your links led me to Sundayclose telling you clearly that a spell checker was not going to help with the problems with your English; giving you examples of poor English syntax in response to your query; and pointing out in increasing detail a case where you had drawn an invalid conclusion from the wording of a source. We are here to write an encyclopedia that readers can use. It is vitally important that we use reliable sources and summarize them accurately and clearly. I have participated here for over ten years and from the start I have been impressed with the willingness of editors to help each other. On the other hand, I have found many articles where mistakes, both vandalism and someone misunderstanding a source or making a typo, sat for years because no one noticed. And the worst are the errors of fact. Someone may have very good intentions but be using a biased source, or not understand the source they are using, and then who knows how many readers get misled? For that reason we have particularly high requirements for the sources to be used in medical articles; I believe this should apply to Effects of climate change on human health, and that you should not be using Forbes blogs in any such article, as you did here. But checking for mistakes, especially mistakes of fact, takes a lot of editor time, and we have millions of articles. That's why, with regret, we have a page saying that we expect a certain level of competence from editors on the project. The issues are not with Sundayclose's actions, but with your editing, and I have to tell you again: editathons are for the purpose of encouraging participation and not a good guide to whether your edits are generally good. These two sentences above: "And as I said, others users acted in completely different way. And If my edits was so hopelessly bad, I probably would not be invited to participate in the Edit-a-thone and would not get sertificate." by my count contain two major grammatical errors, 3 or 4 less serious grammatical errors (article and tense usage), two spelling errors, and two capitalization errors. I am sorry to be so forthright, but others have been trying to tell you gently; your English has some way to go, and we don't have paid copyeditors here as do most publishing houses, just fellow editors who have other things they could be doing. And you have been edit-warring and were asking for the editor who spent time trying to advise you to be punished, even barred from the encyclopedia. So please, let those who are willing to help you do so, and realize that that normally takes the form of rewriting, not pointing out the English mistakes and asking you to fix them. Write simply, avoid using blogs as sources, and look at the changes that are made to your additions as a way of learning how to do better. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by Abdul afghan

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" five times at Sur Empire [173] [174] [175] [176] [177]

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" twice at Amir Suri [178] [179]

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" twice at Muhammad ibn Suri [180] [181]

This is most likely his IP, which has done the exact same disruptive edits as him [182]

-- HistoryofIran ( talk) 14:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Warned for potential 3RR violation here
  • Fails to communicate despite being invited to the talk page here, notified here. Went on to revert it again here

- Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • This is clearly over-the-top disruption, and POV pushing. Borderline WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR territory. Propose to block the user/IPs with an explanation of why this is unacceptable, and a clear directive to take advice on board, and promise to edit collaboratively as a condition of the unblock. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 03:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil/hostile disruptive behavior by IP

BLOCKED
IP blocked for 7 days by EvergreenFir. ( non-admin closure) -- Jack Frost ( talk) 23:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


68.132.99.144 ( talk + · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser ( log))
Numerous (e.g. 1, 2, 3) mentions of all Indian newspapers fake news in edit summaries and Talk pages (while removing and disrupting content). Vandalizing BLPs ( 1, 2). And uncivil/hostile behavior throughout their edits ever since the IP started editing since last year. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, a ban on here seems necessary. Gotitbro ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


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

Violation of TBAN by GPinkerton

GPinkerton has been blocked from the article and talk namespaces for 1 month. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC) GPinkerton has been banned from en-Wiki by ARBCOM. Time this was put to bed. Mjroots ( talk) 08:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As many admins might already know, an Arbcom case is almost over and is deciding to site-ban user GPinkerton. On top of that, this user is currently tbanned from post-1532 Middle East topics. In anticipating the site ban, GPinkerton has launched a crusade to push as much wild POV content as they can before they are banned, in a blatant violation of their current tban. So far, they did this at Arab Belt and this twice at Syrian Kurdistan. I brought this to the attention of admins Valereee and El C, who suggested I take it to the Arb case. The Arbcom suggested I post this here since the initial tban was not an arbitration decision. Valereee has already protected Syrian Kurdistan, but leaving the new content in. I think to be fair, their wild POV-pushing edits violating their current tban should be reverted before any page is protected. They are obviously trying to pull others into engaging in an edit-war with them. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@ عمرو بن كلثوم: Please make sure you notify the editor you are discussing, per the big red box at the top of the page, and the big notice that you get when you edit the page. I've taken care of this for you this time. SQL Query me! 00:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that, my bad. Thanks SQL. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we revert all the edits and comments made by GPinkerton in violation of their TBAN? Does WP:BANEVASION apply to TBANs too? Can the RfC they started at Hagia Sophia ( Talk:Hagia Sophia#RfC on conquest legend) be annulled? VR talk 00:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Vice regent, why should it be annulled? Neither Islam not the middle east after 1453 are mentioned. The RfC I have begun applies to Hagia Sophia, which is in Europe, and was, at the relevant time, nothing whatever to do with Islam. I'll ask again: why are you so keen to try and contort every edit of mine into a violation of the irrelevant and unnecessary topic ban you have taken it upon yourself to seek to enforce? Surely it can have nothing to do with your strident opposition to the subject of the RfC?
    I am thinking of asking for an interaction ban with Vice regent. This is third time in as many days they have falsely accuse me of violating this topic ban. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton the intent of "post-1453 Middle East" was to prevent you from making edits relating to the Muslim conquest of Hagia Sophia. Cullen328 chose "post-1453 Middle East" because of your "highly problematic" edits to Hagia Sophia; Cullen's rationale was cited by Guerillero in their offer of "post-1953 Middle East", and Guerillero's offer was cited by El_C who unblocked you. In fact, GPinkerton, you acknowledged that such a restriction would stifle your edits to Hagia Sophia. But now you say your topic ban has nothing to do with Hagia Sophia? VR talk 01:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Vice regent, you have claimed: the intent of "post-1453 Middle East" was to prevent you from making edits relating to the Muslim conquest of Hagia Sophia. No it wasn't, that is simply untrue. Hagia Sophia is nowhere near the middle east, being as it is in Europe. Your interpretation of my comment is false. No-one has ever topic-banned me from editing articles about churches in Europe; that is simply wrong of you to claim. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I blocked them from the article and talk name spaces. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm sorry it didn't work out, truly. I really did think it would, but I guess there you have it. El_C 01:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    El C, what do you mean? GPinkerton ( talk) 01:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I mean, from Guerillero's action as stated above, I've understood that you've violated the agreed-upon topic ban. El_C 01:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El C, I added the text, opposition to which has now evaporated given the topic-bans of the POV-pushing ethno-nationalists, and [183] another editor has violated his own topic ban by adding various POV deletions. Doubtless my confidence they will now be site-banned is misplaced … GPinkerton ( talk) 01:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Point of information I am commenting after closure because I was pinged regarding the scope of the topic ban, which I may have been the first to propose. GPinkerton asserted above that "Hagia Sophia is nowhere near the middle east, being as it is in Europe." Hmmmmm. Here are the facts: Hagia Sophia is in Istanbul, Turkey's largest and most important city. Istanbul straddles the Bosporus, a waterway that is part of the boundary between Europe and Asia. Yes, Hagia Sophia is in Europe, strictly speaking, but is is very close to the Bosporus, and indisputably Asian territory is roughly a mile or a couple of kilometers away across the channel. Our article Middle East starts by saying that it "is a transcontinental region in Afro-Eurasia which generally includes Western Asia (except for Transcaucasia), all of Egypt (mostly in North Africa), and Turkey (partly in Southeast Europe)." The Southeast Europe part refers to the small percentage of Turkish territory that is in Europe, where Hagia Sophia is located. Accordingly, I consider GPinkerton's assertion to be disingenuous and highly misleading, and I believe that they violated their topic ban when they discussed Hagia Sophia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A couple of things. I ctrl.f'd GPinkerton's talk page to see if the topic ban was stated as a broadly construed ban ( WP:BROADLY) — it was not. I also ctrl.f'd the word "Sophia" and found several queries GPinkerton had made about whether editing it was within the scope of their ban. I was noncommittal, Valereee less so. This is what she said: Hagia Sophia I'd say possibly, as long as you focussed solely on the architecture, pre-1453 history, etc., but again other people might disagree. For whatever that's worth. (Sorry, again, still haven't really had a chance to look at all these recent developments so as to wish to comment further at this time.) El_C 03:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think, given the imminent outcome of the ArbCom case, this is going to be moot anyway regarding GPinkerton, though I note that at least one of the other editors that is about to be topic-banned is still edit-warring as well. Black Kite (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton also said 'no part of 1453 is after 1453'. It's technically correct that the incident being referred to seems to have occurred during 1453. Was there a mistake in applying the topic ban? I'd note Cullen328's original proposal was post-1452 not post-1453 [184]. To me it makes sense that the topic ban was intended to cover the Fall of Constantinople and the events after it.

This sort of seems a moot point, considering GPinkerton is also making the disingenuous claim that the topic ban wasn't intended to cover Turkey or Hagia Sophia even though as our article says, the whole of Turkey including the European part is normally considered to be in the Middle East. As pointed out above, their suggestion that the topic ban doesn't cover Hagia Sophia particularly stretches credulity since when it was proposed in part because of concerns over their editing over Hagia Sophia, rather than saying something like "if you are concerned over my edits of Hagia Sophia, why are you proposing a topic ban that doesn't cover Hagia Sophia" instead they said [185] 'That assessment appears to be based on my editing of Hagia Sophia being "highly problematic", which I don't think is at all justified.' without querying the extend of the topic ban.

So putting aside disputes over the definition of Middle East, I don't see how someone can claim they weren't aware the topic ban was intended to cover at Hagia Sophia post-1453 when they were explicitly aware it was proposed partly in response to concerns over their editing of the topic. Even if they wanted to dispute that their editing was problematic, someone who believed at the time that topic ban wouldn't cover such edits would surely have said something to that effect in addition.

If they believed that Wikipedia operates like a court of law and they could spot a loophole in a proposed topic ban's wording and keep it quiet to use to their advantage later, they're mistaken. If the topic ban proposer intends it to cover Hagia Sophia post-1453 and makes it clear at the time, then we don't give a damn what argument they come up with about how Hagia Sophia is not in the Middle East so it doesn't apply. El C's findings seem to further support that they should have been aware Hagia Sophia post-1453 is covered and make their suggestion even more disingenuous.

Nil Einne ( talk) 05:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I should clarify I'm uncertain if GPinkerton is trying to claim Turkey isn't covered, or just the European part as I'm having trouble following their arguments. Especially how them re-writing and expanding a section concerning one or more Turkish honorary consuls in France, the Turkish ambassador to France, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkish born Jews and their possible repatriation to Turkey was somehow not covered because the original text already said most of that in less detail. (Although notably, The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to have been something introduced by GPinkerton.) Nil Einne ( talk) 05:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
They are nitpicking and wikilawyering about the small European portion of Turkey, which is indisputably part of an Islamic country widely considered to be part of the Middle East. The topic ban was formulated in part because of their disruptive editing about the events of 1453 that transformed Christian Constantinople into Muslim Istanbul, and transformed Hagia Sophia from a church to a mosque. That is precisely the type of editing that led to their topic ban, along with similar disruption in the Syria/Kurdistan topic area. The disruption spans 15 centuries but much of it relates to Islam and the Middle East. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Since there seems to be general agreement that opening the RfC at Talk:Hagia Sophia was in violation of their topic ban, and no one else came out in favour of the proposal. I closed it with no prejudice to someone else who supports the proposal either reopening, or better yet starting a new RfC with no involvement of GPinkerton. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand GPinkerton's topic ban didn't say "broadly construed", but WP:TBAN says it applies by default: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase " broadly construed". That is a good policy to have. VR talk 11:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


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

Historica IP

In addition to their other problematic edits, this IP keeps adding information which is sourced to the alternate-reality Historica wiki (also violating copyright by not attributing it properly). Needs block/action of some sort. Cheers. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Their draft pages also probably require speedy deletions. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking at a few of their drafts, they appear to be almost entirely unsourced, unless one counts the external links. Aside from the possible copyright issues stemming from a lack of attribution, there's the issue of a lack of citations generally. I ran a copyvio check of a few of their drafts, and they range from a short passage or two, to well over half the prose in others. They did post some sort of disclaimer of acceptable use at the bottom of one of them I've checked. As RandomCanadian points out, even if the content is share-alike and acceptable for use, the lack of attribution, as well as the lack of any (let alone specific) citations showing what's been lifted from other projects is very problematic. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Somebody went about adding attribution to a few of them. The bigger issue, really, is that these are all from a) open-wikis which b) clearly states that much content is based on video-games and alternate reality... Copyvio or not, this is clearly content which does not belong here. I'd leave a notice at MILHIST just to check with some of the more expert editors on the topic, but in this case it is really not necessary because of the obviousness of the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Please notify all parties with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Improperly sourced accusations at Wael Abbas

More eyes on this, please, for accusations that are sourced to a blog. May be appropriate for rev/deletion and other sanctions. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Handled by Fuzheado. Thanks to 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 for reporting this. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 China–India skirmishes edition warring by Indian nationalists

KyloRen3, MBlaze Lightning and Wareon have all reverted my edits on false premises. All three edit mainly India related articles with pro-India POV. As assuming good faith is only or obvious cases of misunderstanding, I'm going to be blunt. I know there are Indian nationalists coordinating off this site on social media to edit wikipedia and those three magically showed up to RV me three times gaming three revert rule. They each only have one RV but I will have three if I edit again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes&diff=1008231330&oldid=1008230888

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes&diff=1008220589&oldid=1008218946

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes&diff=1008216427&oldid=1008215847

Even ignoring this and pretending nothing is going on, their reverts are all on false premises. The accounts I cited have been verified by the owners on third party sites liked linkin and muckrack for journalists and they are accounts of a Russian government official and journalist and as primary sources they can be used in articles.

Wareon is also false accusing me of being a sock of another editor, HanKim20. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanKim20 Batumkik ( talk) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTokyo

From archives

Before 2021

ANI by Guy Macon listing previous ANIs about XIIIfromTokyo: http://webot.org/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#XIIIfromTOKYO_%28need_an_admin_who_speaks_French%29 -- Delfield ( talk) 09:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

9-18 January

The user XIIIfromTOKYO has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants".

I tried to add a story that is all over the news the best I can, and it made XIIIfromTokyo say about me: "Junk sources, fraudulent use of references, and abusive promotion of Paris Assas University. Nothing New."

Thank you.

-- Delfield ( talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is a pretty serious BLP issue, dealing with the ongoing sex crime accusations against Olivier Duhamel. I know that's somewhat afield from what OP is concerned with—that XIIIfromTOKYO's references to "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University" is directed towards Delfield. Interestingly, the content at issue does not seem to discuss Paris Assas University, and in fact seems to be a throwback to accusations made in a SPI case opened against Delfield that closed without action. I think there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye. 69.174.144.79 ( talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
IP, thank you for clarifying that--it's very interesting. As for the accusations, XIIIfromTOKYO's comment strikes me as nothing but hot air. If XIII means that the edits, which are well-verified (what's "junk" about this?), are an attack on SciPo and thereby promote the competitor--well that's far-fetched. What I do know, and I've noticed this before, is that the article is way too promotional and needs pruning. Drmies ( talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{ Failed verification}} & {{ Better source}} to the article [186]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so [187]. Other references were used to write elements that were not in the references. Once again, I'm not alone to claim that. Evidences have been provided already by Asterix757 [188] [189].
And once again, Delfield promotes Assas University. Without adding a single reference, Delfield wrote that "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students". It's nothing but Delfield's opinion, and it promotes Paris Law School. And guess who wrote all the articles related to that so called Paris Law School/Assas University... Further details can be found at the Launebee/Delfield SPI case. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
XIIIfromTOKYO, I said elsewhere that that one edit doesn't prove "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University"--not in the slightest. Nor does the "better source needed" by Asterix757 add up to "junk sources"--again you are conveniently leaving out that there were references to Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times. And while you claimed "fraudulent use of references", which is an unacceptable personal attack if not rigorously proven, I see no evidence of that. Again, there's Asterix, who said "incorrectly used" on the talk page--whether that's correct or not is immaterial to me, but it's acceptable to speak in that way.

No, it seems clear to me that you violated the outcome of that ANI thread. BD2412, I think a block is in order, given your conclusion here. Delfield may be a sock, I don't know, but XIIIfromTOKYO was warned, and in this very thread they had an opportunity to retract the worst of their personal attacks; they didn't. Drmies ( talk) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm notified, I presume I can make some remarks. First of all, I understand that there are past conflicts that may lead to these attacks. But from my fresh point of view, and only about Sciences Po article, recents contributions of Delfield about Duhamel's scandal were indeed problematics. The question of poor quality of "Gala" refs is in fact secondary (and now Delfield change them for "Libération" which is better), the worst problem is that good sources like "Le Monde" has been used incorrectly as I said (in French we may say "détournement de source"). I presumed good faith and tried to tag to see an improvment. But later changes, and removal (of tag {{ Failed verification}} whithout changing sentence, or of Sciences Po statement regarding sexual violence related by NYT) are still questionable. But I don't want to be involved in some never ending dispute. I suggest XIIIfromTOKYO to apologize for the use of harsh words such as fraudulent. If one wants the truth to prevail one should stay moderate and polite, despite possible exasperation. Asterix757 ( talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have spent weeks to document a SPI case against Launebee/Delfield, a case that was openned by MePhisto.
The current incident was opened by Asterix757 [190]. I quote "written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source ( Gala). It's like a gossip article [191]" :
" pretending facts that are not in the sources" is not different to "fraudulent use of references". I'm strictly following the openning statement.
Gala is nothing more than a tabloid. See the SPI for more input on the use of that kind of material. Asterix757 has provided more element on that newspaper [192], so I don't know what I can provide on top of that.
In the openning statement, Asterix only mentionned Gala. I answered on that statement, and that statement only. I don't know why " Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times " are mentionned by Drmies, since neither I nor Asterix mentionned them. I didn't make or intended to make a comment on the quality of these newpapers. @ Drmies: you need to provide a link to support your accusation or remove it.
"abusive promotion of Paris Assas University". Links have been provided on the SPI, I not going to copy-paste everything here.
So, may we talk about the overabundance of {{ Failed verification}} that need to be added to Delfield's work. Where does the line between "honnest mistakes" and "fraudulent use of references" can be drawn ? 3 contributors, myself included, have reported multiples issuses in the past months. That's the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
You can't make accusations here, or write down edits, based on claims made elsewhere. The SPI doesn't even mention Gala, and at any rate that's subject matter for a community discussion on WP:RSN. Same with "abusive promotion"--if you make a very serious claim here, you need to substantiate it here. No, I am not convinced by anything you say here, and I stand by my point: you are making unacceptable and unsubstantiated personal attacks. Drmies ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The SPI is 25'000 bytes long, and the link has been provided. I not going to burry the whole discussion by c/c it here, that would be a WP:POINT. You refuse to click on the link, that's fine. But don't make claim that I didn't provided a link, I did.
You have just removed 8 times materials from the Assas University, on the ground that these abstracts were too promotional [193]. You do it 8 times on the edit summary, it's acceptable, I do it once with a 25'000 SPI bytes, it's not ?
You have just removed a full paragraph because, according to you "whether Eduniversal is a good enough source for this remains to be seen" [194], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it [195], this subject matter has do go through community discussion and approuval beforehand. An American contributor can make that kind of comment about a website written in French, but two French contributors have to go through community approuval first, even if references have been provided.
I hope that you understand that at this point, you have been doing nothing less than I have.
Do you have any comment about Delfield's comments on my sanity (see Comment 1 and Comment 2) ? Why is it acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not read what was written under this thread. I will just say that I read what Drmies wrote in the Sciences Po talk page (how I have to improve the section), it totally makes sense and I will try to improve the section. Feedback is very helpful. I think it is something different than having constant personal attacks about my motives after I edit an article or write something in a talk page, without any help on content, as it has been going on for quite some time now, since I began to edit the Sciences Po page.
I also kindly let know the admins of the problem I wanted information on there. XIII is clearly using the talk pages and filling them with statements about a university he does not seem to like, for whatever reason. He was recently claiming things in this university talk page that other contributors assessed as wrong and he is once again pursuing this obsession with section. I am not pursuing this if admins think it is not worth looking at, I just wanted to raise the issue.
-- Delfield ( talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"pursuing this obsession you say " [196] ? You are questionning my sanity, that kind of statement in not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a colloquial expression, not a medical diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@ HandThatFeeds: see the edit at Comment 2 [197] : The use of websites like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-health clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition [198]. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You've completely misrepresented that diff as if it applied to the "obsessed" statement. It has nothing to do with that, and it seems you're determined to distort this matter until it suits your agenda. 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Psychological health is therefore the reason I am not answering to XIII or going deeper in the ANI dispute. Thank you.
-- Delfield ( talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
You have already made comments about my mental health, and I have clearly told you that it was not acceptable. Yet, you made the choice to keep the discussion on that track, conspicuously using website like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-healt.
You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment [199] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs [200]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months [201] [202] [203]. Nothing came out of it, excpet a lot of wasted time on my side, thanks to the Brandolini's law. That is harrassment and playing the mental health game.
It's clear that Delfield is a new puppet of Launebee. It was banned for a reason. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, either file a WP:SPI or withdraw this accusation. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Already done by MePhisto who openned the investigation last August [204] Face-smile.svg. Already mentionned repeadly on that ANI, you can't have missed it. I have added some inputs to that SPI, and went as far as asking if he thought a third account should be added [205] before actually adding it. I haven't voiced an opinion that is not shared by at least one other contributor.
It took us 6 monhs to solve the issue at FR.Wiki, but it has been draging on for 4 years at EN.Wiki. It might be time to consider that you might be wrong on that. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A stale SPI from August is not a reason to repeat those accusations months later. Either file a new SPI with new evidence, or withdraw the claim. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
To clarify to the admins (I am not talking to XIII but to you admins): I was of course talking about my psychological health and my need to follow guidelines, but I guess it was clear enough. -- Delfield ( talk) 11:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) To clarify further: I am fine, these guidelines I follow are just to keep it this way. No risk of self-harm of course. -- Delfield ( talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1-2 February

The user XIIIfromTOKYO has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants". It was added by bd2412 that Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block..
Furthermore, this user was topic-banned "due to (his) lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia" (which he commented once again in a talk page as constituting a "xenophobic behaviour").
Because I asked an admin to "clean up" a talk page of personal attacks, he answered: "My comments are not dirty things that need to be, as you said, "cleaned", thank you. As you might know, stereotypes about French people include having a poor hygiene, so that choice of words is a bit unfortunate."
-- Delfield ( talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, make it quick this time :
A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. It's was not the first time that you have tried to rewrite one of my message in order to alter its original meaning, and I have already clearly said that it was not acceptable [207]. So you knowingly behave in a way that I have asked you to refrain from.
It's the third ANI that Delfield has started against me during the pasts months [208] [209]. Mostly off-topic accusations, always starting with that once a bad guy always a bad guy mantra over and over again. And everytime I waste more time on ANI than on the article. That's how Brandolini's law works, and Wikipedia:POV railroad also apply there.
I see that Delfield only has 200 edits so far (3 ANI started with only 200 edits, that's actually amazing), so it might be time to draw a line between harassment strategies, and genuine grievances. And I understand that, as a still young contributor with edits on controversial articles as a sole experience, it might be hard for Delfield to make that difference. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 22:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. Incorrect. Please see WP:TPO for specific instances in which the comments of others can be edited or deleted. I'm not saying that any of those apply, just correcting your blanket generalization. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

New ANI notice

XIIIfromTOKYO is once again again making a whole section in talk page on my edits (implying bad intent), even though what he is talking about had already been sorted out by Asterix757 (there was a confusion about where the claims took place: the institution or a group of institutions).

His edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1007909303&oldid=1007908098

Former edits by Asterix757: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ASciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1008065409&oldid=1008062642

Warning of XIIIfromTokyo about this (and above the 9-18 January section) : http://webot.org/info/en/?search=User_talk:XIIIfromTOKYO#Topic_ban

At every ANI post, he is trying to have the admins not reading by writing long texts in which the line of thoughts seem difficult to follow (or trying to make obviously bad faith claims, like on 12:20, 11 January 2021 above about the word "obsession" I used), so that they let down the whole subject.

Even if Asterix757 had not already made these judicious improvements, I feel it is not normal that every edit I make is observed by XIIIfromTokyo and a whole section is made each time a sentence in my edits can be improved. Even if XIIIfromTokyo did not create a new section, I do not think he should ever write "Delfield has done this and this" but "This is written in the article, I think that should be written for this reason" without mentioning me in talk pages. It has been polluting discussions between Asterix757 and me for months and it is becoming difficult for me to write anything even in talk page because for everything XIIIfromTokyo has a bizarre comment (see above 1-2 February where I asked the talk page to be "cleaned up" of his personal attacks, and he answered referring to the stereotypes about French people like him having a bad hygiene).

-- Delfield ( talk) 09:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Delfield's harrassement

Hi,

I think it's pretty obvious that Delfiel has been filling a swarm of ANI in the last past months in order to harrass me. Per Brandolini's law, I won't waste my time to debunk any of this, unless expressly asked my an admin.

There is a strong case against Delfield for a long time abuse of sockpuppet; It was opened by an other contributor, but I totally support it. We just need 1 admin to have a look at it.

There is also a strong case against Delfield for enduring misrepretention of sources and/or use of poor material [210]. As you can see, when caught, Delfield doesn't answer, and opens an ANI as an answer. Delfield has also tried to remove failed verification tags [211]... So the real question is, is Delfield able to contribute to Wikipedia. Afer 200+ edits, and already a long history of ANI and editwaring, I strongly doubt it.

The Sciences Po article is now filled with that kind of QAnon Pizzagate elite pedophile conspiracy mumbo-jumbo : "Duhamel was indeed organizing many events with the French intelligentsia involving a lot of sex and alcool and mixing adults and children. Small children were told about loss of virginity at 12 and were asked to mime in front of parents sexual acts, 12-year old girls were dressed with provocative clothes and make-up and sent to dance with 40-year-old men, older children are asked to tell the audience about their first sexual experience and young boys are "offered" to older women. [...] ". And it's not even connected to that college. The controversy section is now longer that the History section. 200+ edits of pedophile conspiracies. An other contributor has already tried to make it understand that it was turning the article into a gossip magazine, BUt Delfield sees nothing bad about it [212].

XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 12:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The section in question, while it needs to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone, seems to be well sourced enough. I would say block XIII for personal attacks, but if the logs show Delfield has significant violations of policy, they get blocked as well. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
As seen in the below section, he may have falsified the entire start of the conversation. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ XIIIfromTOKYO: the SPI you linked to was closed back in October with this comment "Open for a month and obviously not going anywhere, so closing with no action taken. If anybody has some new evidence and can present it in a clear and concise way so it's easy to evaluate, file a new report." So it's fairly unlikely "just need 1 admin to have a look at it". What you need to do is follow the advice given. If you have new evidence, present it in a clear and concise and manner in a new report. Edit: I see you were already told by User:HandThatFeeds to stop treating that old report as convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. You really need to follow that advice as well. Just stop mentioning that SPI. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nil Einne: Yes, it was closed because no one took a look at it. Two contributors spent hours to collect evidences, so far, for nothing. I have more elements to provide, but for that I need to have someone who is willing to have a look at other peronn's work. That's a shame, because that's the fastest way to deal with that ANI.
I have 110'000+ edits and 13+ years as a contributor. Delfield has 200+ edits, and only controversial edits. So maybe, maybe, the old grumpy contributor has seen something. And maybe MePhisto, who openned the SPI, has also seen something. And maybe, Asterix757, who found that a lot of references discrepancies [213] (failed verifications and poorly sourced claims), has also seen something. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ XIIIfromTOKYO: it's not possible to parse that closing statement (in particular, the request for new evidence) as there being no review of the evidence. It's clear that it was reviewed, perhaps only cursorily given the length, and was found insufficient compelling to demonstrate sock-puppetry. You and MePhisto should take this advice on board, and if you have new evidence open a new case in a clearer and more concise manner. Until you do so, you need to drop the sockpuppetry allegations. Even if you are right, the evidence presented to the community thus far is not sufficient for finding of sockpuppetry. There are plenty of times when sockpuppetry happens but the evidence isn't sufficient. You can continue to personally believe whatever you want provided you don't let it unreasonably affect your editing here and especially stop making unfounded accusations. As for the other stuff, I'll put it this way. I had a quick look at the talk page of Sciences Po and what you said there did lead to concerns on my part about Delfield inaccurately summarising sources. But I didn't investigate further in part because I didn't feel I could trust you either. I don't care that much how long you've been here and how many contributions you have. I do care in my one recent experience with you, I found you continued to make an unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry even after you'd been told to stop. If you keep at that, why should I believe anything else you have to say? In other words, maybe you are right, but you haven't given me a reason to think you're right. The opposite in fact. So rather than spending hours reviewing if it's a persistent problem with Delfield editing, I'll just drop it. If you're lucky, maybe someone else won't be so daunted. If not, well maybe reconsider you approach. Nil Einne ( talk) 17:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nil Einne: If I have to drop the sockpuppetry part, why is Delfield allowed to use past ANIs, especially when nothing came out of them ?
I don't ask you to "trust" me, I ask you to understand that other contributors have also voiced their concerns about this contributor (that lead to an SPI and the finding of multiple references discrepancies). I want you to undertand that Delfiel's narrative and habilities don't match at all with a 200+ edits contributor. It was already true last septembre, when it toped only 140 edits. Let me explain that again :
  • 4th edit, 20 September 2019 : First edit on a law college in Paris [214]
  • 8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{ Citation needed}} [215]
  • 23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork [216]
  • 33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection [217]. The aim was to have the artile locked on the version the Delfield wrote.
  • 43rd edit, 10 October 2019 : First message on a Wikiprojet talk page, in order to start a merging process detween two articles [218]
  • 55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination [219] : Sciences Po Law School. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield [220] [221] in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
  • 86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page [222], in order to promote Assas.
  • 113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins [223]
5h September 2020, I let a message on the sockpuppet investigation. Delfield starts red herring tactics. I'm the main target, and Delfield starts to dig 5 years olds edits.
  • 121st edit, 11 September 2020 : First message at the Administrators' noticeboard [224], targeting my supposedly low number of edit and/or lack of fluency in English.
  • 125th edit, 12 September 2020 : Delfield opens a sockpuppet investigations against MePhisto [225]
  • 131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me [226]
In barrely more than 100 edits, that contributor has been able to use correctly a very specific template (8th edit), create and article (23rd), make a request for page protection (33rd), start a merging process (43rd), start a deletion process (55th), start an SPI (113rd). It doesn't really fit the narrative of new contributor discovering Wikipedia throught a trial and error process, don't you think ? XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible falsification of conversation (verified: no)

Looking at the edit history and Delfields user contribs, it seems he might have falsified an entire conversation, because I can't find a blanking of the section before that, and he added multiple comments in that edit, so it seems he may have falsified the conversation. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If I did everything correct, this should be the diff that added 26000 bytes. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, is there a policy that can be applied? Possibly the policy against impersonating could be applied, but it still seems unique. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
They copied that section from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#XIIIfromTokyo. That's why it says "9-18 January (from archives)". Woodroar ( talk) 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for clarifying. I thought those headers discussed what the reported user was doing at the time, not previous discussions. Thank you for the clarification. 4D4850 ( talk) 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) Bluelinks would have been more compact than C/P, but I see nothing untoward. I remember those ANI reports; I participated in a Talk Page discussion during one of them, in relation to French-language sources (though not to XIII's satisfaction). Narky Blert ( talk) 15:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
4D4850 you may wish to deal with this edit where you're trying to make something out of a theory that Defields falsified a conversation. I suggest some apologies and self reversion may be in order. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I shouldn't have assumed bad faith. I struck through all my other comments in this section and I'm about to apologize. 4D4850 ( talk) 15:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm also going to take a self enforced wikibreak starting later today for assuming bad faith. 4D4850 ( talk) 16:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ 4D4850: I am not sure you really "assumed" bad faith, since you wrote "possible", and you stroke everything when Canterbury Tail told you it was a mistake. Now that you have read this conversation, if you could stay at least to give your input if needed in this issue, it would be of some help. But mistakes do happen, it is exactly what I am saying when on my many edits with sources there is one thing that can be a mistake, and XIIIfromTokyo makes a whole section about me in talk page on how a bad faith editor I am, each time and for some time now. -- Delfield ( talk) 08:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
FYI, I'm not an admin, and I'm going to need to start disclosing that again. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible falsification of conversation (verification needed)

As a matter of fact, I have already mentionned in a previous ANI that Delfield has already altered one of my message to alter its meaning [227].

  • Delfield said "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him""
  • The full message was "attack [him] on [his] number of edits, then on [his] grammar"

The first message is a blend accusation, the second message clearly shows that I have explained why the comment was problematic. It's pretty relevant, because that actually the first time that Delfield talk to me. I think a look at the original discussion shows that all these incidents are created by Delfield. It all started when an other contributor started a SPI against Delfield [228]. I wrote to support that contributor, explaining that I came to the same conclusion. Delfield didn't even answer me, but immediatly opened an ANI against me, using years old edits[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=977943897)

First messages

It really looks like the same user. The same behaviour pattern was displayed on FR.wiki by Droas82 way back in late 2015/early 2016 [229]. It took us 6 months to solve the Droas82 issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on EN.wiki. Without a strong stance, you will have to deal with him/her for a long time. Good luck. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


I notice that this edit from this user, about some unspecified "behaviour pattern" from an another user, is their second edit in 2020. It is written in their talk page: "you are hereby topic-banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions, due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block." Would this user be MePhisto? -- Delfield ( talk) 21:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


1000+ edits this year so far, and 100'000+ total edits [230]. Happy ? I don't think starting a discussion like you do by trying to know who has the largest editcount is very mature.
Yes, back in 2016 I tried to warn EN.Wiki about Droas82/Launebee crosswiki massive use of sockpuppets. Launebee managed to get me topic-ban to silence me, and came back with a brand new army of sockpuppets. And then Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee was openned, and it was proven that I was right all along. So, yea, maybe I should ask for the topic-ban to be lifted, but I don't feel like dealing with admins thinking that my "lack of facility with the English language" can cover their xenophobic behaviours.
The "behaviour pattern" has already been introduced by MePhisto. So, no, it's not "unspecified". XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


What do your problems with the administrators have to do with me? I mentioned your text on the noticeboard because I do not see what I can answer to that. -- Delfield ( talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


Answered at AN. Now back to the real topic.
After only 131 edits as of today, you have shown that you already have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia ([ message at the AN), and of a 5 years dispute (enough to provide very fast some years old diffs). But of course you know nothing about and are not connected to Launebee/Droas82 Face-smile.svg. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


You message is not clear. I found where one can ask Wikipedia if there is a problem and I provided the "diffs" available on your talk page for more clarity. Besides, could you be a bit more gentle please? I am not responsible for your problems with Wikipedia. -- Delfield ( talk) 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. Being "a bit more gentle". Sure, why not ? XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 13:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it shows very well that since DAY 1, Delfield has wage an all out campaign, and more often that not relying on dirty tactics. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


Further conversation

XIIIfromTokyo saying the Duhamel story, sourced with so many reputable newspapers (New York Times, The Times, Le Monde...), is a QAnon conspiracy theory (above 12:04, 22 February 2021), and writing so long texts so that the original discussion gets drowned under, is just one new example of what he is constantly doing in talk pages. On top of using this to constantly attacking me and making whole sections about how a bad faith user I am, each time my edit has been improved by another user). Discussion between me and other users become impossible, since it is polluted with these long personal attacks.

Right after this ANI, he did it again. I wrote to Asterix747 "you are right" but I am discussing how with him to improve the sentence in the article, but XIIIfromTokyo makes a long comment trying to prove that I am a bad-faith user ("only what fits in the narrative is mentioned, contradictory statements are ignored. That's Cherrypicking"): https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sciences_Po&diff=prev&oldid=1008356814 (precedent similar edit already mentioned: [231] . Previous edit already correcting what he is talking about in these two new "analysis" of my bad faith: [232] )

Two users have already been in favor of a block ( Drmies 23:04, 10 January 2021 and 4D4850 14:34, 22 February 2021). I do not know if it the right answer but what I know is that it has been going for a long time, without any instance of apology ( Asterix757 was in favour of an apology 00:53, 11 January 2021) or retraction of obviously wrong statements about me (like I was accusing him to have a medical condition, and The Hand That Feeds You asked him 18:55, 12 January 2021 to retract that statement above, which he did not do, or like my comment about cleaning up a page had anything to do with his personal hygiene). Besides, it seems it has been going on for much longer, since he was already cautioned against discussing character of other conversants in talk pages under penalty of possible immediate block on 11 October 2017 (for false accusations of antisemitism according to the ANI).

-- Delfield ( talk) 08:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me give the full quote that 4D4850 gave "I would say block XIII for personal attacks, but if the logs show Delfield has significant violations of policy, they get blocked as well". You have altered that contributor's quote to fit in your narrative. It says a lot about how much you can be trusted, and about how much your contributions have to be checked. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 13:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but I didn't find any policy violations in the logs., and even if there were, you would still be blocked if I was an admin, which I really need to start disclosing I'm not again. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
That's argumentum ad ignorantiam. A proposition is not true because it has not yet been proven false. You claimed that you were taking a wikibreak, maybe that's why you didn't find anything relevant. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Two things. A: I only started the wikibreak later that day, I didn't manage to follow through and not edit today because I had 5 messages. B: I checked before I started the wikibreak and didn't find anything suspicious, aside from one edit which I mistook for a policy violation and me mistaking it for a policy violation was the whole reason I chose to do the wikibreak. Overall though, everything in this ANI is too confusing for anybody to make sense of while editing, so later today I'll read it through and try to finally make a tl;dr for anybody who can't understand the ridiculously over complicated discussion. 4D4850 ( talk) 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In favor of a block if there is no retraction about the conspiracy nature of the pedophilia scandal in France I read better the comment of XIIIfromTokyo (12:04, 22 February 2021), and I saw that he is directly calling the Duhamel story "pedophile conspiracies". I cannot withstand that such comment is so hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France, thanks to the testimony about the REAL victim of Duhamel, and who could read such comments online. Such a statement should not be taken lightly and, I am now in favor in a (permanent) block. It is an extremely serious matter and this only should be subject to a permanent block if there is no retraction (and if he strikes his whole comment too of course). If there is a retraction and a strike, I let the community decide of the right path on the basis of the personal attacks against me and pollution of the discussions in which I am involved, since I would not be neutral enough to be the judge of this. -- Delfield ( talk) 09:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I think everyone is aware that you want to ban me. You opened the first ANI against me last September because I wrote to support an other contributor who openned an SPI against you [233]. The first time that you talk to me was to attack me on my grammar and on my edit count [234]. You have since then started half a dozen of ANI against me in the last 2 months. Mostly because I was trying to show and explain your mistakes. Needless to say, there are a lot of them.
You are now accusing me to make an apologia for pedophilia, and of being "hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France". So I'm more or less some kind of devil. And of course, no need to provide a link "Source : trust me bro". So I don't really understand what you expect. Your claim is delusional.
Putting references from The Times or the BBC is not the same as correctly using references from these media. And that's the whole point of your edits here. An other contributor has already mentionned that your edits were problematic, and always needed to be checked. I explained that I agreed with him, and I have even provided quotes from these articles in order to underline the most problematic parts [235]. You don't listen, you don't correct the mistakes, and you start an ANI. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Might I suggest that accusing other editors of saying that you have a mental disorder when they say that you are pursuing an obsession and then writing "Your claim is delusional" might not be a wise idea? I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Your only answer to a non-native speaker is a lexical/grammatical comment ? Great. But that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of my message.
Delfield@ has accused me of making an apologia for pedophilia, and of being "hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France". I'm not OK with that. So I need clear references. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 20:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO: Focusing in on two interactions

The above contains a huge amount of material -- free clue: you get better results at ANI if you are concise: fewer words, more diffs -- so I am going to focus on two interactions:

" Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"
"Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition [236]. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)"

So, let's look at this comment that supposedly supports XIIIfromTOKYO's assertion that Delfield is guilty of "harrassment[sic] and playing the mental health game":

"To clarify to the admins (I am not talking to XIII but to you admins): I was of course talking about my psychological health and my need to follow guidelines, but I guess it was clear enough. -- Delfield ( talk) 11:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"

XIIIfromTOKYO is clearly editing from a position of bad faith, telling lies about Delfield and hoping that nobody will check and see that in the diff provided Delfield pretty much said the exact opposite of what XIIIfromTOKYO claims they said.

So is this an isolated incident? To avoid any possibility of cherry picking, let me address the claim that was directly above this one when I edited it (please stop adding new sections!):

"As a matter of fact, I have already mentionned[sic] in a previous ANI that Delfield has already altered one of my message[sic] to alter its meaning [237]. [...] XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)"

Wow. If true, that would be a good example of Delfield misbehaving. Editing another person's comments that they posted with their signature would be completely out of line.

But the diff [238] doesn't contain an edit from Delfield at all, much less an edit where Delfield altered one of XIIIfromTOKYO's posts. Instead it is a post from XIIIfromTOKYO where they say "I have edited Delfield's previous message" -- once again the exact opposite of what is claimed.

I have seen enough. I call for an indefinite block of XIIIfromTOKYO until they demonstrate that they understand that the above pattern of behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Please note that I am not making any claim one way or the other regarding Delfield or anyone else. If anyone other than XIIIfromTOKYO wants me to look into that, please provide diffs demonstrating the behavior you are talking about. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's execute XIIIfromTOKYO, and explain that nothing that he can say will be heard off. @ Guy Macon: what a nice way to introduce yourself and your way of thinking Face-smile.svg.
Thank you for your comment, let me explain that again to you.
  1. My original message was "You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. (...)" [239] (12 September 2020, 13:42)
  2. Delfield then added that to the ANI "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him"". As you can see the half of the sentence has been removed, including all of the objects of the sentence. The meaning of my sentence was altered, and nothing was left to indicate that a cut has been done. Most of the time in academia "(...)" is used for that purpose. And the quote was presented as an honest representation of my comment. As you might know personal attacks are not allowed on Wiki. Delfield cut my quote to let other people think that I was attacking. In the original quote, anyone can see that Delfield is ressorting to personnal attacks ; I'm explaining why comment on grammar or edit count are not acceptable.
  3. When I saw the alteration of my quote in the ANI, I put the full version. I clearly explained why Delfield's cut was misleading, and warn him "Delfield, you are not allowed to change my messages, or to cut them in a way that could alter their meanings. " [240].
  4. Delfield ignore my warning, and altered again my quote [241].
So yes, the (my) orignal quote was altered (by Delfield) to remove the relevant parts. When I put back the relevant parts of the quote, warning Delfield about doing that again... well that's exactly what happened. So Delfield knew that it was altering my message, and yet, choose to do so. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a difference between changing another editors comments (forbidden; see WP: TPOC) and quoting them (allowed). If you feel that someone misquoted you, you are free to respond saying so. You are not allowed to edit other people's comments. If you reply to this comment by indicating that you have read WP:TPOC, understand that what you did was wrong, and commit to following Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, you might escape an indefinite block. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong to edit someone else's comments, you will be demonstrating the Law of Holes. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
In point 3/diff [252], above, XIIIfromTOKYO edited another editor's comment to change its meaning. That is totally unacceptable; see WP:TPO - "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" (emphasis in the original). Narky Blert ( talk) 20:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You have already claimed that you wanted to ban me, and that nothing that I would say would make any impact. My comment was in no way an answer. It was an detailled explanation of how my own words have been misquoted by Delfield, and who I had to rectify them. That's was not for you, that was for anyone who would put any trust to your claim.
If you want an answer, strike your comment about my message not being important, and your accusation of me "telling lies about Delfield and hoping that nobody will check". My detailled explanation shows that your comment was, at best, without solid ground;
Respect goes both ways. You have since your first message here displayed a very high level of violence (can it be higher than claiming that you wish to exterminate an other long time contributor ?). So it's up to you to make the first step and apologize.
The name of the page is Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe you should let admins work. You have already disclosed your agenda, and clearly stated that your goal was to ban me. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Narky Blert: Delfield altered my message by removing large chunks ot it. Delfield has clearly altered the meaning of my message by misquoting me. Yet, despite that change of meaning, Delfield claimed that the quote was mine. In lot of places (academia, Wikipedia...) that kind of practice is considered as a forgery (yes, I can use bold caracters also).
The only part of the text that was modified, were words that were falsifely attributed to me. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 20:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ XIIIfromTOKYO: - What part of "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" is difficult to understand? Narky Blert ( talk) 20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Narky Blert: Let me ask you the same question : What part of "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" is difficult to understand ? The core comment is mine. Delfield provided a quote, that was presented of being mine. You understand ? A quote that was presented as being mine. The text was so altered that it had nothing to do with my core message. That is called a forgery, and that falls also under copyright infringement. So, as I'm the author of the quoted text, I put back my original message (FYI, that's commonly put between "."). I didn't change the meaning of my text, I re-established my text.
And yet, despite all these warning, Delfield made the choice to make a new forgery, and commit a copyright infringement. XIIIfromTOKYO ( talk) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I rest my case. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

  • One wonders when XIII will stop alleging that Delfield is a sock. And here we are, with XIII still arguing that Delfield commits forgeries and copyright infringements (what?). It's time to block for personal attacks, and that is exactly what I'm going to do, pending further discussion here. I propose we let non-involved admins and editors discuss the matter here: Delfield and others, kindly let this run its course. We'll have no more from XIII for 48 hours. Drmies ( talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This XIII character needs an indefinite block. Between the insane fixation on the word obsession, and the changing of someone else's post, this is someone who just doesn't get it and, it seems, never will. Oh yeah, there's also the talk of being the target of "violence" and "extermination". E Eng 08:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm also very close to simply deleting the entire Sciences_Po#Attitude_toward_sexual_violence_and_Duhamel_scandal section, which reads like a bad translation of a trash tabloid. Something like this need extremely high-quality, comprehensive sources, not a cobbling together of scandalous rumors given in WP's voice as if flat fact. E Eng 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    ( Drmies asked not to intervene on the subject of this topic any more, which I did, but here you raise another subject so I write something on that subject). Just to tell you, E, that Asterix747 verified all the sources (and sometimes correcting the text and was right to do so), none of them are tabloid (New York Times, The Times, Le Monde, Le Nouvel Obs, etc.) and none of them raise what is said as rumours. Asterix747 and I have access to all the sources and they all state these sad facts; it is because they are so outrageous and factual that so many people are resigning and it is not finished. Regarding the length etc., I think it is justified, but anyway, once the XIIIfromTokyo issue is solved, I hope we can have in talk page good discussions between Asterix747 and me (and other people who want to weight in) to find a common ground. For now, I just stopped and let the template be (which is talking anyway about tone only, there is a thorough agreement on the factual basis – excluding XIII of course but you can see for yourself the nature of what he writes), because with XIII, the discussion has become impossible, but we will get back to it afterwards. -- Delfield ( talk) 22:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I'll defer to someone who's Froggish is better than mine, but it's at least some of the sources cited in support of X turn our to simply be paper P reporting that paper Q says that someone's book asserted X. E Eng 01:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    Delfield, you are your own worst enemy. I asked you to stay away because you also have a tendency to be long-winded and to get into content details, when EEng made just one quick remark. This loquaciousness is why few people are interested in looking into the matter. Drmies ( talk) 23:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent POV editing without sources, past final warning

The protected article on Pagoda ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is being targeted by Ananta5421 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who insists on changing things to suit their viewpoint, without providing any sources to back up the statements. I'm no expert on pagodas, and the user may well be correct for all I know, but it's impossible to verify as sources are claimed to exist but never seem to materialise. This has been pointed out repeatedly, including the final warning issued, but the user persists (and gets pretty argumentative when this is flagged). I'm not sure if all this counts technically as edit warring, because the edits get re-entered rather than restored by reverting, but the end result is the same. Could be that I've the wrong end of the stick here, but would appreciate if someone in the know could take a look. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The same user is also engaged in disruptive editing at Gautama Buddha. Teishin ( talk) 13:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 24 hours for persistent edit warring, original research and adding unsourced materials. Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @ Canterbury Tail: however, the same stuff continues on Pagoda, this time under IP — the edit notes bear a remarkable resemblance to those of the blocked user. These are easier to catch, given the article's protection, but perhaps something could be done about these, too? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ananta5491 has resumed disruptive editing at Gautama Buddha. Teishin ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The Eloquent Peasant

  • User The Eloquent Peasant ( talk · contribs · logs)
  • Reasons for reporting: Continuously ignoring guidelines agreed by Wikiproject:Puerto Rico to reach consensus when using and replacing files relating to Puerto Rico. User has constantly contradicted themselves in statements relating to consensus yet have failed to do so. An example of a file replaced without reasoning other then personal preference is this file which was replaced on wikipedia and wikidata without consensus by this file. With the attitude of the user this can be considred as disruptive editing, especially after threatening myself that "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles" which you can ctrl-f and find on this specific noticeboard here. It seems the user is appealing to ones self interest then others as a group. Here is the page for consensus discussion which was agreed upon we would all have to agree to use files here. The user clearly has done this with almost all files added and replaced after the agreement. -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Remember to notify all parties with an ANI-notice. Block per WP:NOTHERE or TBAN for Puerto Rico and all articles of interest to wiki project Puerto Rico. 4D4850 ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My bad, i added the tag -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I moved it into it's own section, just so they would notice it is not to do with the strawberries. 4D4850 ( talk) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ 4D4850: Cheers, i didn't realize i slapped it with out a header. You've been good help, thank you! Do you think It would be a good idea that I take down the files that the project didn't agree upon and we continue its discussion there on consensus and what files to use? -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I would go with what's used now at the moment, but have a discussion or RfC for what files to use. That way consensus could be obtained easily. The ones with no consensus should be kept if and only if they are used currently and there are no better agreed upon files. 4D4850 ( talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Duly noted, i'll start working on that in the upcoming weeks. I'll come to you if I need anything relating to this specifically since you are the one dealing with this atm. Thank you and have a nice rest of your day m8! Take care :D -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 15:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI that pings don't work unless you add the ping and your signature in the same edit. Woodroar ( talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I won't be available for a little while starting later today, because I got overzealous in another ANI thread and accidentally assumed bad faith, so I'm taking a short self-enforced wikibreak. You can see when I'm back to editing when I post I'm editing again on my talk page. 4D4850 ( talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ 4D4850: User is still able to edit pr topics, i thought they where tban? -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 00:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
And this is why I used to disclose that I'm not an admin, before I was convinced people would know that I wasn't if they needed to check. We need to get an admin to TBAN Eloquent, but I'm unfortunately not an admin. Sorry for the misunderstanding. (Also I know I'm breaking my own wikibreak, but I felt I needed to clear this up.) 4D4850 ( talk) 14:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Background for this issue is here:

Cookieman1.1.1_is_making_funny_statements report on Commons Administrators' noticeboard -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

None of that is background, you are uploading files without consensus and are getting too personal about everything. Like here a few months ago with your "have a nice life comment. You are being disruptive, and your actions could drive away others in the future or you calling something "farts and logic" or whatever as a way to just mock myself like a child. Etiquette is extremely important here, but it becomes absolutely hypocritical and contradictory to say that you want concensus when you have over a dozen files uploaded without concensus from the wikiproject then act like i have forgotten the consensus? What a joke. "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles", you are literally threatening to replace a perfectly fine file because you don't like it then go "I think you should remove the Trujillo Alto stuff on the mountain. It looks really awful. I am a lady - a lady who's been around awhile so please be a gentleman..." Then asking me if any of it is in the blazon? Give me a break, sounds like you are attempting to troll me with questions that are obvious even after i explain with real examples. And now you are trying to get commons admins to delete a file of mine for absolutely no reason then spite now and is literally looking into my other actives as she as looked into my other hobbys like Micronationalism. "Also note that the user, in his previous posts, mentioned micronations and a user at Micronations with same user name has founded a micronation and he has made himself the president of such micronation which unfortunately includes Puerto Rico. The problem is Puerto Rico is not a micronation. Perhaps the user has taken his imagination too far and transfered his micronation hobby to Wikipedia so I am baffled." What? (No I don't claim Puerto Rico as apart of a micronation) and the user claims i've transferred my interest in Micronationalism to Puerto Rico when that has never happened nor have I ever claimed Puerto Rico. Do you know what Micronationalism even is? I've never made any edit relating to micronationalism and Puerto Rico. You are baffled? I am baffled by the concerning the lengths this user is getting into to attempt get me into more issues. How much time do you have on your hands to search for myself on other wikis and websites? Its a little bit creepy and unsettling. You have had to have looked on the internet for me and that makes me greatly uncomfortable. You are cyber stalking me now, I never even hinted here that I run a micronation. Admins, please handle this, this user has gone too far and i am very concerned now. -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 14:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ TonyBallioni: Sorry for the ping, you just happened to be on the top of the list of active admins. This is urgent and please look into this users actions towards me as i am genuinely concerned. -- Cookieman1.1.1 ( talk) 15:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Zitkala-Sa

Semi-protected for 24 hours. Fences& Windows 20:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please read the article. Today she is honoured by Google Doodle for her contribution as composer and suffragist in her's 145th birthday. But, the article now experience high level of IP vandalism. See in the history, in less than 15 hours, almost all of edits are vandalism or reverts by IPs. Please invoking at least pending changes protection in the article. 110.137.127.193 ( talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Concur, seems to be a constant issue today because of exposure from the doodle. Guess we'll just have to keep an eye on it. Brightnsalty ( talk) 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

IP has ignored all 4 level warnings

92.24.242.196 ( talk · contribs) - persistently making unsourced changes to articles, ignoring Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 warnings in the process. SK2242 ( talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember to notify all parties to the discussion with ANI-notice. 4D4850 ( talk) 15:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Forgot. Noted. SK2242 ( talk) 19:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Also they have only one level four warning. 4D4850 ( talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a serious flaw in the software: mobile IP editors no receive notifications and will be completely unaware of any talk page messages unless they think to hunt for them. The ticket for this issue is phab:T240889. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach). So it is highly unlikely that they have read your warnings.— Diannaa ( talk) 15:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that phabricator ticket. I made sure to leave a reply. IP's not getting user talk notifications sounds like a big issue to me. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This is definitely concerning. It makes me wonder how feasible it is for people to continue contributing without an account, when on many other websites account creation is required to participate for good reason. SK2242 ( talk) 19:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Even some other language wikis (Portuguese, for one) require a login. Why don't we? - Sumanuil ( talk) 02:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistant Vandalism

The page United States presidential pets has been experiencing persistent, continuing vandalism for quite some time now, since approximately the US presidential election. This has been frequent enough that it got into the news. Could an admin please put some kind of permanent protection on it to stop it? -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 17:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) SilverTiger12, has WP:RFPP been insufficient? — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 18:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits on Lush_(company)

Not sure if this is the best place to report this, but I want to report disruptive editing on the Lush page. After 4 reverts today, two by myself, we asked for this to be resolved on the talk page. This was ignored and instead the IPs went down the route of accusations and reinstating the reverted edits.

It seems to be a carbon copy of what happened on the Britannia (TV series) and a lesser degree, Jez Butterworth. Worth looking at the banning/activity of SethRuebens and also the recent sockpuppet investigation the connected IPs were involved in. Not sure if it’s a breach of the ban, since that also seemed to be for disruptive editing. Unsure what the next steps are. LittleMissFashionista ( talk) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please notify all parties to the discussion with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 ( talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding to watchlist and reviewing edits now. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Overall, the changes seem constructive EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I am more concerned about LittleMissFashionista being questioned twice in relation to CoI/paid editing and not responding both times. SK2242 ( talk) 16:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat and edit warring by Hangsun.577

Hangsun.577 indef blocked. GirthSummit (blether) 18:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


After a post to the BLP noticeboard about Lisa D. Cook at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive324#Lisa D. Cook, I warned Hangsun.577 about cherry picking tweets on a BLP: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Hangsun.577&oldid=1007990025#Lisa_D._Cook. They replied that "You are a left-wing political hack" and edited my user page to make a direct legal threat against me, which I missed until GoatLordServant pointed it out: [242]. They have again added the disputed edit and were reverted: [243]. They have many previous warnings for edit warring and adding their opinion into articles. Fences& Windows 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They should be blocked for legal threats. 4D4850 ( talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Blocked per WP:NLT for this edit EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I was about to do the same thing, EvergreenFir beat me to it. They were warned about legal threats just last month, no excuse for this. (They were also violating WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:EW...). GirthSummit (blether) 18:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor(s) encouraging disruptive editing

I think some editors are encouraging (and possibly applying) disruptive editing behavior. I find this "The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until either they get frustrated and either get bored and stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned." [244] to be problematic, please advise. Feynstein ( talk) 18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I noticed Alexbrn simply because he was part of the discussion. I think input from him can be valuable to the assessment of the situation. Feynstein ( talk) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:BOOMERANG, the disruptive editor here is Feynstein, who has been pushing the "lab leak" conspiracy theory regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 against NPOV, and has engaged in repeated personal attacks against other editors. For those unfamiliar with the recent goings on surrounding the "lab leak" controversy, It has essentially turned into a mirror of the Race and intelligence topic area, where there is extensive offsite canvassing and SPA activity attempting to influence Wikipedia by people who do not edit with the neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia: This is not about me, I respected administrator advice in all cases and I even apologised multiple times. And this is clearly not a conspiracy theory, we have one MEDRS candidate [245] and multiple RS saying it's not. You encouraging stonewalling until editors get topic banned is counterproductive to the current RfC and discussion. I'm sorry, but even I am not doing that. Plus I had no idea there was off-site canvassing on the subject. My last year edits on the subject kinda prove I wanted this subject to be properly adressed from the start. Feynstein ( talk) 18:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Reading the source, the conclusion is that either is possible, which while not saying it's definitely natural, still isn't conclusive evidence it was a lab leak, as well as the fact the scientific consensus is that Covid is naturally occurring. Therefore, we should just say the lab leak is a conspiracy theory. 4D4850 ( talk) 18:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ 4D4850: A lab can leak a naturally occuring virus. This is not the goal of this btw, it's about a user encouraging stonewalling on a legit RfC (which you should participate if you want to weigh in). Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all Feynstein ( talk) 18:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Stonewalling a discussion is bad, but ANI discussions can and will change course. Overall though, I say OP should be blocked for POV-pushing. 4D4850 ( talk) 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
And by OP you mean? Feynstein ( talk) 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Original Poster. So, you. 4D4850 ( talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's about you. Read WP:BOOMERANG. Almost your entire editing history on your account from its de-facto beginning in May 2020 (with one prior edit in 2011) has been dedicated to pushing the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. You are a Single-Purpose-Account, in common with most other accounts who push the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we please not accuse every party to the discussion of everything. Still, consensus on the RfC appears to be that the lab leak hypothesis is considered a conspiracy theory, and the article on pubmed doesn't decide either way. 4D4850 ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Btw the MEDRS requirement means editors can completely overlook RS about this? It's demonstrably not a conspiracy theory, I didn't want to get into it but since you're accusing me of POV pushing I might as well. [246] ... It seems like common sense doesn't apply to this subject it's so weird. Feynstein ( talk) 19:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, right, tell that to my involvement in the WP:DRN and my work on industrial radiography. And read WP:NPA. This is pathetic mate. Feynstein ( talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Neither of the things you mentioned to support your case apply in this scenario. 4D4850 ( talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
What scenario? That editors are actively stonewalling and that it might ressemble POV pushing to go against it? That's fair. Feynstein ( talk) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I mean how the ANI discussion is currently going. 4D4850 ( talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I really don't get your involvement in this, I'll let it play out without responding to you any further because I feel like I'm getting WP:BAITed. Seeing the comment below I think it's precisely what's happening gday to you. Feynstein ( talk) 19:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I think that this needs to go to WP:ARBCOM. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Hemiauchenia: Why not mate, I know I have wrongs but I always listened to admin advice. Yes I came here in 2020 first because I didn't like what I was seeing and wanted to contribute (misguidedly at first of course). But then I went and stopped working on COVID, and continued to participate in many other pages, including WP:DRN until I got the hang of edition. You're completely disregarding my other work by picking the very start of my history. You're also disregarding how I translated a page into french wikipedia. And how I casually contributed to small edits like image caption and stuff on wikimedia using the mobile app. I recently saw legit peer-reviewed papers that weren't included in the article and wondered why. Then I saw signs of WP:STONEWALLING on talk pages. People using derogatory language qualifying editors of conspiracy theorists for something that clearly became mainstream [247]. I mean whatever you think of me I know I have done everything in good faith and this subject actually started me on a track to edit stuff I know about. I'm ready to face any WP:BOOMERANG that would come my way, but certainly not for false accusations of being a one purpose account by someone who didn't even care to look at my entire history. Feynstein ( talk) 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that I talked about myself because you went there, why don't you explain why "The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until either they get frustrated and either get bored and stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned.". Please enlighten us. Feynstein ( talk) 21:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom is for behaviour, not content. This is a content issue, although some editors seem to be unhappy that they're not convincing others, so instead of waiting for the RfC which was launched to end, they're 1) disrupting it by making fictional consensuses [as involved editors] and 2) making an ANI thread accusing that editors who are legitimately not convinced by their arguing are stonewalling. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
What I get from your comment is that Stonewalling and Canvassing (with proof here) is ok when you agree with the view? Then it's called what? Like "legitimately not convinced"? Cool, cool. I wonder how legit this RfC is when there's evidence of a concerted effort to block a viewpoint. Meh, maybe I'm getting paranoid eh? Feynstein ( talk) 23:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS explains what is considered canvassing or not, — Paleo Neonate – 10:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the deep insight mate. Stonewalling (which there's evidence here) probably involves some form of implicit canvassing. It's not in the definition of course but using tools like critical thinking can lead you there. Feynstein ( talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OK. let's back off on the back and forth personal comments and instead think about how an RfC works. The "stonewalling" advice is just an opinion, but nonetheless it is bad advice. Yes, there are times when SPAs disrupt RfCs. 90% of the disruption consists of the other editor responding to them. The best way to deal with SPAs is to not respond other than tagging the SPAs with Template:Single-purpose account, and ask for an experienced and uninvolved closer. The closer will almost always follow the advice found at Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Strength of arguments, and in the rare case where they don't you can appeal the close. The system works. RfCs are not broken and do not need to be fixed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • A close was asked for, as the discussion has now become exhausted, and yes there was stonewalling, but not by any user named here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @ Slatersteven: @ Guy Macon: What's the takeaway then? There was/is stonewalling but it's okay? It's ok for editors to label other editors as conspiracy theorists even if the telegraph has an article on the subject saying multiple biologists agree it's possible? Clearly nothing's broken, nothing to see here, move along. Feynstein ( talk) 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The solution is to close the RFC as quite a few people are getting a tad heated. I am not at all happy with a few users over there who basically refused to accept any other opini0so but the ones they wanted to hear, and tried to close it with "but my side has consensus if we ignore all the views elsewhere". Neither side here has been conspicuously policy compliant. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
          • @ Slatersteven: Yeah that wasn't a good idea I agree. How the question is formulated is also probably to blame. However evidence of stonewalling and maybe canvassing probably means the whole endeavour is cooked. Editors still saying it's a conspiracy theory and treating it as such in WP is not in the best interest of anyone. That's why I think editors thought it was ok to do shady stuff like that. It's not ok, we're not talking about flat earth or chemtrails here. So yeah no steps will be taken by admins because wikipedia eh? Great. Feynstein ( talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
            • This is not the venue to go over the content dispute again. But you need to wp:agf. "shady stuff" (as I said) was done by both sides. I would suggest the RFC is close, and maybe no edits without consensus be added as a DS for now added. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
              • I get that, it's hard to assume good faith though. Considering what I reported. It kinda ruined it for me. I might as well "either get bored and stop editing". What I think happened here, considering the sections below, is no admin wanted to get involved because of how a clusterf*** this debate is. And since stonewalling is actually called "status quo stonewalling" the status quo and its proponents win. Its not broken (insert gif of dog in flaming house saying "everything is fine"). Feynstein ( talk) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposal could we consider salting COVID19/COVID-19/coronavirus to prevent new article creations so that the admins and community can focus on the hundreds of articles that already exist and prevent further forks, POV or otherwise? (Feel free to direct me elsewhere) Slywriter ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is not article creation, but article content. But I agree though to salt any further article creation. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Further evidence: I've found other evidence of a concerted effort consisting of indications of what to do in edit summaries. It has already been pointed in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. "(User:PaleoNeonate Think it's unecessary to refute every argument obsessively, try to comment as little as possible and only if there's some new, drastically different argument.)" [248]. And all of this is with everything that's going on at the fringe noticeboard. Editors are giving themselves the right to mess with the debate because they consider every aspect of the lab leak hypothesis to be a conspiracy theory. And on the other side there's evidence of SPAs and bad practice. Meaning that the anti-fringe editors are bound to mount a very solid defense against people trying to push legit conspiracy theories. I get that. But I demonstrated multiple times that there's a fine line to draw between a part of these theories and all the other nonsense. It's all explained in here. [249]. All of this ends up with me being labeled a conspiracy theorist. I'm not, I'm a physicist fgs. I'm very sick of it. Can we do something about that?
  • Proposal 2 Let's try to create a "group draft" for an article with editors from both sides involved, separating the legit RS science and media coverage from the real conspiracy theories. Also documenting Trump's and US official statements and such. Political controversies and all. There's LOADS of stuff to document on this. And when the truth finally comes out, either way, we'll write the conclusion. "How is this relevant to WP:ANI?". Good question! This kind of middle ground will most probably bring the shady editing practices to an end since everyone will have an open space to work on and with other editors of the opposing viewpoint. Feynstein ( talk) 16:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That would be a good idea, if it weren't for editors like me who accidentally replace everything they touch with incomprehensible text walls in the talk page, as well as the people out to not constructively contribute to Wikipedia (for example, vandals.) Still, if it was appropriately community moderated, it would be a good idea. Also, should we put this and the other proposal in a proposals section? 4D4850 ( talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
That misinterpretation of the edit summary I left is anything but AGF. I was making a point about WP:BLUDGEON. If you wish to go ahead and think there's a WP:CABAL somewhere preventing your 'opinion' from being advertised on Wikipedia that is none my concern, just keep it to yourself. As for your proposal of a "group draft": there's already an article about it, instead of asking for a new one where you can try to impose your views from the start, let's keep working on the current one. That involves accepting the outcomes of RfCs/MfDs and not trying to prematurely close them. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
So, were you replying to me, the OP, or both? 4D4850 ( talk) 19:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ RandomCanadian: I interpreted it as you giving pointers on edition strategies to another editor. If you think there's a bludgeon, why would you choose to "hide" your comment in a summary? I'm AGF here, I genuinely want to know. It's weird to tag a user in a summary. I don't think there's a WP:CABAL, I think that editors hanging out in the fringe noticeboard are like-minded and collectively think they have the legitimacy to WP:GAME the process in order to prevent what they view as conspiracy theories from getting undue attention on WP, which is a good intention. However, when there's misunderstanding of the subject itself it will lead to situations like the one we're in now. Where multiple RS sources and MEDRS sources talk about a very precise possibility and don't dismiss the possibility, in that order, of a phenomenon. As to if there's really a WP:CABAL of politically motivated editors, that I don't know, and it's probably impossible to tell. That's why I AGF and suspect a misunderstanding. Feynstein ( talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Not true, and if you look at my interactions with some of the others there you would see that. The problem is here is that we are not talking about Cryptids or UFO's, people are dying. So many of us are a tad less willing to give the benefit of the doubt to (for example ) fringe views. We want to differentiate between "We need to make sure" and "IT WAS THE CHINESE! ITS A FACT!". Slatersteven ( talk) 10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: I don't get your point. "We need to make sure" is exactly what (at least I) want to do with the subject. Like, there's enough RSs and the MEDRSs are pretty clear that we don't know if there was another sample inside the lab. Here: "Dr Lucey still believes that Sars-Cov-2 is most likely to have a natural origin, but he does not want the alternatives to be so readily ruled out. "So here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source," he said. "So, to me, it's all the more reason to investigate alternative explanations." Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did? "Not everything that's done is published," Dr Lucey said." [250] and here: "In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list." [251]. That's precisely the kind of stuff we need to put in WP. Those are very serious RS, we're talking about the BBC and the Telegraph! And we're still having this debate. This is exactly why I started this thread on WP:ANI. There's evidence of WP:STONEWALLING and some editors are blocking those quotes as per the ridiculous MEDRS requirement (which is applied arbitrarily btw). Scientists won't publish a paper because they don't know and "Not everything that's done is published". So we're basically stuck. We can't write about it and some editors are self-rightously using the fringe label to dismiss it and the editors who genuinely want WP to report on this as conspiracy theorists and WP:PROFRINGE. Great. Feynstein ( talk) 20:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
But scientists have published papers specifically on the lab leak ideas, in excellent sources like virology journals. They call them unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories, and note they are being pushed hard by inexpert ideological believers on the internet. Which is - like you. This is why the Project would be better off if you were banned from this topic area, because your contributions are a time sink. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely ... However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation." [252]. In our view, there is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV. It is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a recombinant CoV generated in nature between a bat CoV and another coronavirus in an intermediate animal host" [253]. "A variety of weapons from the quiver are used: conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan, China, a special phraseology regarding an ‘invisible enemy’" [254]. "It was previously reported that, insertions and deletions near the S1/S2 of Coronavirus Spike can occur due to natural evolutionary process (or prolonged passage or sub-culturing [42-44]. However, in order to generate such virus through passage, a “progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity” needs “prior isolation” [40]. Introduction of a polybasic cleavage site specific to hACE2 requires repeated sub-culturing of this virus in cell culture or animals with hACE2. But neither such progenitor virus nor sub-culturing based polybasic cleavage to hACE2 has “previously been described”. [255]. This is from your own sources. And finally the review paper (MEDRS) you are stonewalling These investigations indicate as expected that it is possible to adapt bat viruses to infect human cells or various animal models, and that chiropteran CoVs have the potential for direct zoonotic transmission to humans, particularly if they acquire an adapted proteolysis site, which requires only a few mutations or the insertion of a short sequence rich in basic amino acids (Hu et al. 2017). This hypothesis has been put forward by Sirotkin and Sirotkin, who developed the hypothesis that the virus might have arisen from serial passages, and accidental escape from the laboratory (Sirotkin and Sirotkin 2020)." [256]. All of these MEDRS say exactly what we're trying to include in WP. You can then take your personal attacks "inexpert ideological believers on the internet. Which is - like you." and respectfully archive them where the metaphorical sun don't shine. You're purposefully interpreting all those papers based on your own ideological views without any lightroom for in-context as a minority viewpoint information inclusion about this. And I have evidence of a concerted effort at stonewalling this information. *drops mic* Feynstein ( talk) 21:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out, that Telegraph item is an opinion piece (whose authors are a pusher of the lab-leak idea and a businessman whose takes have aged poorly), and their litany of names actually ignores what those scientists have said in detail about the difference between possible and probable [257] [258]. The paper by Sallard et al. is clearly not a review since it contains (an attempt at) novel research, and it's not in a MEDLINE-indexed journal, so there's no grounds to call it MEDRS-compliant. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to say the amusing bit that the Telegraph item seems to have been so sloppily edited that they didn't get the year right (early 2020). XOR'easter ( talk) 23:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Sub-Sub-proposal: Feynstein, I'm quite confident all these points have been raised and rebutted in quite a lot of detail on the relevant talk pages so if you'd mind not having this repeated argument for the ten billionth time that would also be helpful (since it's already been explained to you many times, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to disagree with your view point; repeating it is unlikely to bring much except more boredom and annoyance - see also WP:DONTGETIT). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is what going against a WP:STONEWALL [259] looks like. QED. I'm done here now. Feynstein ( talk) 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent

CLCStudent has been CU-blocked, so there isn't much point in further discussion about their actions at AIV. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


CLCStudent ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This is a follow on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#CLCStudent AIV reports & unacknowledged_concerns, which petered out after CLCStudent acknowledged some concerns. To summarise, CLCStudent is a prolific vandal fighter who logs many reports at WP:AIV, but a number of these have been found to be incorrect or have excessive warnings or other communication issues. I've already blocked him once and removed his rollback flag, so I don't want to take any more administrative action. Today, I found that Suffusion of Yellow has been trying to get an answer over something without a response, while CLCStudent has been happy to ask me directly to block a vandal. I don't really have an issue with being asked directly, I'm just wondering why he can't use AIV? Has he been restricted from there in any manner?

Anyway, I think we need more eyes on this to see if there is a problem, and if so - what? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I contact admins directly when there is a vandal that I think will not stop until they have been blocked. As for that unaddressed concern, I has already said that I warned them because they triggered the filter. CLCStudent ( talk) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Triggering a filter is in itself not a valid reason to give any level of warning, but simply a reason for a human editor to look at the edit to see if it is vandalism. Please don't give any more warnings until you have understood that. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay now I understand. CLCStudent ( talk) 21:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually saw Suffusion of Yellow's conversation with CLC here (and the two previous times it came up) before this ANI was filed. Editors who cannot see the diffs of private filter hits can't really warn an editor for hitting the filter, because, well, they can't be sure the edit was even problematic. Filters flag false positives all the time. There's a good chance the flagged editor actually did nothing wrong, in which case a warning is just WP:BITE. It seems this has been raised with CLC three times already, and SoY is a good explainer, so... In regards to CLC's AIV, however, I believe their accuracy rate is slightly above AIV's average (it's around 85% iirc). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It should further be noted that CLCStudent is responsible for around 25% of all reports submitted to AIV. Combined with their accuracy rate, which on the whole is not problematic, it seems they are a big net plus in counter-vandalism on the whole. The alternative explanation is that admins are actioning bad AIV reports, which would be far more worrying. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's the issue. Rather it's 1) His communication when he makes a mistake (as everybody does) isn't great and leads to threads like this when we can't see the message getting through, and 2) AIV is the easiest administrative job on the block - anything that doesn't demand a block immediately is out - so for experienced users working in that area, accuracy should tend towards 100%. As I write, the current view of AIV has two declined reports from CLC - although there was a third which I agreed with and indeffed the vandal in question. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've been more clear: I do agree that the response to the concerns raised by SoY, multiple times, was either non-existent or unsatisfactory. What I meant by my first comment is that I'm not convinced that the "Okay now I understand" has resolved it, given SoY has tried to explain this very thing already, thrice.
Having looked at CLC's recent reports (via the page history, since actioned reports are removed near-immediately by bot), the majority seem to be actioned (I haven't checked them for accuracy, but I presume they're correct), but the ones that weren't actioned are strange. For example, Special:Contributions/41.223.109.49 who made one edit yesterday and triggered the filter once today got a level 4. Then there's this, which does not seem correct to me. My mention of CLC's statistics in context was just to aid whoever looks into this deeper, if they may find it helpful at all. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A bit late to the thread so not sure what to say. The funny thing is, if all the filter FPs I've caused were treated as "incorrect rollbacks", I'd have been dragged to ANI a dozen times already. I wish I could do better, but trying to predict human behavior with regular expressions is never going to be perfectly successful. I just hope that users don't take automatic filter warnings as personally as they do warnings from humans. Which brings me to the pont. CLCStudent, will you, right here, agree to always look at the "details" link behind a filter hit before warning the user for that filter hit? It's bad enough when the filter yells at the user for something they didn't do. It's really bad when you double down, and warn them again. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 03:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I can agree to that. CLCStudent ( talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ CLCStudent: you've already said above you understand and agree so maybe this is unnecessary and I hope it doesn't come across as offensive, but I wonder if it may help offer some perspective which will help. Do you understand your purpose in warning vandals and making reports at AIV? I don't mean to fight vandalism, I'm sure you know that. I mean why we need you or some other human volunteer to help? As I'm sure you're aware from AIV, we have bots which make reports. Where we just want warnings and reports after triggering some edit filters we use bots for that. ( User:DatBot in particular I think.) These may be limited by codable factors like type of filter, number of times, time frame, and perhaps even some other details, but there will at most some additional software attempt to parse those those edits which often fails. When making warnings or reports, you need to have thought about the edits or attempted edits and decided there's sufficient reason to think they're a problem. That why we need a human, to apply human logic for stuff bots aren't currently capable of "understanding"/parsing. If you're doing something at AIV a bot could do, you likely aren't doing the right thing. (I'm sure there will be some cases where the task is too recent or to rare for there to be a bot, or there is a bot but it isn't working or you can't be bothered waiting or whatever. And outside AIV, there is still a fair amount of stuff that could be handled by a bot but isn't.) Nil Einne ( talk) 04:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I practically never post to this board, but the thing that I noticed with this situation is the lack of verbosity from CLC. My only comment then is: CLC, folks that are concerned over the situation would most likely feel a lot better if you could give some commentary about your ways of doing things, how you understand their position, and what actions you plan to take in the future. Thus far you've communicated just nine words. Dawnseeker2000 04:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to stress Dawnseeker2000's request for more detailed comment by CLC. CLC's name is one of the most familiar to any admin who handles AIV. I do feel that 85% is insufficiently low for someone with the sheer level of CVU experience they have. While they have, very briefly, agreed on the filter-side of things, I'd like to see more expansion on how they think they currently interact with individuals feeling hard done by, what could be improved, what doesn't need improving etc. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I guess what I can say is that I will make sure I look more deeply at the edits that I revert or issue warnings for and make sure there is a clear violation. I will remember this conversation and think about these things from now on anytime I issue a warning or make a report. 2601:246:CF80:67F0:804D:D8EE:7185:92B9 ( talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
CLCStudent, since you seem to have edited logged out above: Are the other edits on that very static /64 also you? Specifically, I'm wondering about [260] [261] [262] [263] from earlier this month and identical edits in December [264] [265] [266], as well as similar ones ( [267] [268] [269]) in September 2019, which were immediately succeeded by an RFPP report and a talk page message, so whoever made them must know their way around (the edit was later repeated in December). Blablubbs| talk 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ CLCStudent: I agree with the requests above for a more detailed statement from you. It would help us to know that you do in fact understand things now. Paul August 12:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ CLCStudent: And by the way, let me take this opportunity to thank you for all the good work you have done. Paul August 12:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! CLCStudent ( talk) 12:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
+1, I have seen CLCStudent at AIV (which I have done from time to time), and their net contribution to Wikipedia is large, and much appreciated (and yes CLC, please do talk to us and engage as much as you can). Britishfinance ( talk) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent has now been CU blocked. Meters ( talk) 22:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Presumably due to the logged out editing Blablubbs mentions above? P-K3 ( talk) 23:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. Sock blocked, but not actually listed as a CU block. Meters ( talk) 00:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Per the block log entry ({{ checkuserblock-account}}) and the corresponding template on the talk page, it is indeed a CU block. Blablubbs| talk 00:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits to "last updated" dates by IP user

A user, editing from several IP addresses has been indiscriminately changing last-updated dates attached to tables and graphs in a number of topics. The IP addresses include 95.12.112.38, 95.12.122.112, 95.12.117.86, 95.12.115.216, 95.12.116.45, and most recently 95.12.118.65.

After the user's second edit to one of the templates, I added the following notice right next to the date in the template code:

<!--DATE OF LAST FULL TABLE REFRESH, DO NOT CHANGE THIS DATE UNLESS TABLE DATA HAS BEEN UPDATED-->

While in many cases, the date changes are just a few days off from the correct date, in others the date changes are a week or month off from the correct date.

For more than a month, the edits have continued despite the user being informed through edit reversion notes and talk page notifications that the "Data last updated on..." or "Data as of..." dates are not indented to be today's date. Unsure of the appropriate next step. - Wikmoz ( talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice posted to User talk:95.12.122.112 and User talk:95.12.118.65 - Wikmoz ( talk) 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
See a recent one-week block of Special:Contributions/95.12.112.0/20 by User:Ohnoitsjamie. His block covers all the IPs mentioned above but might need to be longer. EdJohnston ( talk) 06:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I increased it to two weeks; if they resume when it expires, feel free to ping me directly and I'll extend it again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! - Wikmoz ( talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite blockage of IP user

Incident is here

For no apparent reason, IP user 186.11.22.103 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) created a talk page on Wikimedia commons to comment You better suck a wood, fuking whuore hoe and prostitute 🖕

I know I’m not one to mince words, but I have absolutely no recollection of encountering this IP user let alone doing anything warranting sexist verbal abuse. I see this person, all but certainly a man, is blocked for a month but since he has already said these kinds of things to two other people, I believe he should be blocked forever. Trillfendi ( talk) 02:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, but indeffing an IP is very very rarely done (if it is an IP which has persistent trend for abuse and previous shorter blocks have failed to stop the matter - though even for school blocks it's usually only gradual escalation to blocks of a year or a couple) - especially when it could otherwise be a dynamic IP. As for their comments on Commons that is not, if I may use some legalese, within our jurisdiction. And the IP is already rangeblocked here anyway. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Trillfendi: See also Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Ohnoitsjamie has blocked Special:Contributions/186.11.0.0/16 for a month. If there is also a problem on Commons it should be reported at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 06:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Patriot Bible University

RESOLVED
( non-admin closure) Disruptive editors blocked and page has been temporarily semi-protected. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 13:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Some help here, please. I've requested protection and a user block. Looks like a sock farm. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


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

Dervaaaz reported by Shadowwarrior8

Moved from WP:AIV – ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 08:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Dervaaaz ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) The user known as @Dervaaaz is vandalising the Wikipedia page "Wahhabism". He kept constantly deleting data despite the data being backed up with sources. I warned him multiple times to reach consensus using Wikipedia rules and guidelines yet he turns a blind eye and keep on deleting the posts. An unknown bot with IP 31.164.10.41 is also doing the same and @Dervaaaz is coordinating with him.

In the first of attacks , ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Wahhabism&diff=1008256071&oldid=1007983154 ) the bot did this. He accused "Wahhabism" of shirk/excommunication like a theological opponent. "(even though it is based upon Shirk)" For about three times he deleted edits , ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Dervaaaz&redlink=1) this being the last time. I called for talk with him twice, yet he refused. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahhabism#Why_was_the_quote_by_Iqbal_deleted%3F

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahhabism#Last_warning_to_user_%40Dervaaaz_and_https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecial%3AContributions%2F31.164.10.41

No response, just deleting, deleting, deleting. I urge to take sufficient actions muting these two accounts. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 08:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadowwarrior8 has a history [270] of disruptive edits on Wahhabism and is bringing a lot of changes to the article that are OR and POV based. He uses self published sources and disrepresents sources. He should bring up these to the talk page before making such changes. He has been warned before and his extensive changes can be found in the history section of the article. Dervaaaz ( talk) 09:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can an admin at least shut down their edit war? Both need a time-out and possibly a page ban. Shadow has made significant revisions over the last 10 days that are either a sign that the article had glaring errors and POV problems or their edits have introduced POV problems. Slywriter ( talk) 12:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the answer, so I've just frozen the article for 3 days. Any sensible changes can be requested on the article Talk page and will need to be implemented by an admin. Deb ( talk) 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


So I have not been editing much in the past few days, and have been caught by surprise of this edit war between the two fellow editors on a page I watch and infrequently edit. I have had one or two past dealings with the accusing user, Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs), which mostly focus around improper use of source material (i.e. citing sources and yet stating infomation not found in the source) as well as potentially biased editing, especially in relation to Iran and the Shi'a. You can see an edit I made here where I communicated these concerns to him. In response, he reverted my edit (which simply implemented an NPOV and OR article template to the top of the page). To be honest, I did not feel like taking this any further, have not had the chance to and I felt that I had been too harsh. Other than this, I reverted and criticised him for leaving misleading edit summaries once, and I reverted an edit where he brought an unreliable source on the article of a prominent Shi'i scholar. He seems to have a history of adding large amounts of content to more controversial topics, especially in relation to Shi'a Islam. Other editors have also had issues with him, and at other times his edits have led to page protection being put in place, his edits being classed as disruptive - see here.

However it should be noted that Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs), has been adding much content and detail to many WikiProject Islam articles such as Rashid Rida etc. and he has been using sources, unlike some of his earliest edits, although I have not checked as to whether the content added reflects the sources. It is clear then that he has good intentions in improving articles, but simply needs to be more aware of Wiki policy, avoid OR, Synthesis, maintain neutrality and decorum in preventing edit wars. He has also added copyrighted content in the past - I see from all of this confirmation that he simply lacks experience editing and dealing with other users, and that with time we should see these issues go away. I recommend he reviews a lot of the help pages, and Wikipedia policy pages.

As for the user being reported, Dervaaaz ( talk · contribs), whilst I have no experience of him, it seems the cause of Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs)'s frustration against him is that he is alledging that Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs) is making improper use of source material, similar to what I have said to him in the past. Both are at fault from edit warring according to the page log and seem to lack experience on how to resolve an edit war. A good example I would give, on a related article, is my interaction with another editor here. Whilst like many disputes this started off with a misunderstanding, but with discussion on the article talk page we both arrived at a compromise.

So, I suggest that there is no issue, as Dervaaaz ( talk · contribs) does not seem to actually be vandalising anything, it seems he simply disagrees with Shadowwarrior8 and believes his edits are not reflecting the source material. However he has not engaged with Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs) on the article's talk page, and I recommend that he should do this as well practically show (on there not on here) how his edits do not reflect the source material, maybe giving an example. Moreover, I note that Dervaaaz ( talk · contribs) does not edit often, but both he and Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs) should be aware of the revert rule. I would suggest that they both discuss the issue they are having on the talk page, which they can still do regardless of page protection. Also Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs) you should give reasonable time for Dervaaaz ( talk · contribs) to respond to you - you made those comments on the talk page just yesterday. Perhaps Dervaaaz ( talk · contribs) has work or is otherwise busy and so can't respond right away - consider waiting until the weekend.

In summary I feel no action needs to be taken against either editor by the admins. Whilst I can corroborrate the sentiments of Dervaaaz ( talk · contribs) against Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs), I suggest this is just an issue of not being fully informed of Wiki policy and suggest that he should try discussing the issues he has with the edits on that page. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs) should relax and tone down his rhetoric, but it is understandable that he feels annoyed. I would be happy to join in to discuss and evaluate Shadowwarrior8 ( talk · contribs)'s edits on the talk page.

Happy editing, ParthikS8 ( talk) 18:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

LMComms

Given LMComms has exclusively edited Chris Loder including uploading an 'own work' image coupled with the actual name it's probable that the editor is WP:PAID or at least WP:CoI. They have made no declaration as such. I'd appreciate some admin advice/support. Qazwsx777 ( talk) 13:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of content, it's a dodgy-looking user name. I'll have a look. Deb ( talk) 13:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is definitely a conflict of interest of some kind, as it says the subject of the article requested the removal of some of the article content. The other changes were innocuous enough, but if there's any more of it, I'm prepared to impose a block. Deb ( talk) 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. Qazwsx777 ( talk) 13:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Deb:, On the off chance it's any help. [271]. Tide rolls 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can hardly believe this thread - especially the last link to an external website for LM Communications which is NOTHING to do with me. To confirm, the name LMComms is NOT a company name - it is merely my initials 'LM' followed by what I do 'communications' or 'comms'. I work for the office of Chris Loder MP but had no idea I needed to disclose this on every minor edit - in future of course I shall by using the WP:PAID tag. I had no intention of becoming a wiki editor but did so last year when some malicious content was posted on Chris Loder's page which needed urgent removal. I am new to wiki and learning how I go along but thank you for the warm welcome and for giving me the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding LMComms ( talk) 15:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

LMComms, thanks for the transparency. If editing the article is part of your employment, then you need to declare this on your userpage and on the talk page of the article. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure and http://webot.org/info/en/?search=Template:Connected_contributor_(paid). Thanks. Fences& Windows 15:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the removed material, which appears reliably sourced and fairly straightforward, and the matter (of Loder being a signatory to the letter) is non-controversial. If it's not a BLP violation, and it doesn't somehow intrude on an article subject's privacy, we don't remove material simply because they don't like it. Grandpallama ( talk) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thank you LMComms ( talk) 19:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

User:Captain El Classico

This is a new editor, 2 weeks old with 56 edits, every single one of which has been reverted by a number of different editors. [272] Some of the edits were copyright violations, [273], [274] some were poorly sourced, [275] some were undiscussed major changes, over which they edit warred [276] and were blocked, [277] and attempted to reinsert after their block was over. (On Commons, they uploaded a historical photograph, putatively of Maria Schicklgruber as their "own work", without providing a source. [278])

They do not respond to warnings left on their talk page, [279] nor do they alter their editing behavior as a result.

Their focus is on Nazis and Nazism, which are all articles which receive a lot of vandalism and PoV editing. They require close watching by numerous editors in order to preserve their value. The last thing that's needed on these articles is a good-faith but incompetent editor making poor alterations and edit-warring over them.

It's quite early in this editor's Wikipedia career, but so far they have not shown themselves to be a competent and productive contributor. They may well turn into one as they mature (I have the impression, which of course could be wrong, that the editor is young), but for the protection of the encyclopedia in the meantime, I believe a temporary topic ban from Nazis and Nazism is justified, perhaps for 6 months. This will give Captain El Classico a chance to show their worth to the community by editing in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Correction: Not all of Captain El Classico's edits to Martin Adolf Bormann have been reverted. I have also left a detailed comment on CEC's talk page explaining the problems with their editing and urging them to post here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support taking some kind of action, I but I'm not sure a topic ban goes far enough. Their additions/changes have been very low quality, and for the most part don't comply with our minimum requirements for sourcing or for neutral wording or for compliance with copyright. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, am I Sea Captain now? El_C 22:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)👍 LikeDiannaa ( talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @BMK: I don't foresee Captain El Classico succeeding here at all; there's too many issues. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately yes.— Diannaa ( talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to be fair, I've left a message on CEC's talk page letting them know that an indef block is under discussion and, again, urging them to come here and make their thoughts known. I'm not at all sure that doing so will do any good, but... Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
My 2 cents: I don't think that a new editor who has never found their way to an article talk page or their own user talk page will ever abide by a topic ban, they most likely won't even see the notice that a topic ban has been imposed. I think this is just another editor who wants to do their editing without interacting with anyone else here. Those folks can edit successfully for years as long as they have mastered the policies and guidelines and don't edit war or get into conflicts with other editors. That isn't the case here. I'm not sure I'd block indefinitely but a longer block is in order. And I'd like to commend BMK for taking the time to explain to the editor on their talk page what the problems are. I just wish they'd take a few minutes and read all of the warnings on their talk page so we could know whether they understand that there are serious problems here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party gaming RM outcome

RESOLVED
Ruling party has recognised that he did not follow process and got a bit angry and has indicated his willingness to improve in both areas in future. Number 57 is happy with this closure also. ( non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yesterday I closed an RM started by Ruling party ( talk · contribs) at General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea as no consensus. Less than ten minutes after I closed the discussion, he copied the article text to Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea, [280] the target of the failed RM and redirected the original article there. [281] A few hours later, they changed this redirect to point at General Secretary and Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, a duplicate article they had created around on 15 February, nearly two weeks after starting the original RM.

Having spotted this today, I reverted and told them not to game the system. Their response was to restore their cut and paste move, [282] [283] claiming that they had moved it because they had received no response (the RM had three responses, none of which supported the move) also telling me that "I know you don't care about facts or the truth... but change you're mind and show pragmatism." [284]

Seeing as they won't listen to me, perhaps someone else can point out that this is not acceptable. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • He seemed cordial enough with me on my talk page regarding a separate move which I relisted, I'll see if my input's of any use. Looks like a good-faith new user who's just frustrated by the procedures round here. SITH (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Number 57: I'm not gaming the system at all. That has never been my intention and I never will. Thats a flagrant accusation I don't accept. I can, however, accept that I acted wrongfully.
The intention behind it was to mirror the Chinese Communist Party system; one article about General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, one about Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party and one about Leader of the Chinese Communist Party.
The reason why I acted like a spoilt brat—you can even say a-hole—is that past discussions with Number 57 have gone fairly badly. For instance, while the Constitution of the Kingdom of Laos and tertiary sources say that the Parliament of the National Assembly was unicameral he presses his POV that it is bicameral. I've also sought a compromise and I way forward and he refused all talks and discussion on the way forward. That's what I meant by "pragmatism". He is an editor that refuses to discuss and only seeks to get his way. Ironically, you can say that I have acted this way now—sort of. Instead of initiating another move discussion with no response I was just WP:BOLD.
You will also see that Number 57 is wrong. User:嘉傑 was the first to propose three articles instead of one at the talk page. I, at the beginning, opposed that idea but I eventually turned around. So please read the talk page—Number 57 has not.
User:Migs005 I tried to work with, but he refused. You can also see read that discussion at the talk page General Secretary.
As for you, Number 57, I don't understand how you got any responsibility here on WP. They way you act is disconcerting. Everyone knows that I shouldn't be an administrator—I'm surprised that you are. -- Ruling party ( talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: It says so on his user page... Or I'm crazy. Maybe I'm just seeing what I want? -- Ruling party ( talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he is! Number 57, from Ruling party's response to my message on his talk page, I think he's aware and will drop the stick or at least send it down the proper channels and try to remain civil in future. If you're satisfied with the response, shall I nac the ANI? SITH (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am indeed an administrator. Happy for this to be closed if they've got the message (although annoying to see them making unfounded claims above). Cheers, Number 5 7 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Understandable, however I think, and hope, the message has been received both in terms of adhering to process and civility. Of course, if that's not the case in either instance, feel free to re-open or re-start! SITH (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Bacondrum

Hello,

User Bacondrum does not seem to respect NPOV. For several months, in infoboxes relating to nationalist parties where the political spectrum includes right-wing to far-right, he systematically withdraws the right-wing label (even when there are references) in favor of the far-right only ( 1, 2, 3 are some examples while these articles are stable for months or years) arguing that right-wing is not a position (very debatable and which would require a broad consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics) but a broad/catch-all term, that editors who bring right-wing to far-right are trying to "sanitize"/"normalize" this kind of parties and that the far-right is on the right-wing (which is not wrong in the latter case). In some cases, a consensus has been reached in talk page for only including far-right in infobox like at Vox (political party) or National Rally so there is nothing to complain about. However, he never does the same thing for anti-liberal or communist parties where left-wing to far-left are still present (like in Portuguese Communist Party, La France Insoumise, Communist Party of the Russian Federation; in this logic, he should also withdraws left-wing label for the same reasons as for nationalist parties otherwise there are double standards).

In addition, and it's even more serious, he does not respect the obligation to have polite and civil language, by making threats of 3RR blocking against users who disagree with him : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (@ Helper201, Jay942942, and Mellk: have experienced it).

I perfectly know that editorial disagreements aren't the matter of administrators, but in this case, to avoid further problems could you apply a partial topic-ban on him concerning political parties ? Regards. -- Martopa ( talk) 17:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So the complaint here appears to be based on the fact that you disagree with the edits Bacondrum has made, and that he doesn't make the kinds of edits you want him to make. (No editor is obligated to make any specific type of edit just to please another editor.) This is clearly purely a content dispute, and no sanction against Bacondrum, least of all a topic ban, is warranted. A trout for Martopa for attempting to use AN/I to win a content dispute seems in order, however. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Beyond My Ken: To be honest, I was initially reluctant to take it to ANI, but you can't deny that talking about 3RR blocking is excessive and non-civil (it isn't the good way to resolve content disputes, especially considering that Mellk hasn't break 3RR), and can be seen by the 3 users mentioned above as potentially aggressive. -- Martopa ( talk) 19:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Mellk has been edit warring, that's the only problem and they are on the verge of breaking the 3RR rule, so I was warning them - it's a friendly act, I could just wait for them to revert again and they would be blocked for edit warring [285]. This is a content dispute and Martopa is just pissed off that they've lost a few debates over the "right-wing to far-right" tautology, this is a retaliatory and vexatious report. This should WP:BOOMERANG Martopa is using ANI to get revenge after losing content disputes. Bacon drum 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Also this tagging in editors who you think will agree with you, it's a shifty tactic (like taking content disputed to ANI): [286]. Surely there's a sanction due for Martopa for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - they lost some debates, they need to accept this and move on. Bacon drum 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Also this tagging in editors who you think will agree with you, it's a shifty tactic (like taking content disputed to ANI): [287]. Surely there's a sanction due for Martopa for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - they lost some debates, they need to accept this and move on. This is petty harassment, at best. Bacon drum 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You claimed that I "crossed the 3RR red line", which was not true. I made one revert that day. I asked you to explain your reasoning, but you haven't. Mellk ( talk) 20:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You have reverted the same content 3 times despite seeing a number of other editors disagree.

As you can see the claim that Mellk has not been edit warring is false. I was warning them not to cross the line as it would result in a block - which is what we are supposed to do. End of story. Bacon drum 20:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You got 2 diffs from 19 February and 1 diff from 23 February. This is not within a 24 hour period. Mellk ( talk) 20:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I was referring to your claim that I "crossed" the line with WP:3RR. Mellk ( talk) 20:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read WP:EDITWAR thoroughly. I was warning you so you could avoid a block, not threatening you. I know it sucks when numerous editors disagree with you, but you can't edit war. Bacon drum 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand it was not intended to be a threat, but you told me: "You've already crossed the 3RR redline". You said the same thing in the edit summary of the other article. From what I understand, you accused me of violating WP:3RR. Note how you were talking about 3RR specifically. I did not violate 3RR (more than 3 reverts within 24 hours). Mellk ( talk) 21:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Bacondrum has never edited the three articles you mention ( Portuguese Communist Party, La France Insoumise, and Communist Party of the Russian Federation). Are you suggesting it's an NPOV violation to edit articles about right-wing/far-right groups and to choose not to edit articles about left-wing politics? Wikipedia editors are allowed to choose which topics to edit and there is no expectation that they must edit some topics in order to "balance out" their contributions. Editors must follow NPOV on the individual articles they edit, but if an editor is only interested in contributing to articles about far-right topics that is perfectly allowed. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record, If I saw "left-wing to far-left" as a position but there was no evidence of a dispute over their position evidenced in sources then I would argue that is akin to a tautology and thus an inappropriate synthesis of sources, but unlike Mortopa if the consensus at talk was against me I would accept that. Also yes, as a leftist myself I'm not that interested in Left-wing party articles, I find the opposing right-wing ideologies more interesting to read about. Bacon drum 21:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I also fairly heavily focus on right-wing topics and don't edit that much in the left-wing topic area. I'd be peeved if others were accusing me of POV for choosing to spend my volunteer time and energy towards researching and editing topics that interest me personally, and not topics they think I should be editing. It would be one thing if you were editing those three articles and showing evidence of bias through how the edits to those pages compared to your edits to right-wing topics, but the suggestion that you are contravening NPOV by not editing those pages is bizarre and not based in any policy. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks GorillaWarfare, I feel I'm being targeted for harassment here. Bacon drum 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Bacondrum did make this where they named a party as right-wing without a source. I removed the information with this . -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia You can't be serious? Quick, call the police! Bacon drum 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
And I didn't just add it, I restored it. Bacon drum 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You said "The center-right is right-wing, it's a tautology", that is not an excuse to restore unsourced content. If the information added by Storm598 was wrong then you could have just removed it. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It also isn't a tautology. Maybe in some limited contexts, but it's mostly a distinction which, otherwise, is not the same thing. The Right-wing politics and Centre-right politics pages explain all of that pretty well, I think. El_C 23:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll expand a bit further: the centre is generally more fluid. For example, to an average person in Western Europe, Biden is centre-right, but to an average American, he's centre-left. El_C 23:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
hi El C, I understand that it’s not a tautology, but I believe it’s something similar, one is a subset of the other. My issue is that an article stating that a far-right party is right-wing is not evidence of a dispute or that the author is claiming the party is not centre-right - the far-right is right-wing, the centre-right is right-wing, simply finding a source that describes a far-right group as right wing is not evidence of a dispute about their position, as Loki pointed out at another discussion “it’s like saying something is located somewhere between Los Angeles and California”. I hope that makes sense. Regardless I’m sure this isn’t the place for a content discussion. Bacon drum 23:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Bacondrum, I don't think this complaint is, at the root, a content dispute. It's about you responding civilly, politely and in a nonthreatening manner to other editors. I know the environment editing in U.S. politics on Wikipedia is very combative but not everyone you disagree with is the opposition. Every editor is entitled to be treated with respect unless they are committing vandalism. It can help if you try to deescalate disputes and not give editors a reason to bring cases against you to ANI or AE.
I know after 2020, editors who work on political subjects are a bit battle-scarred from seemingly endless debates but please remember to AGF. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I suppose I could be a little friendlier with some of these editors, but it's hard when they go about filing vexatious ANI reports and pinging others in for a pile on. Mortopa's efforts here to have me topic banned in a vindictive manner (without discussing any of their concerns with me directly first) do nothing to raise the level of civility, quite the opposite. Bacon drum 06:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920

I think we're done here...? Stepping in, then, after all. Soapboxy highlight of my own comment in this thread, with the hopes that its message resonates. El_C 14:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I understand that WP:CIR can be a fraught thing to bring up because saying somebody lacks competence can be taken as an assault on their intelligence. Let me start out by saying I do not in any way doubt Wikieditor19920's intelligence. He is perfectly capable of making his arguments heard. However, he seems to lack the basic level of understanding of our policies that make collaboration possible. We all agree to follow certain things when we edit here, most obviously WP:V. Wikieditor19920 has been repeatedly making a mockery of that policy, so far to the point that I see no reason for him to be allowed to continue to do so. This will center on Talk:Palestinian enclaves and the contention on including bantustan as an alternate name. We can have arguments about NPOV and LEAD and WEIGHT and all sorts of things, but what we have here is an editor claiming what is quoted from multiple rock solid reliable sources is not verifiable, and a discussion at RSN with unanimous agreement that the sources are in fact reliable for what they report as fact that no such consensus exists and the statements are not verifiable. I honestly do not know how to argue with somebody who says what is quoted from a multiple books published by some of the most respected university presses on the planet is not verifiable. Here are some of the problematic arguments by Wikieditor19920:

  • 15:58, 23 February 2021: The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable," especially absent any other evidence of widespread usage and contradiction in objective news sources and other academic articles.
This about the following sources:
  • Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN  978-0-19-045908-6. each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
  • Harker, Christopher (Associate Professor at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London) (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN  978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa

These sources have been discussed at WP:RSN with, besides Wikieditor, unanimous agreement that the sources are reliable for the statement at issue. Wikieditor has continued to challenge that there is such a consensus, despite the unanimity of opinion against him at RSN. See here. But Wikieditor continues to insist that these are not scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise in books published by respected academic presses but rather "active participants" and "biased and partisan", and on that basis what is quoted from them is anything but 'verifiable' .

  • 02:24, 18 February 2021: I don't think their unreliable per se, but I think they are overrepresenting how widely used the "bantustans" terms are because of their bias on the subject. They may simply perceive wider usage than evidence supports, and they really don't offer anything but a conclusory statement to back it up. This is contracted by reporting from the NYT and other outlets which attribute this analogy to Israel's critics, probably are more capable of offering a mainstream, objective take.

The idea that we allow editors personal opinions to say that scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise are making things up and on that basis claim that they do not support what they report as fact is a direct assault on WP:V. The entire basis of this place is that we do not prove or disprove sources with our personal beliefs.

This, again, about academics writing in the area of their academic expertise in peer-reviewed journals or books published by respected presses. Basically, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But Wikieditor insists that they cannot be relied upon for verifiable facts, in direct contravention of WP:V and WP:RS. The repeated demands that we prove sources correct is likewise in direct contravention of WP:V. The opening paragraph of WP:V says [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. We have an editor demanding that we bow to the beliefs or experiences of editors over that of actual scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise. The attempts to get Wikieditor to edit according to these basic principles have gone unheeded and I feel it is long past time that such editing be dealt with.

He has also repeatedly modified others comments in a blatant display of WP:OWN over an RFC. See here, here, here. Or here where he tells somebody to follow instructions. Idk about you, but I certainly would not appreciate being spoken to like a child. After being challenged on sectioning off somebody else's comments he continued to demand his position be the one enforced. I feel that WP:CIR is an issue here and that there is nothing to be done besides removing Wikieditor. Given that he already has other topic bans I think this is not necessarily a topic specific issue but a Wikieditor19920 issue and that another topic ban will only lead to disruption in some new topic area. nableezy - 17:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This complaint breaks down into two issues. First, that I am somehow wrong on a content issue, to the extent that it violates policy. Perhaps half of the commentators at the ongoing RfC, which currently leads with a slight majority aligned with the views I've been expressing, should be reported as well? I stand by all of the arguments on content I made above, which were agreed with by other editors in an active RfC and supported by sources. If Nableezy thinks I am wrong on content, they are free to disagree, and they have been, vociferously, as opposed to reporting my arguments at ANI.
The second is that I have "edited others comments." This is absolutely false. I have not modified anyone's comments. The RfC was formatted to include a vote section and a discussion section. Nableezy has repeatedly attempted to merge this section with the votes section and equated adding logical breaks in the discussion with "editing another's comments." Nableezy says me asking editors to follow the same format that everyone else had been following is "speaking to them like a child." If my comment conveys a tinge of frustration, it's in the face of repeat edit-warring and completely irrational resistance to good faith efforts to organize the discussion with logical breaks and dedicated sections, not by editing anyone's comments. A well-formatted RfC allows everyone's views to come across, including Nableezy's, so this behavior is harmful to all sides.

And finally, another point worth noting, Nableezy's tone and commentary have been persistently belligerent and uncivil, which is why I and others are reluctant to engage whatsoever.

  • Can you read that quote? often referred to as Bantustans. Well, how about can you read WP:BURDEN? This is what that says: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'll repeat, is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used.
  • WP:RSN has, outside of you, unanimous agreement that the sources are reliable and directly support that the term bantustan is widely used. Any part of that summary in dispute? A patently untrue statement, since users at the relevant talk page commented at the referenced RSN and did not "unanimously agree."
  • What you have is a propensity to demand your personal position be given equal weight to actual scholarship.
  • Your view on bias of sources is backed by literally no policy. Yes, a consensus exists at RSN that these sources are reliable for this statement. You not liking that is unsurprising but also unimportant. nableezy - 14:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

These comments above are mocking, uncivil, and show a level of anger and disrespect that should be considered unacceptable. There is an active RfC with a slight majority opposed to the views Nableezy expressed above. That could change, and I would accept the outcome. But if it doesn't, I am absolutely sure that Nableezy will not accept the outcome. This needs to stop. I do not claim to be blameless and am happy to step away from this page for a bit, but no editor should be expected to submit to this relentless bullying and misuse of process. Once it does, we can all move forward. Wikieditor19920 ( talk)

No other editor that I have seen has been claiming that what is quoted from several sources is not verifiable. That is not a content issue, that is a competence one. I accept there are arguments to be made for and against any position. Your arguments however have been bastardizing our policies, and that is why I am here asking for relief from you and not anybody else. And yes, unanimous agreement outside of yourself. Proof. nableezy - 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you ought to double check that RSN discussion, because I see two editors in the beginning of the discussion directly disagreeing with you. As for WP:CIR, rather than simply implying anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, consider that I am raising the exact same arguments from a prior move discussion which resulted in consensus in favor of those positions and moving the page to "Palestinian enclaves." Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Great, an opportunity to demonstrate that CIR is an issue. Which two editors here said that the sources are not reliable for the statement? nableezy - 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems me like attempt to eliminate editor with opposite POV from the WP:ARBPIA area -- Shrike ( talk) 18:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Shrike, Nableezy's repeated accusation (insults, really) of incompetence is based on his assumption that you were in full agreement at his RSN thread. Feel free to clarify. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Shrike didnt say one word about the reliability of the sources at RSN. Do you have two editors who said the sources were not reliable for the contested statement? Because above you said there were two. Was it Shrike and the editor who said I don't think anyone is questioning the reliability of university presses or Routledge? Because like it or not, they didn't disagree with the reliability of the sources, and any person who actually reads the discussion will see that. And will see that your repeated rantings about there not being any consensus are just a further example of disruptive editing. nableezy - 19:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Shrike, this appears to be an attempt by Nableezy to get rid of an opposing editor through the misuse of AN/I (must be something in the air today; see above and below). This is a content dispute, and should be sent back to the article talk page as such. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It very much is not a content dispute. An editor is saying what we quote from sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable. He is saying what is in black and white is not there. How is that a content dispute. I understand that there are a lot of words here, but this is way beyond a dispute about content. That something deals with content does not make it a content dispute. An editor engaged in tendentious editing is always editing content. That does not make tendentious editing something that cant be dealt with here. nableezy - 19:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor is saying what we quote from sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable. He is saying what is in black and white is not there. is not an accurate summation of Wikieditor's arguments on the talk page, as shown by the very same quotes by Wikieditor that you posted in the OP. Wikieditor is making an NPOV argument, not a V or RS argument (as I and others have pointed out in the past). That NPOV argument is at least plausible, and thus this is a content dispute. You are repeatedly straw-manning Wikieditor's argument in an attempt to re-frame it from an NPOV objection to a V or RS objection and then arguing that based on this, Wikieditor has a CIR or POV-pushing issue. I can read what Wikieditor wrote and it doesn't match what you're reporting. Bottom line: the argument that some of the proposed language for the article doesn't meet NPOV is a valid argument, and even if you disagree with it, the editors who make that argument are not being disruptive by making an argument you disagree with. Ordinary dispute resolution, such as the ongoing RFC, should be allowed to conclude to resolve this. Levivich  harass/ hound 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, cmon man. I posted the above sources and quotes here. His response here was The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable". But you are going to tell me that he did not say that it is not verifiable? Am I insane here? What did he say there? We can have an argument about NPOV, about WEIGHT, sure, and I am not here about that. But when an editor says essentially that the sources dont say what they say how is that even possible? He has repeatedly said that the statement is not verifiable, a statement that is explicitly verified. That is the CIR issue here, not a content dispute. nableezy - 19:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Because context. Those two diffs you posted are what you wrote, and what Wikied wrote (all emphasis in the original):
  • Nableezy: Can you read that quote? often referred to as Bantustans. Well, how about can you read WP:BURDEN? This is what that says: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'll repeat, is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used. You are bastardizing our policies here, and I really hope an admin does something about it.
  • Wikied: The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable," especially absent any other evidence of widespread usage and contradiction in objective news sources and other academic articles. Posting the same block quotes over and over again is absurd. The fact that a warning is logged against me for showing a tinge of frustration with this open belligerence is so absurd.
Nableezy, you're just wrong about policy in your statement. You point to WP:BURDEN but you're actually making an WP:ONUS argument. Burden is about who has to provide citations for a challenged statement. But just providing the citation doesn't mean the challenged statement must go into an article, nevermind in wikivoice. That's what ONUS is all about. You ignore it.
It right there where you say: The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used. Just because one source (or multiple sources) say something doesn't make it a "verifiable fact". There are more than two, or three, or five, or ten sources on this subject. I personally posted like 18 sources on that talk page. So claiming that because some of them say something, it's a "verifiable fact" and anyone who disagrees with that has CIR concerns... well, no. This is a content dispute about the proper weight of (many) sources.
It's perfectly acceptable for editors to say that one source or even multiple sources are not enough to meet ONUS, or that a particular author may be unreliable, or may be "a biased or partisan source", and it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to argue that a biased or partisan source does not (or should not) be used to verify a statement in wikivoice. To say "the claims of biased and partisan sources ... [are] anything but 'verifiable'" is not the same thing as saying that, as you put it, "sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable". That is not what Wikieditor is arguing.
Frankly, you shouldn't be having so much trouble understanding that Wikieditor is arguing that the particular sources you point to in order to support a statement in wikivoice are insufficient to support a statement in wikivoice. You might disagree with that argument, but you should be able to understand it. Levivich  harass/ hound 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Uh, no, when a source says something is a fact it is a verifiable fact. This is crazy town if people can just say no I dont believe the source. And Im sorry to say your context reading lacks context. I responded with burden because he said the burden is on me to demonstrate that the term is widely used. Frankly, it should not be so hard for you to see that Wikieditor is claiming a statement is not verifiable when he says the statement is not verifiable. How is that even in dispute now? I get he's on your side of the dispute here, but thats a level of intellectual dishonesty I did not see coming. And yes, he flat out said what is directly quoted from a source published by OUP is not verifiable. I legit do not understand how you can pretend otherwise. nableezy - 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You are still ignoring WP:ONUS, the common part about verifiability not equaling inclusion. You have so much experience working with content, and I'm 100% sure if I dug I'd find a diff where you were making the ONUS argument to some other editor about how just because something is in a source doesn't mean we include it in the article (esp. in wikivoice). I know you understand "verifiability does not equal inclusion". I don't understand why you are describing this argument as some disruptive, novel, or "crazy town" argument. Accusing me of intellectual dishonesty reminds me of the other things you've said that we discussed recently on my talk page. Then as now, this is what makes me bow out. Levivich  harass/ hound 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Parting thought: You say "'bantustan' is 'widely' used". Other editors say "'bantustan' is not 'widely' used". You say "sources support 'bantustan' being 'widely' used". Other editors say "sources do not support 'bantustan' being 'widely' used". What's the next step? RSN? ANI? No! It's to make a table, and list the sources and quotes from the sources, and see how many say that "bantustan" is widely used. Do 15 out of 20 sources say "widely"? Then we should say "widely". Do 3 out of 20 sources say "widely"? Then we should not say "widely". Resolving this content dispute is simple. I really think the most productive thing that everyone could be doing, rather than discussing who should get sanctioned for what, is to just get to work on the source analysis table and get on with it. Everyone's already posted some sources and quotes so the work is half done. Levivich  harass/ hound 20:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Acknowledging that there are sources that directly say widely used would be a start. Acknowdledging that those same sources were found reliable by RSN for that specific statement would likewise be useful. I said, we can have arguments about a whole host of issues on whether or not the name should be bolded in the article. I am not here because of that. I can argue ONUS, I can argue WEIGHT. But when an editor says that the sources dont say what they say, when they say that scholars writing in the area of their expertise are combatants in the arena and as such cant be used for facts, thats when it is not a content issue. I am not ignoring ONUS, not even a little. He isnt making that argument. I have not brought anybody making any other argument here because I am not just looking to remove an opponent. He is making arguments that are fundamentally incompatible with our base policies. That is why I am here. Can you acknowledge that he has in fact repeatedly said what has been quoted in multiple sources is not verifiable? Can you acknowledge that has in fact been verified? It would help immensely to know we are all playing on the same field here and not some universe where what was said was not really said and what is written is not actually written. nableezy - 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Levivich has done an apt job summarizing the debate, and Nableezy is still misrepresenting my arguments. I already openly acknowledged the sources provided and the language they used. By Nableezy's logic, anyone who questions the neutrality of a source is violating policy. That includes basically everyone on the talk page who at some point has suggested bias in one source or another. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I acknowledge that there are sources that directly say widely used. And you're right, we can discuss the bolding and whether to say "widely used" in wikivoice at the article talk page, not here.
I don't agree that "those same sources were found reliable by RSN" — it's still open, some of the sources (university publishers) never really had their reliability in dispute, and the actual issue (author bias) has not yet been really discussed, nevermind concluded with a result ("found reliable by RSN").
"... when they say that scholars writing in the area of their expertise are combatants in the arena and as such cant be used for facts, thats when it is not a content issue ... He is making arguments that are fundamentally incompatible with our base policies." — I disagree with both those statements. Wikieditor is making an argument per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources.
"Can you acknowledge that he has in fact repeatedly said what has been quoted in multiple sources is not verifiable?" - yes and I understand that "not verifiable" in context means "not verified by enough neutral sources to say in wikivoice/bold in the lead"
"Can you acknowledge that has in fact been verified?" - Nope, I think "widely used" is an opinion held by some scholars, but I don't think it's the scholarly consensus or the mainstream view. It very well may be a significant minority view, or it may need qualificiation (such as "widely used by critics", "widely used by Palestinians", "widely used in Israel", all of which are formulations I've seen in one source or another, and I'm not sure which if any are the predominant qualification). Levivich  harass/ hound 20:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I dont see how the idea that when scholarly sources report something as fact that a Wikipedia editor can dismiss that as an opinion held by some scholars is something we can allow here. I dont see how when somebody says something is anything but